1962-02-12

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce the appointment of Mr. Charles S. A. Ritchie as ambassador of Canada to the United States of America. Mr. Ritchie, who is at present permanent representatives of Canada to the United Nations, will succeed Mr. A. D. P. Heeney.
I should like to pay tribute to the outstanding service rendered by Mr. Heeney in his two tours as Canadian ambassador in Washington. He has rightly earned the highest commendation for his devoted and highly successful role as Canada's representative in the United States. His next assignment and the name of Mr. Ritchie's successor at the United Nations will be the subject of announcements at an early date.
Since joining the Department of External Affairs in 1934 Mr. Ritchie, who studied at the University of King's College, Halifax, Oxford, Harvard and the Ecole Libre de Sciences Politiques in Paris, has held a variety of important appointments at home and abroad. His first assignment abroad was in Washington in 1936 and during the war years he was a member of the high commissioner's staff at Canada house in London. He later served as counsellor at the Canadian embassy in Paris. In 1950 he became an assistant under secretary of state for external affairs, and in 1952 he was appointed deputy under secretary. He was appointed ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany and head of the military mission, Berlin, in 1954. In 1957 he was appointed permanent representative of Canada to the United Nations. As Canada's representative there he made a valuable contribution in furthering Canadian aims in the world forum. We believe that Mr. Ritchie is particularly well qualified to discharge the important duties of head of the Canadian diplomatic mission in Washington.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all hon. members of the house will have heard with great interest about the appointment
of Mr. Ritchie to this very important diplomatic post of Canadian ambassador to the United States, a post which has been filled with such great distinction, as the Prime Minister said, for some years now by Mr. Heeney, whose retirement we all regret. Mr. Heeney has not only served Canada well in Washington but in many other capacities, and I have no doubt there will be some opportunity for the country to avail itself of his services again in the future.
If Mr. Heeney is to leave Washington I can think of no better man in the Canadian diplomatic service to take his place than Mr. Charles Ritchie. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, he is an officer with great experience and ability and he has discharged, I think, all the duties that he has been asked to discharge with great efficiency and devotion. We on this side feel that this is a first class appointment, and we wish Mr. Ritchie well in his new post.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, this group heartily endorses the remarks of the leader of the official opposition with respect to the services Mr. Heeney has rendered Canada as Canadian ambassador to the United States, and with respect to the service rendered in the past to Canada by Mr. Ritchie and the greater service he now has the opportunity to render through his appointment as Canadian ambassador to the United States.


MAIN ESTIMATES, 1962-63 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1963, was presented by Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) and read by Mr. Speaker to the house.
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: I have introduced the main estimates for the new fiscal year commencing April 1, 1962. They contemplate total budgetary expenditures of $6,276.2 million. Taking account of the result of the new fiscal arrangements with the provinces, this represents a decrease of $203.4 million as compared with a total of $6,479.6 million provided in the estimates tabled to date for the present fiscal year. Further details are available in a
752	HOUSE OF
Tabling of Main Estimates statement which has been issued to the press in keeping with the practice and on the terms prevailing for many years.
I should like to draw to the attention of the house certain notable changes which hon. members will find in the form and content of the estimates. During the session of 1960-61 the standing committee on public accounts of the House of Commons examined the form and content of the estimates. The committee in its report to the House of Commons on June 20, 1961 recommended several changes in the form of the estimates. All of these changes have been implemented in the main estimates for 1962-63.
The changes are of two types; first, those related to the form of the estimates, such as:
(a)	the introduction of a new "permanent numbers" vote numbering system;
(b)	the inclusion of vote numbers in the details section;
(c)	the addition of a table of contents to the estimates book;
(d)	the rearrangement of the sequence of information so that the details section of each departmental class would be located immediately following the vote section for that class.
The second type of change concerns the content of the estimates. Here the committee recommended the distribution, for information purposes, of the costs of major common services which are provided to other departments without a corresponding charge to their appropriations. It also recommended the rearrangement of staff detail in a manner which would result in a clearer understanding of establishment proposals.
An improved vote numbering system has been devised which will allow the printing of vote numbers in the details of estimates without causing delays in tabling estimates. It also has other advantages over the numbering system used heretofore. The essence of the new system is that annually recurring votes will be designated by the same vote numbers from year to year and supplementary votes will bear the same basic numbers as their related main estimates votes.
A criticism of Canadian estimates in the past has been that the total cost of a particular departmental area was difficult to assess because the estimates for that department did not contain provision for common services which were performed by other government agencies and provided to them free of charge. To assist in arriving at a reasonable picture of total cost without the introduction of costly accounting practices, there is now included in the details of services for each area identified in the over-all summary in the front of the blue book a list of the major services


provided free of charge to that department together with their estimated costs. In addition, the cost of accommodation provided in earlier estimates is now shown.
Salary details accounted for about 200 of the 610 pages in the blue book for 1961-62 and involved departments in thousands of man hours of work calculating their detailed costings. Moreover, because of its size and complexity its value to members of parliament as supporting detail for the "Salaries" object of expenditure was considered questionable. A new form of staff detail has been adopted in which the total personnel establishment provided for in each vote is first divided, to show tenure or security of employment, into "Continuing Establishment" and "Casuals and Others". For the former, both numbers of positions and their man year equivalents are provided. The addition of man years for "Casuals and Others" provides a measure in other than dollar terms for the total establishment.
The committee in its report invited attention to other possible changes. These are under study and will be discussed in due course with the standing committee on public accounts. It is considered that the changes recommended by the committee and incorporated in these estimates represent a major improvement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the minister in tabling the estimates which amount this year to $6,276.2 million has indicated that this is a reduction over the estimates of last year. The minister, of course, is comparing the main estimates of this year with the main estimates plus the three supplementary estimates of last year. If a comparison is made between the main estimates of this year and last year-and that is, of course, the valid comparison-it shows a very considerable increase.
There have been $400 million of supplementary estimates, and on the assumption that there will be supplementary estimates again this year it will not be likely that we will have reduction in expenditures as indicated by the minister in comparing the main estimates of the forcoming year and the main and $400 million of supplementary estimates for the current year.
In tabling these estimates I believe the minister has given us every reason to feel, now that the estimates have been tabled, that the budget will not be long behind.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, we listened with interest to the minister's statement with respect to the tabling of the estimates, but wish to reserve

any comment on the first part of the statement until we have had an opportunity to read it and make certain of the facts.
We are pleased to know that the government has given favourable consideration to the recommendation of the public accounts committee with respect to the form in which the estimates will be brought forward. Hon. members of this group, particularly the hon. member for Vancouver East, took an active part in that committee in discussing these proposed improvements.
We are convinced that the introduction of the estimates in this new form will make possible a more logical presentation and a better sequence. It will better suit the convenience of hon. members, provide for a greater understanding on the part of the public and, we hope, will mean some saving of time and money.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That the message of His Excellency together with the estimates presented this day, be referred to the committee of supply.
He said: I give the house an undertaking not to move to consider these estimates in committee of supply until the debate on the speech from the throne is concluded.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker I rise on a question of personal privilege. Reference was made in this house on Friday last during my absence, to a speech which I made in Montreal on February 8. In that speech I voiced my concern over the spread of the communist ideology in various countries of the world. I made certain comments about British Guiana and Ecuador in this connection. I have since been satisfied that the governments of those countries are not communist, and I am glad to correct the statement I made. In fact, to any government trying to lead its people closer to our democratic thinking I gladly offer my congratulations.
I also made some reference to the spread of communism in the Far East and to the threat thereby posed to the west. I wish to make it amply clear that I was referring only to the threat presented by the military strength of communist China.
I guess I was a little out of line in that speech Mr. Speaker. I sincerely regret any misunderstandings or wrong conclusions
Deficiency Payment on Wool which may have resulted from my statements, and I trust that my explanation will serve to clear them up.

On the orders of the day:


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. In view of his recent and most unfortunate blunder in respect of the political complexions of various states, would he agree he would be well advised in future to consult with the Secretary of State for External Affairs before making similar announcements?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: That certainly is not asking for information, which is the limitation on questions dealt with during orders of the day. If the hon. member wishes a debate, then he must find another time.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Acting Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture, who as hon. members know is ill, I wish to announce that the agricultural stabilization board will make a deficiency payment of 22 cents a pound on the 1961 wool clip. This payment compares with the deficiency payment of 23 cents a pound paid on the 1960 wool clip last year.
The deficiency payment is calculated as the difference between the stabilization price of 60 cents a pound and the average market price per pound f.o.b. Toronto for the basic grades western range choice, half blood staple, and eastern domestic, quarter blood staple, combined.
It is estimated that the 1961 production of wool will be the same as the 1960 wool clip of approximately 6 million pounds.
Cheques to producers for deliveries of 20 pounds or more of eligible graded wool which have been reported to the agricultural stabilization board will be issued as soon as possible, and it is expected they will be mailed within the next three or four weeks.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Speaker:: Is the minister asking for unanimous consent with respect to this motion in order to have the subject matter dealt with later today?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If it is possible to obtain that consent I would appreciate it.

Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The motion appearing on the order paper reads:
That the house do go into committee of the whole at its next sitting-
I understand that the minister is asking for unanimous consent to alter the motion so that it will read "next sitting or later this day, as the case may be".


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: The matter was raised on the business of the house on Friday, Mr. Speaker, but while it was mentioned by the house leader I do not think any request was made for unanimous consent. While there is no objection to taking the two railways items referred to by the house leader, I think there would be objection in this case. My suggestion therefore is that the matter be taken up at another sitting.


Léon Balcer: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize and to provide for the construction and operation on behalf of Her Majesty of a line of railway in the province of Quebec, between Matane and Ste. Anne des Monts, a distance of approximately 57 miles: to provide also that the governor in council shall pay to the Canadian National Railway Company an amount equal to the cost to the said company of constructing the railway line (including the cost of survey of location and the cost of acquisition of the land required for the railway line) not exceeding in any case the sum of $16,100,000.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Donald Methuen Fleming: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the payment of certain provincial taxes and fees by crown corporations on or after the 1st day of April, 1962.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.) *


Mr. Howard: 1.	Does the Department of Transport for the purpose of hiring civilian employees, use the facilities of (a) the national employment service (b) its own department, or (c) a combination of each in Victoria, British Columbia?

2.	For each year since January 1, 1958, what number of employees were hired (a) through each of the said facilities referred to in part 1, (b) through the national employment service in Canada, (c) through its own department in Canada?


Léon Balcer: 1.	For positions which are exempt from the Civil Service Act the department uses its own facilities, or a combination of its own facilities and those of the national employment service in Victoria, B.C.
2.	In Victoria, B.C., for each year since January 1, 1958, the following numbers of employees were hired through the facilities indicated:
1958		1959	I960 1961		1962
Through applications					
made direct to the department 		94	120	76	117	18
Through a combination					
of the facilities of the national employment service and the department 	50	56	116	80	3Positions coming under	the	Civil	Service	Act are filled through	the facilities	of	the
civil service commission.
new LIGHTHOUSE, YARMOUTH, N.S.


Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Was the old lighthouse at Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, torn down and replaced and if so, was any undertaking given that the new lighthouse would be a faithful replica of the old lighthouse?
2.	Are the dimensions of the new lighthouse the same as those of the old lighthouse and, if not, what is the difference?


Léon Balcer: 1.	Shortly after the Department of Transport awarded a contract for a new lighthouse at Yarmouth, the then mayor of Yarmouth requested the new structure be a replica of the old lighthouse. Through the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare it was announced that the department would attempt to make the structure an outward replica. In recognition of the historical importance of the light, the department did its best to achieve similarity to the extent feasible. This necessitated redesigning the structure very substantially, at an increased cost of $3,200.
2.	Because the new structure is semi-automatic and electrically operated the space requirement is quite different and consequently the diameter is smaller; the height is approximately the same.



POST OFFICE, FORT WILLIAM

Mr. Badanai: 1.	Has the Minister of Public Works received a request for a new post office for Fort William?
2.	Is the Department of Public Works planning an extension to the present post office building?

Questions
3.	Is the department planning the construction of a new building in a location presently held by the department at the intersection of Leith and Archibald streets?
Answer by: Mr. Walker:
1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	Yes.



*PER CAPITA PRODUCTION OUTPUT AND NATIONAL DEBT

Mr. Malheson: 1.	What is the production output per capita, together with percentage change, for the years 1956 to 1961?
1.

G.N.P.	in
in	constant
current	(1957)
dollars	dollars
Millions of dollars
1955	
27,132	29,0181956	
30,585	31,5081957	
31,909	31,9091958	
32,867	32,1101959	
34,857	33,2111960	
35,959	33,8071961	
N.A.	N.A.
2. The net debt per employed person, calculated by dividing the annual average labour force employed for a given calendar year, into
2.	What is the national debt per employed person for these years?


Mr. Morris:: Mr. Speaker, the reply to this question involves 11 statistical tables, two definitions and two other pieces of information. I wonder whether it might be printed in Hansard at this place without the answer being given verbally.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's	note: The	answer	referred to
above is as	follows:]		
	G.N.P.		
G.N.P.	in	percentage percentage	in	constant	change	change incurrent	(1957)	in	constantdollars	dollars	current	(1957)per capita	per capita	dollars	dollars$	$	1,728	1,849	-	-1,902	1,959	+ 10.1	+ 5.91,924	1,924	+ 1-2	-1.81,928	1,884	+ 0.2	-2.11,998	1,904	+ 3.6	+ 1.12,019	1,898	+ 1.1	-0.3N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.
the net debt of the government of Canada as at March 31 of that year, is as follows:
Net debt of the	Annual average	Net debt pergovernment of Canada	labour force employed	employed personNo.	As	at	Net Debt*	Year	('000)t ($)	Mar.	31,	1956 	11,280,369	1956	5,585	2,020Mar.	31,	1957 	11,007,651	1957	5,725	1,923Mar.	31,	1958 	11,046,274	1958	5,695	1,940Mar.	31,	1959 	11,678,390	1959	5,865	1,994Mar.	31,	1960 	12,089,194	1960	5,955	2,030Mar.	31,	1961 	12,437,115	1961	6,049	2,056
*Source: Public accounts of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1961, volume I, page 229, issued by the federal Department of Finance, Ottawa.
tSource: Labour Force, December 1961, published by the dominion bureau of statistics, Ottawa (catalogue No. 71-001).
Note: Page 134, 1961 public accounts: "The net debt of Canada is represented by the excess of liabilities over the recorded net assets, or, in effect, the accumulated deficit since confederation."



TECHNICAL AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING ASSISTANCE, QUE. AND ONT.

Mr. Bourbonnais: 1.	Since January 1, 1961, have the governments of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario made any agreements with the federal Department of Labour concerning the assistance granted by the said department under the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act?
2.	If so, what amounts will the province of Quebec receive pursuant to the said agreements?
3.	What amounts will the province of Ontario receive pursuant to the same agreements?

Questions
Answer by: Mr. Starr:
1.	Yes.
2.	Pursuant to the technical and vocational training agreement, the federal government pays to the province of Quebec the following percentage of contributions to provincial expenditures incurred on the programs listed:
Vocational high school program: Up to an annual allotment of $877,300. The estimated annual payment for 1961-62 is $500,000.
Technician training program: 50 per cent of provincial costs. The federal payment for the fiscal year 1961-62 is estimated to be $4,950,000.
Trade and other occupational training program: 50 per cent of provincial costs. For the fiscal year 1961-62 the federal payment is estimated at $3,000,000.
Training in co-operation with industry: 50 per cent of provincial costs. For the fiscal year 1961-62 the federal payment is estimated at $60,000.
Student aid: Annual allotment of $100,000, or 50 per cent of provincial expenditures, whichever is the lesser.
Training of disabled persons: 50 per cent of provincial costs. For the fiscal year 1961-62 the federal payment is estimated at $200,000.
Training of technical and vocational teachers: 50 per cent of provincial costs. For the fiscal year 1961-62 the federal payment is estimated at $65,000.
Technical and vocational correspondence courses: 50 per cent of provincial costs. For the fiscal year 1961-62 the federal payment is estimated at $62,500.
Training of unemployed persons: 75 per cent of provincial costs for each fiscal year if the number of student training days in that fiscal year exceeds 226,400. If this minimum number of student days is not exceeded in any fiscal year the federal contribution will be 50 per cent of provincial costs. Estimated federal payments for the fiscal year 1961-62 are $1,125,000.
The total estimated federal payments for the fiscal year 1961-62 for these operational programs will be in the neighbourhood of $10,000,000 for the province of Quebec.
In addition, the federal government contributes 75 per cent of approved capital expenditures (buildings and equipment) incurred prior to April 1, 1963 and 50 per cent thereafter to March 31, 1967 used for technical and vocational training. The contribution to provincial expenditures under this category for the fiscal year 1961-62 in the province of Quebec is estimated at $3,800,000.
3.	The technical and vocational training agreement with the province of Ontario is identical to that entered into with the province of Quebec with the exception that the
(Mr. Bourbonnais.l
annual allotment for vocational high school training in Ontario is limited to a federal payment of $823,800. The ultimate federal contribution to the province of Ontario for all programs under the agreement for the fiscal year 1961-62 is estimated at $44,000,000. The larger federal payment to Ontario as compared to Quebec for the fiscal year 1961-62 is due principally to a more extensive capital building program being carried on by Ontario during the current fiscal year than is the case in the province of Quebec, i.e. in the province of Quebec, the federal government has approved, to date, of ten capital projects submissions by the province, involving a total federal payment of approximately $5,000,000, whereas in the province of Ontario, 143 projects submissions have been approved, involving an estimated federal payment of approximately $119,000,000.
The agreements in question cover a six year period. Consequently, it is not possible to estimate at this early date the ultimate federal payments which will be made during the life of the agreements in these two provinces, since this would depend on the extent of provincial expenditures under the various training programs.



COMPENSATION FOR RABIES-INFECTED ANIMALS, QUEBEC

Mr. Martel: 1.	Has compensation for rabies-infected animals been paid to Quebec farmers since 1959?
2.	If not, have talks been held between the authorities of the federal and the provincial departments with a view to having such compensation paid to Quebec farmers who owned animals that have died as a result of rabies?
3.	Will the correspondence relating thereto, exchanged between Ottawa and Quebec since 1959, be tabled?
Answer by: Mr. Charlton:
1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	There has been no correspondence.



*MEAT UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION

Mr. Michaud: Has the Minister of National Health and Welfare received representations from the municipality of the county of Halifax requesting a stepped-up program in relation to the sale of meat unfit for human consumption; and, if so, what action, if any, has been taken by the government?


Mr. Cardiff:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the hon. member that the minister has received a communication from the municipality of the county of Halifax requesting a stepped up program in relation to the sale of meat unfit for human consumption.
The municipality was advised by letter that the minister has been in touch with the

provincial ministers of health on the general subject of meat inspection, and that departmental officers have gone into the matter with officers of the federal Department of Agriculture. Investigations are continuing in several parts of the country, while a number of cases involving meat sales in the province of Ontario are now before the courts.



NEWFOUNDLAND TRANSPORTATION CO.-SUBSIDY PAYMENTS

Mr. McGrath: 1.	Have there been any subsidies paid by the Canadian maritime commission to the Newfoundland Transportation Company Limited since August 1959?
2.	If so. what was the amount of such subsidies for each fiscal year to March 31, 1961?
3.	What is the estimated amount for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1962?
Answer by: Mr. Balcer:
1. Yes.
2 and 3. Agreements with the Newfoundland Transportation Company were not made for fiscal year periods. An agreement for service from August 1, 1960, to July 31, 1961, was made for a subsidy of $149,414 of which $60,000 has been paid. A further agreement covering the period August 1, 1961, to March 31, 1962, provides for a subsidy of $125,000.



* C.N.R. CAPITAL REORGANIZATION

Mr. Fisher: 1.	In relation to the proposal of the Canadian National Railways that the government assume liability for a further portion of the C.N.R. funded debt, can the government indicate whether it intends to follow the precedents set prior to the passage of the legislation of 1952 in this field, in which a forum was provided through hearings to allow organizations and individuals to state their views about the capital reorganization of the C.N.R.?
2.	If not, did the government take this under consideration?


Donald Methuen Fleming: 1.	The question of amendments to the Canadian National Railways Capital Revision Act is under consideration but no conclusions have yet been reached.
2.	When decisions have been made and a bill is introduced consideration will be given to the appropriate legislative procedures.
Questions



* PUBLIC WORKS FEASIBILITY STUDY, BARRACHOIS COVE, N.S.

Mr. Robichaud: Has the government received a request from the town of New Waterford, Nova Scotia, for an immediate and complete survey of Barrachois cove to determine the feasibility of undertaking public works; and, if so. has any decision been reached?


Mr. Walker:: Yes. Inasmuch as a survey was carried out in 1961, it has been decided not to investigate any further at this time the proposal for major new harbour works. The possibility of improving existing facilities is still being considered.



CANADIAN EXPORTS TO COMMUNIST COUNTRIES

Mr. Maiheson: What is the value of Canada's exports to (a) Cuba (b) other communist countries in each of the years 1956 to 1961?


Edmund Leverett Morris: Mr. Speaker, because of the complexity of the statistics required in this answer, may it now be published in Hansard without a verbal answer being given?


Mr. Speaker:: What is the extent of the answer?


Edmund Leverett Morris: Seven lengthy statistical tables.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that this answer be published without being read?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to above is as follows:]
(a) Total exports of Canadian produce to Cuba during the years 1956 to 1960 and period January 1 to October 31, 1961 (latest statistics available) were as follows:
Year
1956		 $15,283,863
1957		 16,845,727
1958		 17,548,726
1959		 15,222,179
1960		 13,037,868
Jan. 1 to Oct. 31, 1961	 24,750,137
(b) Total exports of Canadian produce to other communist countries during the years 1956 to 1960 and period January 1 to October 31, 1961 (latest statistics available) were as follows:
Questions

Jan. 1 to Oct. 31
Country	1956	1957	1958	1959	1960	1961Albania	$	$	209	$	334 $	82 $	90 $ 3,906,131Bulgaria	
101,530	115,847	69,812	199,926	491,180	276,915Czechoslovakia	
24,540,245	1,401,394	1,342,358	4,936,802	6,766,857	19,591,172Germany East	1,457,688	24,932	208	380	994,355	1,037,250Hungary	
1,907,024	288,903	383,553	1,115,031	931,363	536,729Poland	
17,903,235	16,631,934	559,790	15,631,414	16,664,909	22,225,447Rumania	
122,870	428,837	1,170,861	1,156,845	1,325,956	957,032U.S.S.R	
24,527,659	10,645,687	18,862,594	12,637,556	8,233,319	22,804,969Yugoslavia	
205,887	188,859	197,640	2,577,072	3,249,369	1,821,018China, Communist ...	2,426,620	1,398,613	7,808,965	1,720,033	8,737,363	114,916,725



* FEDERAL BUILDING, BEAUCEVILLE, QUE.

Mr. Racine: Have plans been made for the construction of a federal building at Beauceville and, if so, when will construction work begin?


David James Walker: Yes, early in the coming fiscal year.



*CROP INSURANCE


Mr. Racine: Which provinces have agreed to the federal crop insurance scheme?


Mr. Charlton:: The province of Manitoba entered into agreement with this government under the provisions of the Crop Insurance Act on May 24, 1961. Agreements are expected to be concluded with Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island in the near future.



*UN RELIEF FOR ARAB REFUGEES

Mr. Cardin: 1.	What United Nations agency provides for the relief of Arab refugees?
2.	What, if any, contribution does Canada make to this agency, and what has the amount of the contribution been for each year since 1957?


Mr. Green:: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question contains various figures. Perhaps it could be included in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the answer to this question be printed without being read?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to above is as follows:]
1.	The United Nations relief and works agency for Palestine refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).
2.	Canada normally contributes about $500,000 in cash to UNRWA. On occasion, however, in response to urgent United Nations appeals the Canadian government has augmented its regular cash contribution by making special donations of Canadian wheat flour to the agency. During the period 1957-61, Canada contributed $9,750,000 to UNRWA:

1957,	$750,000 (in cash);
1958,	$2,000,000	($500,000	in	cash	and
$1,500,000 in wheat flour);
1959,	$2,000,000	($500,000	in	cash	and
$1,500,000 in wheat flour);
1960,	$3,000,000 ($500,000 in cash, $1,500,000 in wheat flour and $1,000,000 in wheat flour as a special world refugee year (WRY) gift);
1961,	$2,000,000	($500,000	in	cash	and
$1,500,000 in wheat flour).
Subject to parliamentary	approval,	the
Canadian government will contribute $500,000 in cash and $500,000 worth of Canadian wheat flour to UNRWA in 1962.



* INDUSTRIAL FAIR, INDIA

Mr. Rouleau: Did Canada participate, in the industrial fair of India held in 1961, through a booth or pavilion, or in any other way, for the purpose of advertising Canada and its products; and, if not, was there any reason for such non-participation?


Edmund Leverett Morris: The answer is no. Non-participation was due to the fact that India's import restrictions prohibit the importation of manufactured goods except under special circumstances. Canada's exports to India are confined principally to shipments under the Colombo plan and some basic materials on a commercial basis.



* EXPORT CONTROL LIST

Mr. Hellyer: 1.	How many items are presently on the export control list?
2.	Are any items on the export control list for the purpose of implementing an intergovernmental arrangement or commitment; and, if so, how many, and what are they?
3.	Are any items on the export control list for the purpose of ensuring that arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war, naval, army or air stores or any articles deemed capable of being converted thereinto or made useful in the production thereof or otherwise having a strategic nature or value, will not be made available to any destination wherein their use might be detrimental to the security of Canada; and, if so, how many, and what are they?
4.	Are any items on the export control list for the purpose of ensuring that there is an adequate

supply and distribution of such articles in Canada for defence or other needs; and, if so, how many, and what are they?


Edmund Leverett Morris: 1.	One hundred and seventy-two numbered items.
2.	Yes, two numbered items. These are items 2-2, pork and pork products, and 9-1, goods originating outside Canada.
3.	Yes, 166 numbered items. These are all the items in the export control list except those shown in part 2 and part 4.
4.	Yes, 4. These are items 2-1, pancreas glands of cattle and calves; 3-1, logs of all species (of wood); 3-2, pulpwood of all species (of wood); and 6-9, scrap iron and steel, used rails and used railway axles.



EXPORT PERMITS FOR CONTROL LIST

Mr. Mcllraith: Have any export permits been issued since January 1, 1961, for the sale to Cuba of items which are on the export control list under authority given to the governor in council by paragraph (a), section 3, of the Export and Import Permits Act; and, if so, how many, for what value, and what items?


Edmund Leverett Morris: The answer is yes, 76, the dollar content being $3,269,708.36. The items are 4-77, 5-8, 6-4, 8-43.



EXPORT PERMITS FOR CONTROL


Mr. Mcllraith: Have any export permits been issued since January 1, 1961, for the sale to Cuba of items which are on the export control list under authority given to the governor in council by paragraph (b), section 3, of the Export and Import Permits Act; and, if so, how many, for what value and what items?


Edmund Leverett Morris: The answer is yes, 100;
$1,069,553.30; item 9-1.




Mr. Mcllraith: Have any export permits been issued since January 1, 1961, for the sale to Cuba of items which are on the export control list under authority given to the governor in council by paragraph (c), section 3, of the Export and Import Permits Act; and, if so, how many, for what value, and what items?


Edmund Leverett Morris: The answer is no.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Broome: 1. What are the names, locations, number of units, and dates of completion of each servicemen's
Orders for Returns
and veterans' housing project presently administered by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?
2.	How many houses in each project have been sold; how many are now rented, and are these rented units available for sale?
3.	Is there a sales rebate policy; and, if so, give details as to how it is applied to all projects listed in (1) above, including those, if any, where the sales rebate policy has been discontinued?


DENTISTS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE
Mr. Fisher: 1.	What government departments or agencies have dentists employed in a professional capacity?
2.	On January 1, 1962, how many such dentists were on the establishment of each department or agency?
3.	How many dentists have left the service of the federal government in each of the last three calendar years?
4.	How many dentists joined the government service in each of the last three calendar years?
5.	How many competitions have been held by the civil service commission for dentists in the last three calendar years; and what number of applicants (a) applied (b) qualified (c) entered the service through these competitions?
6.	In general terms, does the civil service commission find it easy, difficult, or almost impossible to recruit dentists at the present time?


CHEQUE FORMS IN ENGLISH
Mr. Denis: 1.	How many cheque forms printed in English
(a)	are at present available to the treasury board
(b)	have been ordered but not yet delivered?
2.	On what dates and at what prices have such undelivered cheque forms been ordered?
exports and imports, 1956-61
Question No. 141


Mr. Malheson:: What proportion of Canada's exports and imports for the years 1956 to 1961 was with (a) the United Kingdom (b) the United States (c) Japan (d) the European economic community countries (e) others?


Edmund Leverett Morris: Mr. Speaker, for the same reason I gave earlier may the answer to this question appear in Hansard without being read?


Mr. Speaker:: I am concerned that Hansard may become too bulky. Would the hon. member indicate the extent of the answer?


Edmund Leverett Morris: Your Honour, I would defer. I would ask that it be made an order for return, tabled herewith.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return, tabled herewith.
federal receipts and disbursements,


Mr. Malheson: What were the government's receipts and disbursements for all purposes for the years 1956 to 1961?

Inquiries of the Ministry



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has received an invitation from the head of the Soviet government to attend, as head of the Canadian government, the forthcoming meeting on March 14 I believe, of the United Nations disarmament commission and, if so, has he any observation to make on that invitation?
Bight Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, if the house will permit me I will answer this question in some detail. I have received a message from Chairman Khrushchev which was handed me directly by the Soviet ambassador. As is now generally known, Mr. Khrushchev addressed a note to all members of the 18-nation disarmament committee proposing that the heads of government should be present when the disarmament conference begins its work in Geneva on March 14. This note was in the nature of a reply to the joint message of February 7 from Prime Minister Macmillan and President Kennedy respecting which I made a statement on Thursday last.
I am not yet in a position to indicate what the Canadian government's response will be to Mr. Khrushchev's counter proposal.
The letter was a lengthy one which will have to be studied as a whole so that the full implications of his specific proposal may be assessed. It will also be necessary to consult with other interested governments to determine what procedure will best contribute to progress on disarmament. The Canadian government has taken the stand that the forthcoming disarmament negotiations should be made the occasion of a maximum, all-out effort toward disarmament.
The hon. member for Kootenay West gave me notice of a similar question and in particular respecting the latter part of the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. If that purpose, namely the attainment of an all-out effort toward disarmament, would be served by meetings at the heads of government level, I am sure the house would expect me to be prepared to attend.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister apropos

of the one I asked on Friday concerning the report on information in the Department of Agriculture prepared by Mr. Harry M. Halliwell wherein it was stated that the department was reticent to give information to the public unless it were cleared from above and under direction from above, and also apropos of the Prime Minister's reply. Is the Prime Minister aware that this report was submitted on July 31, 1961, and published by the Queen's printer?
Bight Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I shall look into that question. I did not have an opportunity to do so since the hon. member asked me on Friday.
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, in regard
to this same matter, I should like to ask the Secretary of State if the report I have just mentioned, that of Mr. Halliwell to the Department of Agriculture, has come to his attention, particularly the references, found at pages 21 and 43, to the fact that certain documents of great importance, such as speeches and reports on federal-provincial conferences, are never supplied in French to the province of Quebec.
The Minister of Agriculture being absent due to ill health, could the Secretary of State take the necessary steps to remedy this situation?


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take this question as notice; I shall look into the matter and report to the hon. member as soon as possible.
(Text):



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Jean Casselman (Grenville-Dundas):: May I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister any comment to make on press reports to the effect that a Canadian judge has been appointed president of the high court in Cyprus?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say the question goes beyond the orders of the day, but if the minister wishes to comment on it I do not see any reason why he should not.


Howard Charles Green: Some months ago the government of Cyprus requested Canadian co-operation in filling this important judicial post. The high court of Cyprus is the highest appellate

court of the republic. It is composed of two Greek judges, one Turkish judge and a president with two votes. The Cypriot constitution specifies that the court cannot function without a president and that the presiding judge cannot be a subject or a citizen of the republic of Cyprus, the kingdom of Greece, the republic of Turkey, or of Britain or its colonies. The first president of the high court was His Honour Judge Barra O'Briain of Ireland, whose term was for a one year period only.
Before Judge O'Briain ended his term, the government of Cyprus asked the Canadian government for assistance in selecting a Canadian jurist, and negotiations concerning this post have been proceeding for some months both in Canada and through our mission to Cyprus. The Cypriot authorities have now appointed a distinguished Canadian jurist, Mr. Justice J. L. Wilson of the Ontario supreme court.
I think hon. members will agree that the appointment of Mr. Justice Wilson reflects great credit on Canada and indicates the degree of respect which Canadian justice and Canadian jurists enjoy overseas.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the government is glad that this new member of the commonwealth requested assistance from us as an older member of the commonwealth. We think the selection by the Cypriot government of a Canadian judge for this position provides another close link in the friendly relationship which exists between our two commonwealth countries.


VISIT TO WASHINGTON BY SECRETARY GENERAL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question. Can the minister explain why, in view of the reported character of his meeting in Washington, the secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization did not come to Ottawa, either on his own or at the request of the government of Canada?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the
secretary general of NATO was in Washington for a special conference. There was no reason whatever why he should have come to Ottawa at this particular time. He was in Ottawa, I think, just a few months ago.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I
a question of the Secretary of State
Inquiries of the Ministry External Affairs, who I believe was unavoidably absent on Thursday when the Prime Minister commented on the announcement of the decision by the United States to resume nuclear testing under certain circumstances, if the statement of the Prime Minister means or if policy of the government of Canada continues to be that the government is opposed to nuclear testing, with or without controls, as stated by the minister some time ago, during the last session of parliament?


Howard Charles Green: I think the Prime
Minister dealt with that question last week, and there has been no change in government policy.


INVESTIGATION INTO EFFECTS OF FALL-OUT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence based on his remarks in Montreal last week to the effect that the government is investigating the possible effects to Canadians of nuclear fall-out, and that the cabinet would make no decision until all the questions could be answered satisfactorily. Could the minister advise the house whether this investigation has just commenced, and when he thinks the investigation will be completed and the cabinet will be able to make a decision?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, this is another of those futile questions which have become a specialty of the hon. member for Trinity. This question was discussed during the study of the estimates at the end of the last session, and all questions on this matter were answered by the Minister of National Defence on previous occasions.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister say when we will stop getting futile answers?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: When we stop getting futile questions.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Wraiien (Branlford):: In the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare I should like to direct a question to his parliamentary secretary. Has the department received any complaints from Indians of ask the Six Nations reserve concerning the quality for of medical services provided at the Lady

Inquiries of the Ministry Willingdon hospital, and if so is the minister prepared to investigate the situation?


Mr, L. E. Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare):: In the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare I would state that the Ontario parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture was in my minister's office this morning with information he received from the Six Nations council on this subject. I would like to inform the hon. member that I shall bring the matter to the minister's attention tomorrow, and I am sure he will make appropriate inquiries.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (Si. Denis):: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. I have received a reproduction of the postage stamp which will be issued on February 28 next. It is so filled up with designs that it looks to me like a Chinese puzzle or a pawnshop, behind which the price is almost completely hidden. In view of that fact will the Postmaster General take steps with regard to future issues-if he is still in office-to see that the most important part of the stamp, the price, is clearly shown?


Hon. W. M. Hamilion (Posimaster General):: The hon. member refers to the stamp being filled up. Of course it is not merely the stamp which is filled up in this instance. I am inclined to agree with the hon. member on the basis of the information and reproduction which he has seen, which is only in black and white, but I can assure him that when the stamp comes forth in its full two colours he will find it is another very attractive stamp.


Azellus Denis: As a supplementary question, will the minister admit that the price, 5 cents, does not appear very clearly beside a pair of pliers, a violin and so forth? He will notice that the price does not show clearly.


Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, there are none so blind as those who will not see. All the rest of Canada will be able to decipher the figure on the stamp without any difficulty at all.


Azellus Denis: Will the minister issue a stamp-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member resume his seat before I stamp on him.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: I should like to direct a question to

the Minister of Finance. Could he inform the house whether the governor of the Bank of Canada or his representative will be attending a meeting of the governing body of the international monetary fund this Friday, as reported by the Canadian Press representative in Washington, for the purpose of answering a "call on the carpet" to explain juggling of the dollar rate by Canada in connection with its international obligations?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is no question of hauling anybody on the carpet, and there is no question about juggling rates. That kind of talk just does violence to the facts.


William Moore Benidickson: That is what the reporter called it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There will be a regular meeting of the executive board of the international monetary fund in Washington on Friday, and Canada will be represented at it by the distinguished governor of the Bank of Canada.



INCLUSION IN ESTIMATES OF SUPERANNUATION FUND LIABILITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Do the estimates tabled today, and those of the current year, include the liabilities past due last March of $161.4 million to the public service, Canadian forces and R.C.M.P. superannuation accounts?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Hector McMillan: Also do they include the full estimated amount due these and other accounts up to the end of the next fiscal year?


Mr. Speaker:: As there are two questions which seem to be of a statistical nature, would the hon. member object to putting them on the order paper?


William Hector McMillan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, they can just be answered yes or no. We have no other way of actually finding in the estimates for this year changes in the payroll and the numbers of people hired. In the year 1960-61 they were out by $161 million and I think hon. members of the house should be notified of these matters.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, it is the sheerest nonsense to talk about last year's estimates being out by $161 million in regard to this item. The hon. member by this time should know better than to make such statements. So far as the present estimates are concerned, the hon. member has a copy available to him from the distribution office this afternoon, and I am sure perusal of those estimates will repay the time that he spends on them.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders ol the day:
Mr. H. J. Michaud (Kent, N.B.):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. I put a similar question to the Minister of Labour the other day but he had no information on it. Has the Minister of Finance received a resolution from the municipal council of Kent county in New Brunswick, asking that this county be declared a labour surplus area or a depressed area and, if so, what action is being taken on this resolution?


Donald Methuen Fleming: None that I am aware of.
(Translation):



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
On September 13, 1961, no less than five months ago, the house adopted Motion No. 159, introduced by myself, for the tabling of certain documents and correspondence concerning the television service for Mada-waska and Victoria counties in New Brunswick. Is the minister in a position to tell the house when those documents will be tabled?


Noël Dorion: Mr. Speaker, I shall make a note of the hon member's question and try to give him an answer no later than tomorrow.
(Text):


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twil-lingate):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State, and ask him if he would mind checking up at the same time on all the other outstanding returns from the previous session, and in particular the one which was passed on November 30, 1960 asking for the travel expenses of ministers.


Mr. Howard:: That is a secret.
(Translation):


Noël Dorion: Mr. Speaker, I will do the same concerning the hon. member's question. (Text):



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Justice. Can the minister say whether or not the Toronto police have violated the bill of rights by their shocking treatment of Rabbi Norbert Leiner-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The extent of the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice may be considerable, but I believe it does not extend to the Toronto police. I think the hon. member should seek an answer to his question in a different forum.


Hubert Badanai: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, sit down.


Hubert Badanai: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I merely ask the minister whether in his opinion there has been a violation of the bill of rights.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will recall that requests for opinions of that kind-


An hon. Member:: Go out and hire a lawyer.


Mr. Speaker:: -whether on the interpretation of law or the action of some body for which the minister has no responsibility, would be out of order.



SONS OF FREEDOM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister received from the attorney general of British Columbia any request for co-operation or assistance with respect to the Sons of Freedom problem?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Not
that I am aware of, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Is it true that the contract for engineering tasks related to the reconstruction of armouries in Farnham, Quebec, has been awarded to consulting engineers from outside Quebec? If so, could the minister tell us why that has been done?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, I am investigating this matter and I will be pleased to give an answer to the hon. member.

Inquiries of the Ministry
(Text):



RAILWAY ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Does the minister contemplate introducing amending legislation to section 182 of the Railway Act to provide in unmistakable language for compensation for financial loss caused to employees by any change made upon existing lines of railway?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, if any legislation is to be brought before the house it will be introduced in due course after consideration and after a decision by the cabinet.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether the absence from the list which he tabled with his statement on Friday of any post office in the provinces of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland means that none of these winter works structures is being built in either of these provinces?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, the list speaks for itself. There are other ways of having post offices built in different provinces. This list is the winter works program.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not in two provinces.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Fort William asked whether a radar installation was being constructed at Killala lake in northwestern Ontario. The answer is that a small gap filler radar will be installed in the Killala lake area this year. This is one of a number of gap filler radars required to strengthen the capability of the Pine Tree system.



DISABLED PERSONS ACT


Hon. Gordon Churchill (for the Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: the third reading of Bill No. C-62, to amend the Disabled Persons Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Léon Balcer: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize and to provide for the construction of a line of railway in the province of Alberta by Canadian National Railway Company from White-court for a distance of approximately 23.2 miles to the property of Pan American Petroleum Corporation, at a total estimated expenditure of $2,300,000, not to be exceeded by more than fifteen per cent; to authorize the issue by the said railway company of securities that may be guaranteed by Her Majesty in right of Canada to finance the construction of the said line; and in order that the said railway company may forthwith proceed with the construction of the said line of railway, to authorize temporary loans to the said railway company out of the consolidated revenue fund upon terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council and secured by securities of the said railway company.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Martineau in the chair.


Léon Balcer: The proposed legislation would authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to construct a railway line in the province of Alberta as an extension of its Sangudo subdivision, from Whitecourt, Alberta, in a westerly direction to the property of Pan American Petroleum Corporation in the Windfall gas field area, a distance of about 23 miles.
The main function of this line would be the transportation of sulphur which will be produced from natural gas on the property of Pan American Petroleum Corporation in the Windfall area.
The cost of construction of the line is estimated at a total of $2,300,000 or an average of $99,138 per mile, including the cost of a steel bridge about 650 feet long across the McLeod river at the eastern end of the line.
A sulphur recovery plant is now under construction in the Windfall area. Plans call for initial shipments of sulphur to be made from the plant by March 1, 1963. Texas Gulf

Sulphur, the operator of the plant, has notified the railway that direct rail service will be needed by that date.
The construction of this line will take about one year, and in order that the railway may complete the line by March 1, 1963, it is essential that some of the work on the piers and abutments of the bridge over the McLeod river near Whitecourt be done during the period of low water in the present winter season. This means that a start must be made on this work immediately. The committee will therefore, I am sure, appreciate the importance of giving consideration to this legislation will contain financial provisions measure can be adopted by an early date, work will thereby be provided this winter for a substantial number of men, thus contributing in a not insignificant way to the provision of employment in this locality.
The legislation would empower the spending of a sum not exceeding $2,645,000, representing the total estimated cost of construction of $2,300,000 plus 15 per cent for contingencies, to build this rail line. The legislation will contain financial provisions similar to those adopted in the past for other railway branch lines.
Canadian National has informed the government that an agreement has been signed with Texas Gulf Sulphur Company wherein a guarantee is given that they will ship a minimum volume of traffic over the line for 25 years, and that appropriate penalties will be paid by them to the railway if at any period during that term the guaranteed shipments fall below the minimum volume agreed to. In addition they have agreed to make a substantial cash contribution toward the cost of construction of the line.
As members are aware, the government views with favour and is desirous of giving continued encouragement to capital projects submitted by the railway management which can be recognized as self-liquidating. The present project is in that category. Railway revenues which will be received from traffic generated by the line after meeting all expense of operation and maintenance of the branch line, including the cost of handling this traffic on the remainder of the system, interest on and amortization of the cost to the railway of building the new line, will yield a reasonable surplus.


Lionel Chevrier: I have listened with interest to the remarks made by the minister in connection with this resolution which seeks, on behalf of the C.N.R., authority to build a line from Whitecourt in the province of Alberta to the property of the Pan American Petroleum Corporation, a distance of 23.2 miles.
Canadian National Railways
The minister has told the committee something about the economics of the line. At first blush, without knowing all the details concerning the operation, it would seem to us on this side that the project is a meritorious one which will receive our approval. If I understand the matter correctly, the resolution will authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to build a line in a westerly direction to a sour gas well on the property of the Pan American Petroleum Corporation, and it is the intention of the petroleum corporation to convert this sour gas to sulphur, an operation which would mean the exportation of that commodity over the C.N.R. system not only to the United States but to parts of Canada.
The cost, the minister has said, will be $2,300,000 or an average of $99,138 per mile including the cost of building a steel bridge. The minister did say in the course of his remarks that a substantial contribution toward the construction of this line would be made by, I take it, the Pan American Petroleum Corporation. The minister did not say what the amount of that contribution would be, but I take it the amount whatever it is, will reduce the expenditure of $2,300,000 accordingly. So if a contribution of, say $1,800,000 were made by the petroleum corporation, then the C.N.R. would be asked to disburse toward the construction of this line the difference between the two sums, namely $500,000. I trust that when the minister replies he will be in a position to confirm or contradict the information I have placed on record in this respect.
The minister also stated that a sulphur recovery plant is now under construction and will be completed, according to expectations, by March 1, 1963. That is why, he said, it is important that the bridge over the McLeod river, a bridge which will be some 600 to 650 feet in length, be constructed without delay. I am informed that the bridge which is near, if not very close, to the beginning of the line will require four spans with three centre piers in the river, and that these piers must be put down in the winter time. I am also informed that the construction of these piers is a simple matter when ice conditions exist, but that the moment the thaw begins this would be a complicated matter from a construction standpoint.
I wish the minister would clarify the statement he has made in this respect because if this is so, if there is likely to be a delay of 12 months should the piers not be put down under winter conditions, then I am sure these circumstances would have a bearing on the attitude which those of us on this side of the chamber would wish to take toward the government's proposal. In

Canadian National Railways other words, I am sure none ol us would wish to delay what appears to be a very profitable enterprise on the part of the Canadian National Railways if it is necessary that these piers must be put down under winter conditions.
It was also stated by the minister that it would take one year to build this line. When the minister replies will he indicate why it will take a year, in view of the fact that we are asked to give immediate approval to this legislation. I wish the minister would also tell us how the cost per mile compares with that of other lines in the area. When I say "in the area" I do not necessarily mean in the province of Alberta, because I do not recollect that other lines have been built there recently, but certainly other lines have been built in adjoining provinces. Perhaps the minister could give some indication of how the cost of this line compares with that of others.
I feel the minister should give the committee some further details concerning the agreement which has been made between the Canadian National Railways and, I presume, the Pan American Petroleum Corporation in so far as traffic is concerned. It has been the practice of the minister, more particularly in relation to the railway to Great Slave lake which was discussed during the last session of parliament, to table the agreement so the committee could have before it for consideration and study all the details of the financial arrangements. We are interested in examining the profitable aspect of this line which will improve the position of the Canadian National Railways.
The minister also gave us a general idea of the revenues which it will yield to the railway over a period of time. I understand the agreement is for a period of 25 years, and I am sure like most comparable agreements it is lengthy and complicated. Perhaps the minister or his officers would assist the committee by summarizing the main points of the agreement. After all, there is never any difficulty about obtaining approval for the construction of lines like this, particularly when the financial conditions are similar to those the minister indicated earlier. It has not been my experience that parliament withholds its approval in these circumstances. If the minister would be good enough to summarize for us or, in the alternative, table the agreement, I feel it would be helpful and would assist those on this side of the house who would like to give it further consideration.
I take it, too, that when the appropriate time arrives the minister will wish to move that this legislation be referred for consideration to the committee on railways, canals


and telegraph lines. I hope the minister will find it possible to follow that course later this day.
Having regard to what I have said and in the light of the questions I have asked, there will be from this side of the house no objection to the construction of this project which on the face of it appears to be a profitable enterprise for the Canadian National Railways.


Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that this legislation has come before the house so early in the session. As the minister has said, it is a matter of immediate urgency to provide for the construction of the bridge across the McLeod river on the outskirts of the town of Whitecourt in the northwestern portion of my constituency. This project is one of the major developmental projects which fits into a vast complex of development which is taking place in northwestern Alberta.
I wish to tell hon. members of the committee something of the Windfall field and something of the potential of the Whitecourt area, and to make the prediction that the next city in Alberta will be called Whitecourt. For the information of the hon. member for Laurier I will say the plant is practically ready to go into production. A substantial acreage has been cleared for the purposes of storing sulphur until such time as the railway line is built, and it is most important that the line be constructed as soon as possible.
The Windfall field is a sour gas field located 23 miles west of Whitecourt. The extraction plant at Windfall serves a combination of three fields through a very intricate and complicated system of pipe lines. The gas has a high sulphur content. The high pressure gas from the Pine Creek and Beaver Creek fields north of Edson passes into the Windfall field. The Windfall gas field is a wet gas area. The two high pressure gas fields are being used to supply the pressure and the Windfall field is supplying the reservoir.
The plant when completed will be producing approximately 650 tons of sulphur a day, a fair quantity. This will mean an annual output of approximately 237,000 long tons of sulphur. It is expected that within five years the plant will triple its output and will produce in the neighbourhood of 614,000 long tons of sulphur per year.
I am sure the committee will be interested if I take a moment to discuss the sulphur situation in Canada. Up until 1952 all elemental sulphur was imported, mostly from the United States and Mexico, but in the last few years Canada has become an important sulphur producing nation. Approximately 30 per cent of Canadian produced sulphur is

Canadian National Railways
being produced from natural gas, and this will rise to approximately 75 per cent. Approximately 75 per cent of the sulphur produced in Canada will come from the gas fields of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. The total annual capacity of elemental sulphur will reach approximately 1,500,000 tons annually from these western gas fields.
During 1960 the total amount of sulphur used in Canada was 600,000 tons. As hon. members will see, this one plant in the Windfall area will, within the next two or three years, be producing sufficient sulphur to meet Canada's present needs. Sulphur being one of the basic minerals used in industry, we expect the demand for it will increase.
The Windfall plant is only one of approximately 14 plants in Alberta that are extracting sulphur from natural gas. This is fundamentally a by-product operation through which wet and sour natural gas is made available for export in a dry and clean form. The gas from the Windfall field, after it is treated and the sulphur and the other wet hydrocarbons are extracted from it, is going directly into the Alberta Southern pipe line and will eventually end up in California. It is in this immediate area that we had that tragic accident about a month ago when a section of pipe line blew up. I am sure this accident illustrates the dangers that still remain and the hardships which are ahead of those who are now pioneering in an unsurveyed part of Canada.
As I have already said, we are pleased that the government has brought this legislation forward quickly so that we can go ahead with the construction of this railway. I should like to say that we feel that railway will be the first 23 miles in a western Alberta net of railways which will be constructed in the next five years and which will consist of some 150 miles of railway through new country of which, so far as its potential is concerned, the surface has only been scratched. I suggest to the committee that we shall here in the area adjacent to Whitecourt set the stage for a sulphur production plant and for other mineral developments which will necessitate much more railway building. We hope that eventually we shall have a smelter in the immediate area.
As I have said, this railway extends from the town of Whitecourt, which at the moment is at the stage of bustling and booming because of the extraction plant, the coming of the railway and our hope that a new newsprint plant will be built next spring. I am confident that this railway will haul not only sulphur but pulpwood as well, will open up new areas for logging, will be an asset to the Canadian National Railways and will 26207-1-
at all times provide an appropriate return. I am convinced that the necessary tonnage is available in order to satisfy the guarantee. I am convinced that at no time will the taxpayers be called upon to subsidize this railway line or to support it in any other manner. This is a project which fits in now with our government's development policy, and in the future will fit in with other railway construction in Canada. I am pleased that the official opposition are not going to do to this railway what they did to the Great Slave lake railway we are going to build in Alberta, namely vote against it.


The Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall I report the resolution?


Lionel Chevrier: Before you do so may I say this. A number of questions were put to the minister. In fairness to the committee I think we should get replies to them.


Léon Balcer: I was just waiting for the cordial invitation, Mr. Chairman. First of all may I say that I am pleased to hear from the hon. member for Laurier that the opposition does not intend to delay the proceedings but will support this resolution so that we can go ahead with the building of this line as soon as possible. I also wish to commend my friend the hon. member for Jasper-Edson for his comprehensive survey of the sulphur situation in Canada and in general for his description of the various natural resources which are so abundant in that great riding of his.
It is true that this branch line project is another example of the tremendous wealth of natural resources we find in this great province of Alberta. When we think of the relatively recent discoveries that have been made in that province we are indeed fascinated to contemplate the great future that lies ahead for Alberta. I am sure that as Canadians all members of the committee will rejoice in seeing these great developments.
To come back to the hon. member for Laurier, may I say this. Again he indicates that he would like the minister to table the agreement between the railway company and the private company. I would just refer him back to our discussion of last year and the discussions that took place under former ministers of transport on previous branch line bills. I should also refer him to his own statements before the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I do so in order that he will understand why I am not in a position at the present time to disclose the various aspects of the agreement. I wish to repeat what I said earlier, namely that this

Canadian National Railways is a branch line that represents a very great deal for the Canadian National Railways. A private company has agreed to contribute substantially to the construction of the branch line. It has also agreed-and I think this is a most important factor-to give an undertaking or a guarantee of a minimum tonnage of sulphur and other goods to be transported on the branch line. It has also agreed to pay a penalty for any amount of tonnage below that set level.
I know it would be much more interesting to the hon. member for Laurier if I could simply give all the details of the agreement. However, I think the request of the railway should be complied with. We must not forget that the Canadian National Railway is obliged to compete with other railways in Canada. As it is a government owned railway, if we disclose here in the House of Commons all the private agreements the railway signs in a business way with private industries, I think we shall simply be putting our national railway in an unfair position compared with its main competitor, the Canadian Pacific Railway. I therefore ask the indulgence of the committee in this matter.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister a question there?


Léon Balcer: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: In view of the fact that during the last session the minister tabled the agreement with respect to the Pine Point railway, may I ask these questions. Why is there objection now to tabling the agreement, after creating a precedent last session? The next question is this. If the minister still insists that he cannot table the agreement, why can he not give a summary of the main features, or one which would be more satisfactory than that which he has given? I should also like to know the amount of the substantial payment the petroleum company is going to pay the C.N.R.


Léon Balcer: As far as the last two questions are concerned, may I say this. The information requested is precisely that which would jeopardize the position of the Canadian National Railways as a competitor with other railways in Canada. That is what would happen if we give the amount which the private company has agreed to pay for the construction of the branch line. This is the crux of the problem. This is the main point of this agreement.


Lionel Chevrier: Where is the competition? This line is being constructed from a Canadian National Railways line so where is the competition with any other line?


Léon Balcer: In this precise case, of course, this line is to be built by Canadian National Railways, but on the other hand I think that the business world and private companies of this type like to keep their own financial agreements with respect to transportation costs and other costs to themselves. They do not like to have to divulge that information to their competitors. I am speaking now of private companies like the sulphur company. They are not interested in giving all these figures to their competitors with whom they have to fight for business. I am sure the hon. member for Laurier understands this.
Of course, as far as the government is concerned, we would be quite willing to do that if it would not jeopardize the position of Canadian National Railways, and that is why we agreed to do it last year when the Pine Point railway measure was before the house. As you know, Mr. Chairman, that was a development project in which the government was subsidizing the construction of the railway and it also involved an agreement between the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, which is a subsidiary of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the government, and Canadian National Railways. The fact that the mine was a subsidiary of the main competitor of Canadian National Railways more or less removed the difficulty. In this case the project is one that will pay for itself and will result in a surplus to Canadian National Railways. It is a good business deal for the railway, and I think it would be very unfortunate if we were to do anything to spoil this splendid project. The private sulphur company is satisfied to pay the price it is going to pay and the management of Canadian National Railways have assured the government that with this agreement they will be in a very good position to build this branch line and operate it without it costing Canadian taxpayers a cent.
The hon. member for Laurier asked why the piers have to be built at this precise time and why there should be as much diligence as possible in having the legislation passed by parliament. I am informed by the engineers of Canadian National Railways that quite a large bridge has to be built over the McLeod river. As hon. members know, with a river of this type there is a tremendous difference in the depth of the water in the spring and summer compared with the middle of winter. Right at this precise time the water level is perfect for the building of this type of bridge because the water is very low during this coldest

time of the year and the construction people will practically be in a position to build these two piers on dry land.


Lionel Chevrier: Are there two or three?


Léon Balcer: Either two or three. I have not studied the exact engineering of this particular bridge. I am assured by the engineers that the period of maximum use as far as soil is concerned with respect to the building of these piers is right now, and that period will not last very long. They have impressed upon me the urgency of going ahead with this project as soon as possible.
The sulphur company has already started to build its plant at the future terminal of the railway and it has requested the C.N.R. to complete the railway by next March. The engineers of the railway assure me that if the bridge can be started within a very few days they will be in a very good position to meet this deadline. This is extremely important because, as I said earlier, this is an excellent deal for the government owned railway, and it would be most unfortunate indeed if we were to delay the actual starting of construction of the bridge and in this way spoil the whole agreement. I think I have covered the points raised by the hon. member for Laurier and again I want to congratulate the hon. member for Jasper-Edson for his very fine contribution to this debate.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Balcer thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-63, respecting the construction of a line of railway in the province of Alberta by Canadian National Railway Company from Whitecourt, Alberta, in a westerly direction for a distance of approximately 23.2 miles to the property of Pan American Petroleum Corporation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time?


Lionel Chevrier: Next sitting of the house.




Léon Balcer: the second reading of Bill No. C-48, to amend an act respecting the construction of a line of railway by Canadian National Railway Company from Optic lake to Chisel lake, and the purchase by Canadian National Railway Company from the International Nickel Company of Canada, Limited, of a
Canadian National Railways line of railway from Sipiwesk to a point on Burntwood river near Mystery lake, all in the province of Manitoba.


Lionel Chevrier: I take it that the minister will make a statement in connection with this matter.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, this bill is to authorize Canadian National Railway Company to construct an eight mile extension to its recently completed railway line between Optic lake and Chisel lake in the province of Manitoba, at a cost estimated at $1,090,000. The extension would run from Chisel lake to Stall lake.
Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company Limited is presently mining zinc and copper in the Chisel lake area and shipping the ore to their metallurgical plant at Flin Flon, Manitoba. This company is now developing its properties in the area of Stall lake and at Osborne lake and has requested rail service to Stall lake to serve those new ore bodies by May 1, 1963. The ore from this new development will also be shipped to the company's plant at Flin Flon.
As in the case of the construction of the original branch line from Optic lake to Chisel lake, Canadian National has secured a guarantee that the mining company will ship a minimum volume of traffic over the line for a period of at least ten years and that appropriate penalties will be paid if during any year of the term the shipments fall below the minimum agreed to.
If this measure can be adopted by an early date work will be provided in the area during the present winter for a considerable number of people, thus contributing to the provision of employment in this locality. In addition to providing service for the new mines opening up in the area this extension will also aid in the further general development of this area of Manitoba.
Hon. members will note that the bill will amend chapter 13 of the Statutes of Canada, 1957-58, under which the original 52 mile line from Optic lake to Chisel lake was constructed. While that act estimated the expenditure for the 52 miles of construction at $8,840,000 the actual total cost of construction of the line, which is now in operation, has amounted to approximately $6.4 million. Since the cost of the existing branch line, plus the estimated cost of the proposed extension of eight miles only totals $7,490,000, there is no need for approval of any additional expenditure, as it is obvious that the extension can be constructed well within the amount authorized by the enabling legislation. This bill, therefore, will simply amend the schedule to the original act to show the length of the branch

Canadian National Railways line as 60 miles instead of 52 miles, leaving the estimated cost of construction unchanged at $8,840,000.
This being a capital project submitted by the railway management, which is clearly self-liquidating, the government is pleased to give its support to the measure.
Railway revenues which will be received from traffic generated by the new mines, after meeting all expenses of operation and maintenance of the extension, the cost of handling this traffic on the remainder of the system, interest on the cost of building the new line and interest and depreciation on the necessary equipment, will yield a reasonable surplus.
Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company Limited has established significant reserves of copper ore at Stall lake and also on its property at Osborne lake, some 11 miles to the northeast of Stall lake.
Capital expenditures made by the company to the end of 1961 on these properties have been substantial and it is planned to bring the Stall lake mine into production by May 1,
1963.	The mining company has therefore requested that Canadian National complete the construction of a branch line extension to its Stall lake mine as soon as possible but not later than May 1, 1963. Under a normal schedule of construction the extension would take about one year to build and the average number of men employed would be about 75.
As the Osborne lake property is developed the ore will be trucked from that mine to Stall lake and thence, together with the Stall lake ore, shipped by rail a distance of 107 miles to the company's metallurgical plant at Flin Flon. The company estimates that 100 men will be employed at Stall lake and about 85 men at Osborne lake when these mines are in production.
The prospective traffic on the proposed branch line extension will be in addition to that now being produced at the company's Chisel lake property, and will consist of copper-zinc crude ore amounting to about 182,000 tons per year.
The mining company and the railway have reached agreement on the arrangements for handling this traffic, under which the mining company has given a guarantee that it will ship a minimum volume of traffic over the line for at least 10 years and that appropriate penalties will be paid if, in any year during the term, shipments should fall below the minimum volume agreed to.
The government is convinced that this project merits the approval of the house as it is one which should improve the net position of Canadian National as well as contribute to the further development of the area concerned. The railway has given assurance that

the estimated results of operation make the proposal an attractive and economic one.
The bill will amend chapter 13 of the Statutes of Canada, 1957-58, under which the 52 mile Optic lake-Chisel lake line was built, by the substitution of a new schedule to that act calling for 60 miles of construction in place of the 52 shown.
As I said earlier, the railway's experience in constructing the 52 miles provided for in this legislation indicates that the final cost of construction of the whole 60 miles will not exceed the amount approved in the original schedule of $8,840,000, because the final cost of construction of the 52 mile line to Chisel lake has only amounted to $6,400,000, which when taken with the estimated cost of the eight mile extension of $1,090,000, gives a total for the whole 60 miles still substantially less than the amount originally approved.
On second reading being given, I intend to move that the bill be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, where officers of the Canadian National will be present to give any further explanations.
I believe the house will agree that the project commends itself as one which will assist in the further development of this mining area, and that it is a sound one from an economic standpoint.


Lionel Chevrier: There will not be the slightest hesitation on the part of the opposition to support this bill. The reasons for that will appear obvious to the house. In the first place, it was the former administration which some years ago brought before the house a proposal for the construction of a railway line from Sherridon to Flin Flon in the province of Manitoba, and it is a development of that railway which is now under consideration.
Later on, in December 1957, to be exact, the present government brought forward for consideration to the house construction by the Canadian National Railways of the line from Optic lake to Chisel lake in the province of Manitoba, being approximately 52 miles, of which we approved at that time. It was my colleague, the former minister of transport, the Hon. Mr. Marler who, speaking on that occasion, as recorded at pages 1778-79 of Hansard, December 3, 1957, had this to say:
I should like to mention to the committee that as favourable consideration was given to both of these projects by the former government of which I was a member I may assure the committee that it is not our intention to delay the passing of the resolution or the measure which will follow the adoption of the resolution. X think, however, that the presentation of this resolution does afford an appropriate occasion to emphasize the importance of railroad development to the economy of Canada.

So, the first line which I referred to, namely that from Sherridon to Flin Flon, was submitted to the house by the former Liberal administration. The next, which this one seeks to extend, was submitted to the house by the present government although it had received the approval of the former administration. The minister will remember that it was his predecessor in office who brought the original measure before the house in December of 1957, several months after the change of government. As the minister said, this bill is an amendment to chapter 13 of 6 Elizabeth II, 1957-58 Statutes of Canada, wherein the governor in council was authorized to provide for the construction by Canadian National Railway Company of the line as set out in this statute, namely a line of railway from a point on the Lynn lake railway line at or near Optic lake extending in an easterly direction to a point at or near Chisel lake, both in the province of Manitoba, a distance of 52 miles, at an average cost of $170,000 per mile and a total construction cost of $8,840,000.
I was pleased to hear the minister say that the Canadian National Railway Company has gone substantially beneath that cost, in that the total cost thus far for completion of the line is $6,400,000. If I understood the minister aright-and he will correct me if I am wrong -it was not necessary for the government to come before parliament on this occasion; they could have proceeded to build the line under the jurisdiction contained in chapter 13 of the original act to which I have just referred. If that is the case, I can of course see the reason why the government comes before parliament now. It adds the other eight miles of the line, and instead of being one of 52 miles it now becomes one of 60 miles. That being the case, this is simply an amendment to the original act of parliament of which we on this side of the house approved, in that the legislation now before the house authorizes the construction of a line from Optic lake to Chisel lake, a distance of approximately 8.2 miles. The minister has given the reasons, which are because of additional industrial mineral development in the area, to which I think all members on this side of the house would subscribe.
There are, of course, the usual questions which come to my mind again and I would ask the minister to deal with them when he replies. The first question I put to him is this: why was not a resolution required in the case of this railway, as was required in the case of the previous railway, the discussion of which we have just completed? With regard to the railway having to do with the construction from Whitecourt to the Pan American Petroleum Corporation property there is a
Canadian National Railways resolution on the order paper. With reference to the railway in the province of Quebec there is a resolution on the order paper. In respect of this bill, which will mean an expenditure, as the minister put it, of some $1,800,000, the question which first comes to my mind is, why was there not a resolution?
Then the question I raise again has to do with the guarantee. Will the minister table the guarantee, as he did on a former occasion; and if not, will he summarize for us the general terms of that guarantee? He did make some reference to it but I do not think the references are sufficient to allow us to deal with the matter as constructively as we should like, without further details.
Then the minister said that on the appropriate occasion he would refer consideration of this line to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. He did not make that statement with reference to the previous railway, and again I am prompted to ask him whether he will refer the Whitecourt-Pan American Petroleum Corporation line to the railway committee for consideration, as he intends to do in this case. I think we should have replies to those two questions. However, mainly on the ground that this is simply an amendment to an act of which we on this side of the house approved and to which parliament gave its approval in 1957, there is no objection to this proposal; on the contrary, there is support for it.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I am very gratified to see the house giving consideration to this bill at this particular time. While we are dealing with this subject I should like to say this measure, and the previous resolution in relation to the construction of a line of railway in Alberta, are projects in which I am sure all hon. members of the house will concur. Their relationship to the continuing and expanding economy of our country is plainly visible.
1 am naturally more familiar with Bill No. C-48 which is before us at this time, as this particular branch line is located in the constituency which I am honoured to represent. The original line of railway which was constructed during the last three and a half years from Optic lake to Chisel lake has been in operation now for some months and is transporting ore from the Chisel lake shaft of the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company to the huge processing plant at Flin Flon.
This additional eight miles line of railway will greatly facilitate the transportation of additional ore from a shaft at Stall lake and one other shaft which is now being sunk at Osborne lake. Some method of transportation
772	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways will of course be necessary for the transporting of ore from the Osborne lake shaft to the end of steel at Stall lake, but I have every confidence that this will be taken care of in a responsible manner by the industry concerned. It is gratifying, however, to have the co-operation of all concerned in ventures such as this, particularly when one considers the amazing changes which are taking place in the rail transportation system of Canada.
Additional ore in the amounts which it is known will be provided by the opening up of this new area will, I am sure, go a long way toward guaranteeing a very lengthy and healthy economic future for the many residents of Flin Flon, Snow Lake and countless other places in Canada far removed from the actual scene of operations, which derive their livelihood from the operation of the base metal mining industry located at Flin Flon.
The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) has mentioned that the previous administration was responsible for the construction of the original 52 miles of line and for putting this legislation into effect. I will simply say, again, that the line has been constructed during the last three years and is now in operation. I am gratified to know that the present government is losing no time in seeing that the construction of this very necessary additional distance of eight miles is given approval by the house and will be proceeded with at the earliest opportunity.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I intend to delay the house for only a minute or two. As Your Honour is no doubt aware, I spent my boyhood in the northern part of Manitoba, between the lakes, and the dreams on which we were nourished in all those days were of the kind of development in northern Manitoba which was unfortunately delayed rather longer than it was in some of the other provinces. However, this is now going forward at a very rapid rate.


An hon. Member:: Good government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is a great pleasure to us to be able to say that the government is acting wisely in continuing the initiative taken by my hon. friend from Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), by Mr. Marler and by the previous government generally in providing for the railway to which this extension is being proposed by the present government.
Notwithstanding the fact that on the hustings they will no doubt take credit to themselves for the mines which were put there by the Creator, the fact of the matter is that the great railway development of which this present proposal is the logical extension was one which began in the years after the war 

and which is, happily, continuing now. All of us who have a close association with Manitoba will be pleased that this is so.


Lionel Chevrier: There are some questions which I put to the minister, and I wish he would reply to them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Léon Balcer: I wish to commend the three speakers who have taken part in the short debate. I am pleased to hear that the opposition intends to support this amending bill. I was also pleased to hear the contribution made by my hon. friend the member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson). All these developments are taking place in his vast and interesting riding and I am aware of the lively interest he has always shown in the great developments which are going on in this marvellous area of Manitoba.
I was also glad to hear the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) telling the house that he did not want to compete with the Creator.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I leave that to the Prime Minister.


Léon Balcer: Actually, the Creator has been extremely good to Manitoba, especially in these last few years, first of all by giving Manitoba the marvellous provincial government that it enjoys at the present time and, again, in the support accorded by the federal government.
The hon. member for Laurier has pointed out that in my remarks on the resolution I did not state I intended to ask that the Whitecourt bill be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I intended to do that on second reading. I can assure the hon. member now that we definitely intend to refer this bill to the committee.
He was wondering why we did not have a resolution in respect to this particular branch line extension. I agree with him that this is a unique case as far as bills to construct branch lines are concerned. However,
I think it is a good idea that exceptions should occur, because I think such exceptions are a credit to the C.N.R. This is a very pleasant thing to deal with, because we all know that among the general public there is always the reaction: something or other used to cost a dollar 10 or 20 years ago, and now it costs much more. Well, we have good proof in the present instance that with good administration and financial care government institutions can build things and save money, as hon. members will see when they refer to the present bill. The first 52 miles of line

were intended to be built at a cost of $170,000 per mile. We are pleased to be able to say that the last eight miles will cost only $147,000 per mile. I think that is gratifying, and I think the management of the C.N.R., the crews and the contractors who have been working on this branch project should be congratulated on such a splendid job. As I said earlier, the reason we have no resolution is that this bill is intended simply to amend a previous statute and will not cost any money whatsoever to the taxpayers of Canada, over and above what has already been approved by parliament when it passed the previous bill, the act which this measure is intended to amend.
The hon. member for Laurier went back to his old song: why do you not give us the details of the agreement between the private company and the Canadian National Railways. I shall not repeat everything I have said on previous occasions regarding this matter but I hope that when the bill is before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and the experts of the company appear before that committee, the hon. gentleman will be in a position to ask all the questions which may come to his mind so as to assure himself that this project, in addition to being a good one, has been extremely well handled by the management and personnel of the C.N.R.
I repeat that this is a development project which, besides being good in itself, will provide jobs for Canadians and contribute to the development of a great area of Canada. I am sure all Canadians are pleased to see the province of Manitoba developing its natural resources at such a pace and I recommend this bill to the approval of the house.


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


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, Frebruary 9, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Churchill-Mr. Martineau in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act to permit the payment of allowances, similar to those provided for veterans and their dependants under the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952, to surviving former members and to certain dependants of deceased members of a number of civilian groups of Canadians who made outstanding voluntary contributions to the war effort during world war I and world war II under difficult and dangerous conditions.
Civilian War Pensions
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I cannot permit this opportunity to pass without some comment on the remarks made on Friday last by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo who it seemed to me adopted a rather unusual attitude toward this resolution and suggested the government was now making a distincton which did not apply before.
Over the years there has been a considerable desire on the part of various groups to be recognized for war veterans allowance and in response to that request this resolution is being brought forward with the appropriate bill to follow.
The other day the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo expressed concern over the fact that we had not described as veterans these various categories of people. I thought I had explained that point. As reported at page 741 of Hansard of February 9 the hon. gentleman said:
We now have in Newfoundland two classes of foresters, those who served in world war I and are veterans and entitled to benefits under the veterans charter and those who served in world war II who are not veterans-
I object to the hon. member's use of the word "now" which gives the impression that this is something the present government has done. The situation with regard to the Newfoundland foresters surely prevailed during world war II. I would think it would be up to the people of Newfoundland prior to confederation to have dealt with the matter, or they could have dealt with it when they entered confederation under the terms of union.
The hon. member may not have intended the interpretation which can be readily taken from his words and I think it is unfair to attempt to attribute to this government the distinction between the two groups. I merely wish to draw that point to the attention to the committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, since I was not in the committee on Friday last, I have read what took place. It is not for me to interpret the meaning of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo who I imagine will be in the chamber in a moment or two to interpret his own remarks. However, speaking for myself as a person who was a member of the government not immediately after the union with Newfoundland but after 1953, I certainly agree with the minister that it would be quite wrong to blame the present government for the state of affairs that existed before 1957. I cannot believe that the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo would wish to do anything of the sort.
As I apprehended the hon. member's point, I must say it is one with which I agree. As I understood his position, it was that when the situation is being rectified it is unfortunate that the government did not find it possible

Civilian War Pensions
to rectify it in a way which would accord the foresters of world war II the same status as those of world war I. I think everyone will agree that by this measure the problem is being rectified to some degree. It may be that the monetary difference will be negligible and perhaps the minister will assure me that that understanding is correct. However, there is a question of pride involved.
I know the technical arguments are all on the side of doing it the way it is being done and I readily admit this is only a sentimental argument. But in these matters no one knows better than the minister, I am sure, how important sentiment is.
There are the two anomalies, if you like. One is that the veterans of the Newfoundland forestry corps who served in world war I are regarded as veterans and those who served in world war II are not, and members of the Canadian forestry corps who served in world war II are regarded as veterans and the Newfoundlanders who served beside them doing the same job are not. I am sure that is the only point the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo was making.
We are very pleased at what is being done. We wish the government had done it last year when the War Veterans Allowance Act was amended and when this course was strongly urged upon the minister. I wish to be completely fair about it. At that time the minister said he would take it under consideration. Obviously he has taken the matter under consideration and has brought in a measure dealing with this question. I am trying to be completely fair and uncontroversial. All I am saying is that I know it would be greatly appreciated if the minister would take the additional action we are proposing.
I am going to make an appeal to the minister. We know, of course, how things are done in parliament. The bill is already drafted but all bills are susceptible of amendment with respect to phraseology particularly if no financial consideration is involved. Between the completion of the resolution stage today and our proceeding with second reading of the bill, as I presume we will very shortly, if it is not already in the bill, could the minister take another look at it and insert a form of words which would meet this sentimental consideration, if you wish to call it that, and that would satisfy the feeling of pride of the men who did such an essential job as the minister pointed out so well on Friday? Could they be given in words a recognition which would give them the feeling the Canadian Legion suggests they should have, that of being regarded as being on a basis of complete equality with other veterans.
[Mr. PickersgULJ
I do not wish to seem carping or critical. The minister will recall that when we were discussing the matter last year I said I frankly thought the Liberals should have done this when we were in office, but we did not and that is all past. I have not seen the bill but I am assuming that substantially the government is now doing what we feel should have been done earlier. We are grateful for that and appreciate it. However, in doing the substantial thing could it not be made even more acceptable in a sentimental sense if the necessary recognition as veterans could be given these men? If the government were to follow that course I think everyone would be happy. We would be preserving that nonpartisan, non-controversial attitude toward questions affecting our veterans which all Canadians have been proud that we have preserved steadily throughout every parliament since the end of world war II. I hope the minister can give consideration to my echo-for that is all it is-of the plea of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo who, as everyone knows, is a distinguished war veteran and who is very familiar with the feeling in this regard of the Newfoundland veterans, including the foresters.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As one who has been a member of the veterans affairs committee since 1945 and has heard representations from the representatives of the Canadian Legion, the national council of veterans, the merchant seamen's association, the firefighters and others, as well as of the Newfoundland forestry association last year, I must say that we in this group are delighted that the government has seen fit to bring in this resolution proposing the amendment suggested by the minister to the legislation.
After listening to these representations throughout the years and then listening to the minister on Friday last and realizing how small relatively the total cost of these amendments really is, I must say that we are surprised that these amendments were not introduced before this time. In fact, I can remember that on a number of occasions the representations of these various organizations met with great sympathy and an attitude which indicated that the members fully appreciated the circumstances of the persons who were affected by the failure to amend this legislation. In the first instance, unfortunately, they were not considered to be veterans. In the second instance, it was suggested that the cost would be considerable. I repeat once again that we are pleased indeed to see these amendments being proposed.
The proposed amendment to the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act is to add a new section in order to permit the payment of

allowances similar in amount to those paid under the War Veterans Allowance Act and under similar conditions of financial need or disability. This is an amendment that has been suggested a number of times during the years. While the number of persons affected is small, those persons will be delighted to know that the representations made on their behalf by various organizations throughout the years have at last been recognized by the government.
Then there is the question of the recognition of the rights and the needs of the Canadian merchant marine and those Canadians who served in the merchant services of the allies in world war I. It will be noted that the annual cost mentioned by the minister is about $105,000. It is obvious that with the passage of time death has taken a good many persons who prior to their decease should have enjoyed the benefits of this legislation. However, "better late than never". We are very pleased to see this amendment.
With respect to the Canadian merchant marine and those Canadians who served with Canada's allies on certified non-Canadian ships in the second world war, and the proposed amendment, my previous remarks apply. Once again the minister mentions that the estimated present annual cost of allowances to this group is about $500,000. While $500,000 is a great deal of money in one sense, it is a relatively small amount in the sense of rendering justice to the group included in this amendment. Throughout the years we have heard but without effect representations from the merchant seamen's association, and others on their behalf. However, we are pleased that at last their rights and needs have been recognized.
Then there is another interesting amendment, namely the one that provides the same recognition to the corps of civilian Canadian firefighters who served in the United Kingdom in world war II. Many times in the parliamentary committee on veterans affairs we have discussed the rights and the needs of these veterans and we were told that following the first world war the late Colonel La Fleche who later became General La Fleche promised these men that they would be treated as veterans on their return to Canada. I think the minister was a member of that committee at that time. He will recall the long discussion we had with respect to this subject. Here again I note that the estimated annual cost is $12,000. The annual cost in the first instance must have been very small in this instance. It is another indication that the rights and the needs of these veterans should long ago have been recognized. However, we in this corner are 26207-1-50J
Civilian War Pensions
very pleased that at last the survivors of this group are to be recognized by this amendment.
Then there is the question of the detachment that was selected by the St. John ambulance brigade to serve with the British Red Cross. These men were sent to Britain in order to assist the women, the V.A.D., and to do other work. They have also been recognized in this proposed legislation. I am sure the costs in this case are also very small now.
Then there is the question of the overseas welfare workers who served in world war II. Their rights and needs have been put forward by the various veterans organizations and by members of the various parties in this House of Commons on occasion throughout the years. The minister told us that the annual cost would be very small.
Then with regard to those who served in Canadian civilian air crew of the Royal Air Force transport command in world war II may I say this. There again in the veterans affairs committee we have heard representations on their behalf by the Legion, the national council of veterans and other groups, but without any effect until this amendment now proposed. Here again the minister mentions the fact that the annual cost will now be very small. We are glad that at last their rights are recognized.
Then the last group we heard from was the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit. I think I am correct in saying that we did not have before the veterans affairs committee any representations on behalf of the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit that served in the second world war, until the last session of parliament when we were well informed on this subject. I think the hon. member for-


Mr, Pickersgill:: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I give them full credit for informing us very fully with regard to the circumstances surrounding the service of this group.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.
Progress reported.

Pensions


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private members' notices of motions.



PENSIONS


William Hector McMillan: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of encouraging reasonable early vesting of pension rights of employees by disallowing in whole or in part the employer's claims for a deduction of the expenses Of pensions for income tax purposes where reasonable vesting provisions are not adopted.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will not read the resolution again. It is designed to promote the earlier vesting of pension rights in the various pension schemes in vogue in Canada at the present time. I realize that if all pension schemes were on a national level and operated nationally the situation would be much better. We could then have early vesting and full portability of pensions. When I put this motion on the order paper agreement with the provinces seemed to be rather remote and I have not seen anything this session that would lead me to think otherwise.
In the various pension schemes now available for employees in Canada certain things are generally true. The great majority of such schemes comprise those where employer and employee both make contributions toward the scheme. However, there are a number of union agreements where the employer makes the full contribution. I know that there are some exceptions but it is fairly generally true that the employee may recover his contributions if he terminates his work with the employer before the plan matures. It is also fairly generally true that the employee has no right to expect any part of the contributions paid into the plan on his behalf by the employer until the time of maturity is reached. This usually occurs after a period of 20 years or after an attained age or after a combination of both.
In many of these plans the employee has no claim to the part contributed by the employer if the employee's service falls short of the date of maturity by a month, a week or even a day. It has been stated, and I think there is some truth in the statement, that employers' contributions are in a sense wages withheld. The loss to an employee who is almost at retirement age would amount to some thousands of dollars, calculated on the basis of his life expectancy, if he misses out on his pension.
I am free to admit that matters of this kind come under the jurisdiction of the provinces,
(The Chairman.]
but the people of Canada subsidize these pension schemes in respect of employers' contributions to the extent of almost 50 per cent. These contributions are subsidized by reason of the fact that they are exempt from income tax and the exemption amounts to almost 50 per cent since their income tax rate is almost 50 per cent. The government grants this income tax exemption for a very worthy purpose, and if the handling of these pension funds does not meet the wishes of parliament, then I maintain that parliament has a right to withhold a part of this subsidization or even all of it unless certain conditions are met.
The resolution proposes to bring about the earlier vesting of pension rights, not by legislation which would be outside of our jurisdiction but by withholding some of the concessions granted under the Income Tax Act.
The services of employees may be terminated for many reasons. For instance, a plant may be moved. I have known of cases where plants have been moved and a number of the older employees who were near the pensionable age were left high and dry and did not receive any pension. The same thing would apply in the case of a mine. The mine might run out of ore, which often happens. The employees might be close to the pensionable age but they would get no pension.
There are various other reasons. For instance, I have known of an employee having to quit work in a plant because he developed an allergy. The plant adopted new processes involving new gases and the employee was allergic to these gases. He did not become sick but he could not continue work because of his allergy. There may be family reasons why an employee would want to move to another job. The education of his family is one example.
If earlier vesting were allowed I think this would help to make pensions portable. It would help older workers aged from 40 to 45 years to get work. If such a person applies for work at a plant at the present time, he is turned down because of his age and because he cannot pay 20 or 25 years back contributions into a pension plan. If he could take his equity to a new pension plan his chances of employment would be improved.
I am not indicating a time when there should be earlier vesting in these pension plans. It seems to me that an employee who has given a number of years of faithful service should have some vesting after ten years or even earlier. If it were done on the government level there could be vesting from the first year of service.
The government could overcome many of the injustices in private pension plans by the simple expedient of withholding these rights under the Income Tax Act. This would be a

great benefit to most of the working people of Canada engaged in industry. Circumstances can develop which can result in almost anyone being deprived of his pension. I must say that the industries in my area have been most fair. They have placed men on pension even before the maturity of their plans. On the other hand, I know of other cases where men have worked almost up to the maturity date and did not get a pension. I do not think this should be so.
I might say that another injustice in these pension plans has been brought to my attention. A number of industrial pensioners over 70 will not get the $10 increase in the old age pension which we have just provided. Many of them were placed on small industrial pensions at 65. When they reach the age of 70 their industrial pension is reduced by the amount of the old age pension and a number of these pensioners will suffer a further reduction of $10, or part of $10, in their industrial pension when we start paying them the extra $10 old age pension this month.
These people's pensions were calculated on the basis of a $40 a month old age pension; but now, when the old age pension is increased to $65, to me it does not seem quite right that they should be losing because of the increase we have granted in the old age pension. We are actually helping the pension fund, not the recipients, in these particular cases.
I do not know how many such cases there are in Canada but I am aware of a few. Our party is committed to making pensions portable. I notice the statement in the speech from the throne that an attempt would be made to secure the concurrence of the provinces in respect of certain payments, it goes on to say-
-and will take into account private pension arrangements and the need for legislation concerning portability of pension rights.
Now, it is very important to note that the letter written by the Prime Minister on January 17 to the provincial premiers sets forth certain matters but does not mention the words "portability of pensions." That appears in the speech from the throne but is not mentioned in the Prime Minister's letters. I think that, had the government the intention to go ahead with a scheme providing for portability of pensions, it should have indicated this to the premiers of the provinces. I would like to know if the government really intend doing anything about it. To me it seems so important that it should have been referred to the premiers. Personally, I do not think the government intend going ahead with it because the letter written by the Prime Minister was quite a lengthy one in connection with amending section 94A of the British
Pensions
North America Act, but did not contain any reference to portability of pensions.


Mr. Broome:: Would the hon. member permit a question before he takes his seat?


William Hector McMillan: Yes.


Ernest James Broome: Would the hon. member not tell the house how a countrywide pension scheme available to every citizen of Canada must not therefore be portable? Lack of portability means a company plan, but this is a national plan. Would the hon. member reconcile what he says with that view.


William Hector McMillan: I am talking about the private pension plans now in force. I am not talking about any proposed national plan.


Ernest James Broome: That is what you are referring to in the speech from the throne.


William Hector McMillan: But it was never referred to any of the premiers of the provinces, so far as I can see. If you read the letter you will see that.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: Would the hon. member permit another question? I was following the hon. gentleman very carefully in an endeavour to discover what he meant by his phrase in the resolution "reasonable early vesting." He indicated that perhaps in some circumstances it would be 10 years, and perhaps one year in other circumstances. I think it would facilitate the understanding of the house if the hon. gentleman could tell us just in what circumstances one year, and in what circumstances 10 years would be considered as "reasonable early vesting?"


William Hector McMillan: I think I mentioned that right from the start, from the first year, you would have vesting if you had a national scheme but, under these private plans I do not know. That would have to be figured out mathematically; but the ideal would be to have vesting right from the start. I do not know whether or not it is feasible to get these particular plans down to one year until such time as we get a national scheme.


Miss Margaret  Ailken@York-Humber: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan) for bringing this subject of portable pensions to the attention of the house. I know it is of great interest to many people in my riding and, as is well known in this house, last year the Ontario government brought in a draft bill dealing with compulsory portable pensions. The then premier of Ontario, the Hon. Leslie Frost, said he was bringing the bill in and he wished there would be the widest discussion on it by interested parties. Actually I do not agree with the hon. member for Welland

Pensions
because I think this problem of portable pensions should remain under the jurisdiction of the provinces, since the provinces are much closer to the people, and certainly contributory pensions are very close to the people.
In the House of Commons last week we had a great deal of discussion on universal pensions for all Canadians. I am inclined to think the federal government should provide the basic old age pension, plus a contributory system to the old age pension by which every citizen can contribute to it; then it should leave the problem of portable pensions to the provinces, as there are problems attached to portable pensions and many people who do not want them.
For instance, there are three words that keep cropping up in regard to portable pensions. Those three words are "mandatory, compulsory and restrictive". The Ontario draft bill states it would be compulsory for employers of 15 or more persons to establish a pension plan by 1965, meeting certain minimum standards. The draft bill also states that the pension plans would be mandatory upon all employees over 30 years of age, and it says there would be restrictions placed on refunding contributions from the employees, and that employers contributions would be vested in the employees.
When we ask governments to provide us with more and more security the inevitable result is that we chop away more and more fragments of our own freedom. Portable pensions mean that a government is forcing a man to save his own money in one particular way, and I should like to give an example of this.
A friend of mine went to work for a certain firm at the age of 20 years. When he reached his early 40's he decided he wanted to go into business for himself, and he really was not aware that the pension fund to which he had been contributing for about 19 years had refund restrictions. He thought he would be able to get about $6,000 out of the fund, $6,000 that he himself had paid into it. He found that was not so and the $6,000 he had saved had to remain in the fund. He was given a minute pension which was no use to him at all at that time and, as it subsequently turned out, he is now paying most of the pension into income tax. Hon. members may ask: what did government have to do with that particular case? Government had nothing to do with it; it was between the man and the company for which he worked. But not all pension plans have refund restrictions, and if government steps into this competitive field to make it mandatory, with regard to all pension funds,

that no employee will get his own money back, it seems to me this will create hardship for many people.
During the past two decades there has been a tremendous growth in employee-employer pension plans. Much credit goes to the unions which have negotiated wisely in this regard; much credit goes to responsible employers who have seen the wisdom of these pension plans and have used them to attract and hold good employees.
Then we must remember that some pension plans are much better than others. Some employers have shown a far higher sense of responsibility toward their employees than others, and excellent pension schemes have been built up. When government moves into these competitive fields, making them mandatory, compulsory and restrictive, almost inevitably the schemes would be reduced to the lowest denominator. I am afraid that is what would happen if the government started legislating portable pensions.
It seems to me that the perfect way to operate portable pensions would be for employers, employees and insurance companies to work out plans without government interference or legislation. By all means let us encourage portable pensions. Perhaps this resolution brought forward by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan) would do that by discouraging employers through not allowing tax deductions. I think if we can encourage responsible employers, union negotiators and insurance companies to work toward portable pensions, that is the best way to do it. Let us be careful of federal government interference in what could be extremely rigid and extravagant legislation which would please no one.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I take a certain amount of satisfaction in rising to support the resolution moved by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan), which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of encouraging reasonable early vesting of pension rights of employees by disallowing in whole or in part the employer's claims for a deduction of the expenses of pensions for income tax purposes where reasonable vesting provisions are not adopted.
This resolution should receive the support of hon. members on all sides of the house. It is not in any sense infringing upon anyone's personal liberty; it is simply asking the government of Canada to accept its responsibility in promoting the vesting of pensions to the advantage of the employees of corporations of this country by making certain provisions in the Income Tax Act. Throughout the years the hon. member for Welland has carried on a continuous campaign in this regard. I must

say again that I take some pleasure in having been personally associated with him in this respect.
I represent a constituency in which the largest union is the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers-who are a jolly fine lot of fellows. That union was the first one, to my knowledge, to make representations to the former government to consider income tax regulations that would provide for what was then termed the transferability of pensions. The word "portable" has since come into more general use. The Canadian Congress of Labour and other unions associated with the congress have throughout the years made representations to the former government and this government to give effect to what is the principle behind the resolution of the hon. member for Welland.
There is an interesting history to this question. The former Liberal government issued what was known as the famous blue book, which provided certain regulations with respect to the vesting of pensions. These regulations were over the signature of the former minister of national revenue, the late Dr. McCann. Apparently very little was known about these regulations until the officers of the mine, mill and smelter workers union in Trail suddenly discovered that the government of the day was not living up to its own regulations. This was brought to the attention of the government by that union, later by other unions and by members of the opposition, including supporters of the party at present in power.
As a result of those representations the minister of finance ordered an investigation. Hon. members will remember that this investigation went on for some months and representations were heard from various large corporations interested in this question. After these representations had been heard and the unions in Canada had been kept, as it were, on tip toe or in suspense for a period of months, it was finally decided that the government was not going to enforce the regulations with respect to pension vesting as found in what has now become known as the famous blue book.
However, this was a subject of such importance to emloyees that the mine, mill and smelter workers union-which represents the employees of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company in west and east Kootenay-continued to negotiate with the company in an effort to get the company to recognize the principle of transferable or portable pensions in its agreement with the union. They did this because, without the vesting of pensions the employee has no vested right in the pension and is almost affixed to his employment until he receives
Pensions
his pension rights in the ordinary course of events. The vesting of pensions makes it possible for employees to have a certain mobility. If they wish to move, for family, health or other reasons, they will not lose all they have invested in a pension fund by virtue of discontinuing their employment with a certain corporation or company.
In this respect the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company was the first large corporation in Canada to include pension vesting in an agreement with the union which represented the employees. So the workers employed by the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company have the right, on attaining age 50 and after 20 years service with the company, to have their pension payable to them when they reach retirement age whether or not they are employed by Cominco. This means they can sever their employment with the company, go to work for any other company, and they still have a vested right in their pension. They can sever their employment for any reason whatsoever without losing their pension rights. This pension plan also allows an employee with 25 years service, regardless of his age, to commute his pension to the benefit of his wife. This agreement brought to a successful conclusion some years of negotiation between the union and the company to achieve these ends.
While this right has been obtained by the employees of Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company as a result of bargaining between the bargaining agent of the union and the company, the employees of that company are still not satisfied that this is the final answer to the question. The employees of the company, although they enjoy rights not enjoyed by most other employees of large corporations in Canada, want to see this right obtained as a result of law, as a result of the federal government accepting certain responsibility, and not only as a result of negotiation and bargaining.
I am sure the present government is fully acquainted with the situation. I notice the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) is taking a great interest in what hon. members opposite him have to say on these matters and I have no doubt he is fully acquainted with all the circumstances surrounding this question of pension vesting and with the arguments which have been put forward by the unions, by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan), the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Her-ridge) and other members of this house. We trust he will be favourably influenced by the arguments put forward on this occasion.

Pensions
However, we must emphasize that we support this resolution applying to private pension plans as the first step in the establishment of a national pension plan. Pending the introduction of such a plan we urge the government to accept some responsibility in developing pension vesting, and in promoting the idea of pension vesting by recognizing it in certain regulations relating to the Income Tax Act. We in this group have always urged the solution as being a national pension scheme. We notice there is mention of such a scheme in the speech from the throne this year and we are delighted to know that this small group to which I belong has had a favourable influence on the government at an expedient moment. We are looking forward to the introduction of legislation concerning a national pension plan and we hope we shall hear the details of such a plan prior to dissolution, so that we may know exactly what the government has in mind. Possibly, in view of the great interest the hon. member for Carleton takes in this subject he will give us a hint, or at least some intimation, of the benefits which are to flow from the sentence in the speech from the throne which has aroused our anticipation with respect to a national pension plan. I can see the hon. member is sitting anxiously in his seat waiting for the moment when he can have something to say on this subject.


Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: I am not
really surprised to find that the members on your immediate right, Mr. Speaker, are echoing each other-


Some hon. Members:: Left.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I am sorry. I should have said "to your immediate left". I apologize to hon. members on your immediate right. Perhaps I should begin again.
I am not surprised to find those who sit on your immediate left following each other with such enthusiasm on behalf of state intervention in a matter which is primarily a personal matter. I am the first to concede that there are problems which will arise, as the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan) has pointed out, when people who are almost within sight of receiving a pension are disqualified from doing so for one reason or another, possibly missing it by a day or by a week. I think that is something which should cause us concern in this parliament as a state of affairs which we should naturally seek to remedy.
I am not sure that by using the stick of the state to beat malefactors we are going to achieve the result sought by the hon. member for Welland. I used the phrase "the stick of the state", but the hon. member put it
[Mr. Herridge.l
in more eloquent language by suggesting that the problem would be solved by disallowing in whole or in part an employer's claims for a deduction of the expenses of pensions for income tax purposes where reasonable vesting provisions are not adopted. This means that parliament would be asked to intervene, as he puts it, in pension arrangements between employers and employees-to be, as it were, an arbitrator and to hold a penalty over the heads of employers who do not give their employees reasonable vesting facilities.
The first thought that comes to my mind is that one of the parties to a pension plan, the employer, has a contractual obligation, and the other, the employee, has a contractual right. These are usually hammered out in the form of a lengthy document held by the trustee to whom the pension payments are made. Surely, if there is any question involving a hiatus of time-a case of an employee who fails to qualify by a day, a week, or even a few months-there should be some provision in the contract for its solution. For example, there might be provision in the contract for the appointment for an impartial board of arbitration whose members would comprise somebody appointed by the employer, somebody appointed by the employee and, perhaps, a third party agreed on by both. This board could then consider the justice or injustice of the employee's claim.
Surely, what we have in the present proposal contains a suggestion of the big stick -the suggestion that the state must intervene because other remedies are useless. Perhaps the state should, indeed, intervene if no other way around the problem can be found. But it would not be a parliamentary intervention. We would simply be setting wheels in motion, if we pass this resolution, and putting the proposal into legislation which would then become a matter for bureaucratic interpretation. I do not use the word "bureaucratic" as a colourful adjective or in any invidious sense whatsoever. But when one is dealing with such an important matter as the Income Tax Act he has to be extremely careful. It is necessary to spell out rights and obligations in endless detail in regulations and memoranda so that there is as little discretionary right as possible left with the civil servants who will be applying these regulations, and so that decisions may be laid down as far as possible within the four corners of the regulations themselves.
I point this out because I think it indicates a serious defect in the approach made to this question by the hon. member for Welland. I do not quarrel with the hon. member's intention, but I point out that it would not be for parliament to spell out the regulations

designed to see whether an employer was acting justly or unjustly. Rather, it would be for the Department of National Revenue to control this aspect of the situation. In short I am asking: can regulations ensure justice, or is there a possibility that some other means can be found of achieving the objects which the hon. member for Welland has in mind. As I say, I do not quarrel with the end the hon. member seeks to achieve; I quarrel with the way in which he would go about obtaining it.
The question of the portability of pensions was raised in the debate this afternoon. The hon. member said he thought pensions would be made more portable if this resolution were adopted. I followed him anxiously at that point because I had some reservations about this matter and I regret to say the hon. gentleman has not dispelled the reservations I hold.
The hon. member said, for example, that older men and women would have a better chance of employment. I believe that was the spirit of what he said. The employment of older people is a serious matter, of course, and if the hon. member's suggestion is correct we would hasten to accept the remedy. But as I look at the situation I think the hon. member's resolution would result in there being rather less chances of employment for these people, because in its final form the resolution really means a person instead of accepting his pension at age 65 or 70, let us say, under certain conditions would be entitled to receive it at an earlier age. It seems to me this could very well lead to employers being hesitant about employing older people who, instead of continuing in employment for 10 or 15 years, might work for only five or 10 and then seek early vesting of their pension rights.
I may be wrong and I hope I am-


William Hector McMillan: You are.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member for Welland indicates I am wrong. It is obvious we hold different opinions. I think on balance it will be found the hon. member would not achieve the laudable objective of this resolution, part of that objective being to assist older people.
Another feature of early vesting of pensions and the portability of pensions is that where portability is achieved it may result in freeing some people from what might be called slavery in certain employment. This seems to be an obvious point. If over a period of time, you have sunk part of your earnings in a pension investment, you are dissuaded from changing positions because the new employer may not wish to assume the pension rights you have already built up. Perhaps the resolution overcomes that problem in that pensions would
Pensions
become more portable, although as I read the resolution it does not really appear to meet that argument at all.
A severe problem arises concerning the type of contract one has when moving from one job to another. Pension rights are usually set out in detailed documents. A trustee, generally a trust company, is appointed. They have clear rules and regulations about how the money is to be invested. It strikes me that the resolution does not deal with the serious problems that could arise in relation to the trustees when a person moves from one job to another.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Certainly.


Ernest James Broome: Has the hon. member ever heard of people seeking employment who could not get it because their pension plan was so good it would be to the disadvantage of the company to employ them? This has happened to dozens of people I know.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Vancouver South not only for providing me with a question but also for providing me with the answer. Of course 1 have, Mr. Speaker. Does that answer the hon. gentleman's question?
Let me now deal with the problem of building up a staff of trained and skilled workers within an industry. This point I make applies whether a man stays with his job or moves somewhere else with a portable pension. My point is this. The resolution is designed to encourage the reasonable early vesting of pension rights. Unless one is very careful with respect to exactly what constitutes reasonable early vesting, I think some employers would be chary about accepting an employee who moved with his portable pension. I could see it happening even where a person received certain training on a job and then just when he reached fruition in his earning capabilities for the company wished to demand the reasonable early vesting of his pension rights.
Those are some thoughts on the subject highlighting what I think would be some of the problems which would beset the hon. member for Welland and his resolution.
In conclusion I wish to make it clear that I consider the spirit of the resolution sound, as it deals with the early vesting of pension rights. It is sound in the sense that it seeks to protect those who have worked long and hard and yet have fallen short of their goal and who should not be deprived of receiving those rights by the arbitrary whim of their employer. I think that is a laudable objective but I have grave reservations whether

Pensions
the use of the Income Tax Act and the drawing up of endless bureaucratic regulations will be effective in carrying out this utterly laudable objective.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this resolution. I hasten to dissociate myself from the two extremely reactionary and negative interjections made by the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) and the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave). To say that this resolution proposes the "big stick" idea is just nonsense.
The state has granted to some people the privilege of deducting from taxable income certain amounts under certain conditions, and now upon examination it is found that this often does not work to the advantage of either the state or many of the individuals concerned. The time has come for a reexamination. It is not a question of bureaucracy nor of state imposition. Quite contrary to what was suggested by the hon. member for York-Humber it is a case of liberating citizens, of giving them back their rights, of allowing them to do what is in their own best interests. It is in this spirit that the resolution is put forward.
My friend the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan) in his resolution does not attempt to legislate. He has merely put forward an idea which is of some urgency and cries out for attention and early action.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Certainly.


Donald MacInnis: In his opening remarks the hon. gentleman referred to what was said by the hon. members for York-Humber and Halifax. I ask the hon. gentleman now whether he is aware of the situation with respect to 7,000 miners in Cape Breton?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not know what my hon. friend is referring to, in detail, Mr. Speaker, but if he will send me a short resume of what it is to which he refers I shall be glad to answer his question later, if time permits.
The portability of pensions is one of the most urgent of the new problems facing us as an industrial nation. I describe it as a new problem for this reason. Industrial pension plans were put into effect for a purpose. They were designed to fill a need at the time. The purpose was to provide security for workers in their mature years and after retirement. But the nature of the plans has created new problems not envisaged at the time they were established. Some people wish to leave their employment before the

age of retirement. The mover of the resolution has cited some of the reasons why people wish to do so from time to time. Other persons are laid off before they are entitled to vesting privileges.
They are the losers. The only people who gain are those who stick it out until the end, those who remain until the age of retirement. The approach to the company pension plan depends on what hat you are wearing. From the standpoint of industry its purpose, to an extent at least, is to make it difficult for valuable employees to leave their employment. A pension plan becomes in a sense a ball and chain to a particular firm. An existing plan has same advantages for management and for some long term employees who remain until retirement. However, there are disadvantages for both management and employees and these are very substantial ones.
Management sometimes keeps on staff an employee who has grown stale and has lost interest in his job, and this is done because he is near the retirement age. Not all management is that altruistic but there have been many cases in which this was done. It is also true that management is unable to hire new employees of mature years. Many potential employees who have great skill and who are settled in their habits cannot be hired because their hiring would upset the actuarial soundness of pension plans.
From the employees' standpoint pension plans are equally unsatisfactory, if not more so, except of course for those who remain in the same employment until retirement. Unemployed workers are barred from employment because of age. Mature workers who want only the right to work are denied that right. To my hon. friends opposite I say this. In the last few months I have interviewed many individuals who are not old by ordinary standards. I refer to persons of age 40 years to 45 years. Some of them have sought employment in every major industry in the To-ronto-Oshawa-Hamilton area and have been turned down because of their age. I ask my hon. friends this question: Is this liberty? Is this freedom? Is it right that a 40 year old Canadian should be barred at the door of a large industry because his employment would upset the actuarial soundness of a plan which is a privilege granted by this parliament of Canada? Is that what they call freedom? I do not think it is.
Employees are denied the right to move from job to job for their own betterment. People learn from experience. The broader his experience, the more proficient and valuable a person becomes. Company pension plans restrict the movement of labour as do other plans, as a matter of fact, such as

the civil service and education board pension plans. I am one of those who believe that it would be good for many civil servants to take a two year sabbatical leave once or twice during their lifetime and to seek employment in industry. When they return to the civil service I am sure that they would be much more valuable and experienced persons; that their perspectives would be better and that they would be better able to see both sides of a problem and to gauge more accurately the relative merits of suggestions made to them by industry and commerce.
If school teachers could leave teaching for a year or two at least once or twice during their careers and accept other employment, I think they would gain from the breadth of knowledge that would then be available to them. I believe they would become more valuable, experienced, knowledgeable and understanding teachers than they were before they had the advantage of this outside experience. This statement applies as well to clergymen and others.
At the present time those who participate in retirement plans are denied the right to do this as, should they leave their employment, they lose their pension rights in most cases. This is a restriction which I think is a disadvantage. The desirability of mobility is real and the advantage of mobility is real. If this is so, as I maintain it is, portability should not be confined to provincial boundaries.
The question of jurisdiction has been raised. Whether or not this is a matter which falls entirely within the competence of the provinces is a matter of opinion. Some people think it is such a matter. Other people think that it is not such a matter. If it lies within the competence of the provinces, I think a constitutional amendment should be sought. My hon. friend from York-Humber made reference to the Frost plan which was widely discussed last year. However, in the opinion of many people the Frost plan was too narrow, too restrictive and would not accomplish the purposes which must be accomplished. I think it would be better-


Donald MacInnis: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: My time is almost up.


Donald MacInnis: That is why I wanted to get the question in.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Rather than proceed with an inadequate plan, I think it would be better to wait until we can have a national plan. I think that national portability of labour is essential. With the spirit in mind which has been put forward by my hon. friend,
Civilian War Pensions
I hope that we can work out a plan, which will permit Canadians from coast to coast, who contribute during their working years, to enjoy the benefits of continuous vesting and to be able to take their pensions with them from job to job so that they can work where they like, when they like, in their own best interests and at the same time in the best interests of their country.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


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



CIVILIAN WAR PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Churchill-Mr. Martineau in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act to permit the payment of allowances, similar to those provided for veterans and their dependants under the War Veterans Allowance Act. 1952, to surviving former members and to certain dependants of deceased members of a number of civilian groups of Canadians who made outstanding voluntary contributions to the war effort during world war I and world war II under difficult and dangerous conditions.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, just before we entered upon private members' hour at five o'clock I had been dealing briefly with the resolution preceding the bill to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act and with certain proposals contained in the resolution. At the time of adjournment of the debate I was dealing particularly with the belated recognition of the rights and needs of members of the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit in world war II. I had just given credit to the members of the house from Newfoundland who fought so vigorously during the sessions of the veterans affairs committee last year on behalf of their constituents who served in this unit.
In view of the particular circumstances involved and having listened to the very convincing evidence that was presented to the veterans affairs committee last year, I wish to say on behalf of this group that we wholeheartedly support the contention of these hon. members that those persons who served in the Newfoundland forestry unit in world war II

Civilian War Pensions
should be recognized as veterans. After listening to the evidence I was quite convinced that they performed all the services that had been performed by a similar unit in world war I, the only distinction being that under the circumstances that existed in world war II they failed to wear an official uniform as a unit of the Canadian army. Finally, I wish to say that, regardless of party, I am sure we all rejoice in the introduction of this resolution which provides further recognition of the rights and needs of those who served Canada so well during the dangerous years of war.


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps you would permit me to depart from the usual practice in speaking on such resolutions to deal very briefly with an event which I am sure has touched every member of this house who has been interested in the veterans over the years. I refer to the passing of Judith Robinson, a remarkable and distinguished member of the press gallery, an accomplished critic and a great Canadian but above all a person who fought throughout the years for the rights of veterans, particularly the pensioners and those entitled to war veterans allowance.
I should like to pay tribute to her not only for her qualities of excellence in her journalistic career, not only because I counted her a friend, as so many others did, but primarily on behalf of her special friends, the veterans of Canada, especially the veterans of world war I who received her constant help and encouragement. She fought for them during all her adult life in the tradition of her father before her. As all hon. members will recall, she learned of their problems from her father and from others with whom she came in contact. After the passing of her father she carried on the battle in a never-ending crusade for the betterment of the lot of the veterans. I think everyone in the house will join with me in saying that not only was she a good writer of the highest integrity, an incisive critic, a devotee of democracy and a watchdog of the rights of the people in parliament but she also held a special place in the heart of the veterans. The memory of this fighting lady from the Toronto Telegram still holds that warm place in their hearts.
I should like to deal now with some of the remarks that have been made during the course of the debate on the resolution now before us. When I first came to Ottawa as the member for Saskatoon I roomed with the hon. member for St. John's East, a Newfoundlander. Our association was productive of many interesting exchanges. One of the first things we discussed, he being a very young man, was the general position of

veterans in Canada, and in particular the position of veterans and others in Newfoundland who had served their country. I remember discussing with the hon. member for St. John's East during the years 1957 and 1958 the question of the Newfoundland foresters and how something might be done to give recognition to the contribution they had made in defence of what is now part of Canada. On this occasion I should like to pay tribute to the work he has done, and also to that of the Solicitor General. These two gentlemen have been responsible for a great deal of my education in regard to Newfoundland and, over the years, I think we have undertaken certain joint ventures that have resulted and will result in benefits to Newfoundlanders as well as to the country as a whole.
In dealing with this particular aspect of what is broadly called the veterans charter, I believe we should pay tribute to those who have taken the time and occasion in years gone by to further the cause of those particular persons who are mentioned in this resolution brought in for the benefits available under the War Veterans Allowance Act by virtue of the resolution that included them under the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.
In reply to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate I may say that there will be no distinction between these, the classes brought under the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act in regard to the allowances they receive, and the others under the War Veterans Allowance Act. As with all items of the veterans charter these, I believe, are noncontroversial pieces of legislation. They are outside the realm of party controversy.
From time to time since 1958 the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo has mentioned the foresters. I think it is perhaps fair to say that with the change of government there has been this interest shown for the first time as evidenced by this resolution, in rectifying a number of the anomalies that have existed in legislating for benefits for those who helped in the defence of the country. Ever since this government took office there has been an extensive and continuous review of the various items of legislation which make up the veterans charter. Now that we have reached this particular item, the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, I am very glad to say it is possible to provide for the inclusion of the world war I Canadian merchant marine and the group of Canadians who served in the Canadian merchant services of the allies, the world war II Canadian merchant marine and the group of Canadians who served with Canada's allies on certified non-Canadian

ships, as well as the world war II group of civilian firefighters who had service in the United Kingdom.
In regard to the latter group, if I may again say a word in reminiscence, I had no sooner been elected in Saskatoon than I received representations on behalf of this particular group. The Canadian firefighters asked for their inclusion in this legislation and I am glad this has now been achieved. Then also there are the groups of world war I and world war II voluntary aid detachments and world war II overseas welfare workers, world war II Canadian civilian aircrew of the Royal Air Force transport command, in addition to the Newfoundland overseas foresters unit.
I have a particular interest in the civilian air crew of the R.A.F. transport command, as it later became known. It was originally known as the R.A.F. ferry command. While serving with the R.C.A.F. I was seconded for most of the war to the R.A.F. and served for some time with the R.A.F. ferry command, and later with the R.A.F. transport command, originally based in Dorval and later overseas. Many of the gentlemen who took part as civilians in that gigantic operation of getting aircraft from the new world to the old, aircraft that were in serviceable form to take part in the defence of Britain and later Africa-these gentlemen came from all walks of life and were a most amazing and interesting collection. They had been barn-stormers, civilian air line pilots, or persons who had taken wireless navigation in their spare time.
They came to Montreal in the early days of the war and there embarked on the trip across the North Atlantic which, in the aircraft of that time, was quite a formidable venture. It is interesting to note that the fatal casualty rate of that group was something like 22 per cent and most of the fatalities occurred not from enemy action but from weather, engine failures, mechanical defects and things of that sort. It was quite a high ratio and in my particular group the ratio was 25 per cent killed.
Those of us who were in the air force had the protection of the veterans charter but those who were civilians, although they were paid well at that time, had none of that protection. I am very, very pleased it has been possible to have those gentlemen included under this particular act. I thought it might be interesting to place on the record some of the efforts that had been made to achieve this, I have a summary, covering the highlights of the representations and negotiations carried out over a period of two and a half years following world war II between the Canadian and British governments to secure veterans status for civilians in the wartime transport command.
Civilian War Pensions
The first step was the presentation of a brief to the first parliamentary committee on veterans affairs on October 29, 1945. Then on November 6, 1955, Joe Weaver and Jack Pierce appeared as witnesses before the committee. Several cabinet ministers, including the then minister of veterans affairs, Mr. Mackenzie, were present. After the meeting several members from all parties congratulated the delegates and said theirs was the finest presentation they had heard before the committee. Now, in 1962, we are able to implement some of the recommendations made at that time.
The group persisted and in February, 1946, they again presented a brief before the interdepartmental committee on veterans affairs, meeting in camera. On March 26, 1946, that committee issued its report reviewing the whole history of ferry command and the position of civilian aircrew in it. This report was very favourable to the civilian members of the ferry command.
On May 14, 1946, the subject was referred to a subcommittee under the chairmanship of Leslie Mutch, a member of parliament at that time. On July 8, 1946, the subcommittee reported to the special committee in the following terms-
-recommending unanimously the introduction of a bill to provide all the principal benefits and grants to former civilian flying personnel of the R.A.F. ferry command... your subcommittee felt that an organization which had lost 22 per cent of its members dead, and as near as we could discover whose casualties were somewhere between 90 and 100 persons killed, has certainly made a contribution which was comparable to the contribution made by other organizations of a wholly civilian nature which have received benefits under veterans' legislation...
The subcommittee expressed itself strongly in regard to these people. Again, on July 23, 1946 the committee's recommendations were incorporated in the twenty second report to the house, and so the history went. But the civilian members of ferry command have had to wait until now to get this recognition of the service they performed.
I might say that they flew to all places in the world. They flew all sorts of aircraft. I can remember flying across the Atlantic in an aircraft, and in order for it to carry enough gas to reach the other side a tank which filled the entire cabin of the aircraft had to be constructed. Other aircraft flew across the Atlantic with great belly tanks slung underneath. These strange adaptations which had to be made to the aircraft to get them to fighting fronts resulted in the casualties and deaths to which I have been referring.
Mr. Chairman, a number of other hon. members would like to speak in regard to this resolution and, I feel sure, support it. The

Civilian War Pensions
Minister of Veterans Affairs, when he was dealing earlier with some of the remarks which had been made by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, emphasized-and I think in closing I should repeat it-that with regard to the Newfoundland foresters the progress which is represented by the incorporation of these foresters under this legislation is real progress; it is progress which has been asked for by the foresters since 1949, if my memory serves me correctly. Though its initial annual cost is relatively limited-$60,000-it is estimated that the annual cost will tend to increase and improve in five years after the present amendment is made and will reach a figure of something in the order of $1,200,000. It should be a real benefit to those members of the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit who served and were requested to stay in their units as members of the forestry corps despite their inclinations to become members of the armed forces.
I think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will agree with the correctness of this statement, that the Newfoundland foresters, though they originally made contracts for six months only, were subsequently required to sign on for the duration and in each contract there was a covenant requiring that the man would not join the armed forces or transfer to them.


Mr. Batten:: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this resolution to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act. When the minister introduced this resolution on Friday he enumerated seven different classes of people who had served in world war I or world war II and who would come under the legislation to be provided by the bill when it is introduced. In general I endorse the proposal the minister made to this committee and I think we will know more exactly what is to be done when the bill is presented to the house following the adoption of the resolution. I do, however, think it might have been better if these men and women had been recognized under the veterans charter rather than under this particular act.
For a number of years now we have argued in this chamber in favour of benefits for the merchant marine. My hon. friend from Burin-Burgeo last Friday gave a very apt description of the dangers through which they went during world war I and world war II, and indeed one cannot minimize the contribution they made in two world wars nor the extent of the dangers they faced. Undoubtedly their contribution to the war effort played no small part in the final outcome and I believe they are entitled to all the benefits which might accrue to members of any other branch of the services.

In this amendment we have also recognized the Newfoundland foresters. This was a unit formed on November 18, 1939, just a few weeks after the outbreak of war. The final enlistment amounted to 3,680 men. Newfoundlanders enlisted in this particular branch of the services because they were encouraged to do so. Almost a year ago now, on February 7, 1961 when we were discussing the Pension Act I gave a brief history of the Newfoundland foresters unit. At that time I was able to place on the record information which would substantiate the claim that these men were encouraged to join the forestry unit. For the first nine months of the war men who joined this unit were under contract for six months. After the first nine months they were under contract for the duration and were not permitted to join any other branch of the services.
They believed then that they were serving in an area where they could make their best contribution. Also, they were members of a unit in which they had been encouraged to enlist by the then commission government of Newfoundland under instructions from the home office in London. We have now arrived at the position in veterans legislation where Newfoundland foresters of world war I are considered to be veterans; Canadian foresters of world war I are considered to be veterans; Canadian foresters of world war II are considered to be veterans; but Newfoundland foresters of world war II are not considered to be veterans under the veterans charter. Here I think there is a significant difference. However, the amendments to the present act form a real step forward and I hope we are not too far away from the time when Canadian veterans will be considered because of the contribution they made under perilous conditions and not because of any legal technicalities in the legislation.


Mr. MacRae:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to enter this debate very briefly. First of all, I think the government in general and the Minister of Veterans Affairs in particular should be especially commended for this particular measure. I am sure that when the history of these parliaments is written Colonel Brooks and the present minister will go down as two of the finest ministers of veterans affairs parliament has ever known.
I was interested to hear the minister's remarks about the merchant marine, the fire fighters and the Newfoundland foresters. The merchant marine rendered most valuable service on all the seas of the world. I do not suppose too many hon. members of the committee know that the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, who is away this day

on business, served in world war II for over five years in practically every ocean as a member of the merchant marine. He served in this force because he was of low medical category, even though he tried many times to enlist in Canada's army.
The minister said he thought there might be only a few hundred survivors left out of the 5,000 who served. I was rather surprised to hear that out of 5,000 men who served between 1940 and 1945 there should only be two or three hundred left at this point. Perhaps the minister will later give a word of explanation about that. The firefighters are another group which especially deserves to be given recognition. These men served in England through much of the heavy bombing. I am interested in this because for a short time I was attached as a Canadian army officer to the firefighting service in Great Britain in the second world war.
I should like to speak briefly about the Newfoundland forestry unit. Over the last two or three years the case of these men has been pressed strongly, especially by the Newfoundland members, who I think should be commended for their zeal. I think that here again the government has shown a high degree of generosity. After all, between 1945 and 1949 the government of the United Kingdom did nothing for these men. Nothing was done in 1949 under the terms of union, either, and I often wonder why that was so. I wish the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo were here; perhaps he could answer that- I am sure he could. Again, nothing was done between 1949 and 1957, and that is significant.
I do take objection to statements which have been made by my good friends the hon. members for Kootenay West and Burin-Burgeo contending there was no distinction between the Canadian forestry corps of world wars I and II, and the Newfoundland foresters. There was the greatest distinction inasmuch as the Canadian forestry corps of world wars I and II were soldiers of the Canadian army and as such were liable for service anywhere in the world. Many were men with several decorations from the first world war. They were members of the Canadian army and as such they could be assigned to service anywhere. As a matter of fact, when 8,000 Canadian foresters in the second world war were stationed in northern Scotland beside the Newfoundland foresters, every month so many of them were requested to transfer to the units in southern England, in Sicily and in Italy. A great many did go, and many became casualties. I do object to the statement that the Newfoundland foresters were not
Civilian War Pensions
permitted to transfer. Perhaps that is so up to a point, but I know of several cases where foresters in northern Scotland transferred to the Canadian army and then went on to serve in southern England and in different theatres of war. The Canadian forestry corps sent one forestry battalion to France and these men took part in the Ardennes fighting where they sustained a number of casualties. There is a distinct difference between the forestry unit of Newfoundland in the second world war and the Canadian forestry corps. This Conservative government has been extremely generous and I hope the people of Newfoundland, when the time does come, will recognize the generosity of the present Minister of Veterans Affairs and of this government, in this particular measure.


Hubert Badanai: This is one subject which does not require lengthy debate because everyone is in favour of the resolution which will permit the payment of allowances to surviving former members of a number of Canadian organizations who made an outstanding voluntary contribution to the war effort during two world wars.
On previous occasions I have advocated the principle that those who volunteered for service, no matter in what capacity, whether as foresters, firemen or seamen in the merchant marine, should, together with their dependents, be recognized as eligible for pensions under the Veterans Allowance Act. In many cases it was through no fault of these men that they were diverted from service in a theatre of war. Their services were channelled into jobs considered by the government of the day to be in the best interest of the war effort at that time, and for this reason they found themselves in services which did not qualify them for veterans benefits.
Let us consider, for instance, the case of the men who served in the merchant marine. They suffered hardships in the course of their work equal to if not greater than those experienced in any of the combat force units. I am thinking especially of those who were assigned to convoys and ships on the North sea running up through the Arctic circle in waters where their ships were in constant danger of torpedo attack. Then there are the firefighters who volunteered to go to Britain to help hard pressed London during the great blitz and who were in constant danger during the performance of their duty.
The establishing of eligibility for assistance under the act has long been overdue. Nevertheless I congratulate the minister for recognizing the need now; delated though his action may be, it will meet with the approval of the Canadian people.

Civilian War Pensions
Those men who served overseas in the forestry units from the lakehead area will appreciate being considered as veterans in every respect. A couple of years ago the Canadian Legion adopted at its convention a resolution which gave these men the privilege of membership in the Canadian Legion as veterans. This applies with equal force to the forestry unit from Newfoundland on whose behalf the hon. members for Humber-St. George's and Burin-Burgeo have made appeals in the past.
Last year and the year before, as a member of the committee on veterans affairs, I was impressed by the several briefs which were presented to the committee by various veterans organizations and more so by the restraint and logic which the delegations showed in their presentations. I wish to congratulate them on their responsibility on behalf of their members.
Canada has reason to be proud of her young men and women who offered their services to their country in times of conflict, endured hardships and faced the horrible consequences of war without asking reasons why. I have always felt that our duty is never to let down those who may now find themselves in need of assistance-an assistance which I do not for one moment consider as charity but, rather, as something which is their just due from a grateful country.
The recognition granted to the second world war overseas welfare workers serving in the Red Cross, the St. John Ambulance brigade, and the Scottish ministry of health, as well as to Canadian civilian crews of the Royal Air Force transport command, merits the support of every member, and I am sure it will also receive the general approval of all Canadians.
In short, this is good legislation and should not be subject to political partisanship.


Mr. Pugh:: The last words of the hon. member for Fort William, when he stated that this measure should not be subject to political partisanship are words I heartily agree with. The hon. member for Humber-St. George's, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo and the hon. member for Fort William himself have all spoken strongly, with a great Liberal tradition behind them which means, in effect: let us not do anything about it until we have to, but if we have to, let us speak in favour of it.
Let me say that this Conservative government in the last five years, in making the veterans charter and in improving pensions and veterans allowances all down the line, has shown a lead which cannot be duplicated in the history of this parliament; it is second to none. The hon. member for Humber-St.

George's states that he and his friends have advocated for many years a measure of the kind now under consideration, and the other day the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo stated that for some time he and others in his party-and I cannot help reiterate that it is the Liberal party-had advocated such a move. Advocacy is not enough. It remained for the Conservative party to wrap up veterans legislation, amend it and put it on a sound basis.
Before leaving the contributions made by the hon. members for Burin-Burgeo, Humber-St. George's and Fort William, let me say that in my opinion politics have nothing to do with this important question. Over the years in the standing committee on veterans affairs these hon. gentlemen in no uncertain terms have voiced their opinions. They have advocated the introduction of legislative amendments such as those foreshadowed by the present resolution. To my mind there is no question concerning the sincerity of these hon. gentlemen. For that reason I said politics are not involved. Unfortunately, however, the party to which the hon. gentlemen belong has seen fit to take little action with respect to improvements in veterans legislation. The words they use in advocating these improvements do not mean very much.
In my submission the present Minister of Veterans Affairs and the previous minister, Senator Brooks, deserve much more commendation than they are receiving from hon. gentlemen in the opposition parties in this house. The former and the present minister have done a good job and let us never forget that. Their work on behalf of veterans does not date back only to 1957. My reading of the reports of the standing committee on veterans affairs indicates that these hon. gentlemen speaking on behalf of the Conservative party have long advocated that veterans legislation be improved. The Conservative party has always stood for improved veterans legislation and now that it has assumed power it is losing no time in introducing improvements.
World war II ended in 1946. Between 1946 and 1957, the year in which the Liberal party was defeated, we did not see brought forward improvements to veterans legislation, despite what had been advocated by hon. members of the Liberal party. The Liberal party did not see fit to place on the statute books of Canada amendments to our veterans charter.
An examination of the resolution will indicate that seven categories of persons are covered. I shall not restate them as the minister enlarged on this subject in his address. However, let me make this point.

The legislation foreshadowed by this resolution will, to a great extent, button up veterans legislation. It will indicate that we appreciate the contribution made in the last war by our veterans and all allied personnel.
The recognition now accorded to Canada's merchant seamen is of importance as is that accorded all other categories of persons dealt with. An examination of the reports of the standing committee on veterans affairs over the years will reveal that what is being brought forward by this resolution has been in the minds of hon. members of the Conservative party for many years.


Mr. Granger:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take part briefly in this non-political debate. Before commencing the main body of my remarks I feel I must refer to some of the statements made by the hon. member for York-Sunbury. If I interpreted correctly what the hon. gentlemen said he seems to think the Newfoundland forestry corps is a class beneath the Canadian forestry corps. Certainly he said there is a clear distinction.
In fairness to the Newfoundland foresters I think what they are now about to receive should not be looked upon as something for which they should be grateful, as a form of charity, but as something which they have earned on the basis of their record.
The hon. member also questioned why the Newfoundland foresters were not looked after at the time of confederation under the terms of union. I believe the interests of the Newfoundland foresters would have been cared for at that time had not Colonel Jack Turner, under whose command they were, unfortunately died en route from St. John's to Ottawa to take part in the deliberations of that date.
I particularly wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo who expressed so well how many of us feel. I do not think I should repeat the points he raised but will content myself with saying I endorse his remarks.
I certainly support this resolution but at the same time regret that it does not go sufficiently far as to accord the status of veterans to Newfoundland foresters under the veterans charter. It does represent a step in the right direction.
The province of Newfoundland has always been interested in the foresters, the merchant marine and others. We from Newfoundland have been doing the best we can to look after their interests and although it is not adequate we welcome this resolution.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Chairman I should like to add my words to the remarks of the other hon. members on this important resolution.
Civilian War Pensions
On behalf of my constituents I extend congratulations to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and his staff for their efforts on behalf of the interests of the groups mentioned in the resolution and more particularly for the interest they have shown in the veterans of the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit.
In the last few years in this house we have heard a great deal about the Newfoundland foresters and the splendid contribution made by that unit in world war II. However, at the risk of injecting a partisan note into this amicable discussion I wish to point out to hon. members opposite and especially those who represent Newfoundland constituencies that some of them sat in this chamber for eight years, from 1949 to 1957, without doing anything to correct the great injustice that had been perpetrated upon the veterans of the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit.
The hon. member who just took his seat referred to the fact that this important group of men were omitted from consideration under the terms of the union between Newfoundland and Canada in 1949 by virtue of the fact that their spokesman, Colonel Turner, died en route to Ottawa. I am sure the hon. member who was executive assistant to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for several years and who during part of that time, I believe, was executive assistant to the then secretary of state, I refer to the former member for Bonavista-Twillingate-is quite conversive with the terms of union and the events leading up to the terms of union and events thereafter. Consequently, it came as a bit of a surprise to me to see the hon. member stand up in this house and say that the members of the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit would have received the consideration they deserved in 1949 were it not for the fact that their chief spokesman had died en route to Ottawa. Where was Mr. Smallwood at that time? Where was the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo at that time? He has been in the house since 1949. He is a great spokesman on veterans affairs. Indeed, where was the architect of the terms of union? I refer to the present hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. Where was he at that time?


David Vaughan Pugh: Out in Manitoba.


An hon. Member:: One of the fathers of confederation.


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes, one of the latter day fathers of confederation. I suggest that there were plenty of spokesmen for the foresters around at the time but that they were too busy trying to get out of here as quickly as they could, to consummate the deed of union before Mackenzie King stepped down as prime minister.

Civilian War Pensions


An hon. Member:: They got out in 1957.


James Aloysius McGrath: They were more concerned with that matter than they were with the plight of the Newfoundland forestry unit, the merchant seamen and the other people who have been forgotten throughout the years. For hon. members to stand up in their places during discussion on this resolution and to say that they are sorry the government has not gone far enough, that they are sorry the government has not included the members of the Newfoundland forestry unit under the veterans charter, is something that surprises me. Under the circumstances, bearing in mind their record in all the years during which they did nothing for these people, one would think they would remain quiet in their seats. The other day I was quite surprised by the remarks made by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. At the conclusion of his speech he was asked this question by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary, as found at page 742 of Hansard:


David Vaughan Pugh: I should like to ask the last speaker a question. When did the foresters of Newfoundland first ask that their case be heard by brief or otherwise, and by the Legion or otherwise?


Henry Frank Jones: 1949.


Mr. Carter:: I do not really know when they first asked. I know that they appeared before the parliamentary committee in 1958.
I am sorry that the hon. member is not here. However, I am sure he did not mean to mislead the house or that he did not do so intentionally. The fact is that representations have been made in behalf of the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit in the years prior to confederation and since confederation. As a matter of fact, representations were made to the government of the day by none other personage than the mentor of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, namely Mr. Smallwood himself. I have seen on record letters which the premier had written to the then government in Ottawa asking for some form of recognition of this most deserving group of Canadian citizens. Apparently the appeal fell on deaf ears. From 1953 until 1957, the hon. member who has just taken his seat, namely the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, and the hon. member for Humber-St. George's seem to forget that seven of the seven Newfoundland seats were held by Liberal members. All of the Newfoundland constituencies supported the then government. In those four years nothing was done about the question of the rights of veterans of the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit. I think it ill behooves these hon. members now at this time to rise in their places and say that this government has not gone far enough. The fact is that we have gone 100 per cent further than they went.

What we have done is a 100 per cent improvement over the total neglect of hon. members opposite. Most of the members of the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit reside in the constituencies of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's and the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay Labrador. They are not many in my constituency. What happened to them during these years? I suggest that these hon. members must have been-[DOT]


An hon. Member:: Asleep at the switch.


James Aloysius McGrath: -asleep at the switch. That is about the only way in which you can describe the situation.


Mr. Deschateleis:: Don't take yourself too seriously.


James Aloysius McGrath: I just wish to remind hon. members, especially that great spokesman on veterans affairs, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, that the people of Newfoundland and more particularly the some 3,000 surviving veterans of the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit and their dependants, will not forget the recognition they have received from this government when the time comes to give expression to their views, and will not forget the neglect they suffered at the hands of hon. members opposite. On their behalf I should like to say to the minister that he ought not to be disheartened by the cries from the benches across the floor and should know that the 3,000 surviving members of the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit are satisfied that they have received their just deserts.


Ernest James Broome: I intend to be my usual brief self, Mr. Chairman, and I will take only about three minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Ernest James Broome: I think the Minister of
Veterans Affairs deserves the greatest of credit for the measures he has brought in and which are now on the order paper, and for those which have been passed in previous sessions of this parliament. I should like to congratulate the parliamentary secretary on his interesting talk on the R.A.F. ferry command. Coming as I do from a coastal city my interest naturally has been in the merchant marine. I have been looking back over Hansard of the previous years; and if I were to quote all of the things I have said about the merchant marine I would take a bit more than the three minutes I have allowed myself. However, I will quote from Hansard of February 7, 1961, page 1825, during discussion of the Pension Act, another measure

put through by the minister at that time increasing pensions by some 20 per cent. At that time I stated as follows:
Coming from a coastal city I am keenly interested in this group.
Meaning the merchant seamen.
Knowing that the merchant navy suffered over 25 per cent casualties and that the provisions in the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act are very limited in scope it seems to me our merchant seamen deserve better treatment.
They are now getting better treatment, Mr. Chairman, and with them are these other forces of which we have heard so much from our friends from Newfoundland, namely the firefighters and the other groups named in the resolution. I am a member of the standing committee on veterans affairs. We have met with these people at every session. We have listened to them and I have been impressed by the arguments they have put forward. I believe that the right way to deal with the matter is under this legislation and not under the veterans charter. I am sure this is quite satisfactory to these groups, and it also maintains the difference between those who were in uniform and those who were not. These people did a job and in many cases, particularly the ferry command and the merchant navy, their casualties were higher than in any sector of the armed services. In fact, I believe the merchant navy was called the fourth fighting arm and was decorated by His Majesty King George V. The merchant seamen have long been a forgotten group and now their legitimate demands have been met.
The fact is, Mr. Chairman, and I am speaking in a wholly non-political and unbiased way, that the government has been so busy correcting all the things that were left undone with regard to the services that each session we have been occupied with various amendments and modifications of the veterans charter which were needed because of increased living costs and so on, and I think the minister can now sit back with satisfaction knowing that we have covered fairly all of those people who have come before the veterans affairs committee and who are entitled to the consideration that is now being given them by this house.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I will say what I have to say in two minutes rather than four. If ever a group deserved social justice and has received it, it certainly is the group that is being assisted by the legislation introduced by the Minister of Veterans Affairs. However I think Oliver Twist tactics are sometimes called for, and I should like to present a little problem to the minister that I hope he will be able to solve in order to make the spirit and the purpose of
Civilian War Pensions
this legislation complete. I refer to the fact that the people who are being helped under this resolution do not, as I understand the situation, receive credits under the civil service pension act or the services pension act. In the case of the Canadian firefighters, I believe that there would be 10 to 20 people involved who should but do not receive credits under the civil service pension act or the services pension act. I am sorry I do not have the figures for the other groups, but I hope that the minister and the government will take this into account and really put these people on a footing with the three services.


Charles Ronald McKay Granger: Mr. Chairman, I should
like to speak once again for a moment in order to comment on the frankly political speech made by the hon. member for St. John's East. I should like to refer particularly to his last sentence in which he expressed complete satisfaction with what the government has done. May I point out to him that it has taken him five years to get this action by the government and then only on the eve of an election.
(Translation) :


Mr. Parizeau:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to join all those who preceded me in commending the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill), as well as the government, for having today submitted to us this legislation in favour of civilians who served during the last war, and more particularly in the merchant marine, the transport command and the long forgotten Newfoundland forestry unit.
We just heard opposition members say that such good legislation should not be subject to political partisanship. As some of my colleagues pointed out, veterans and members of those other groups mentioned were entirely forgotten by the Liberal party from 1949 to 1957.
No doubt, they would now like to take credit for this legislation while making no end of promises and stating on the hustings, as the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) did in Vaudreuil-Soulanges last Sunday night, that they are the ones who suggested to this government the measures we are now discussing.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I shall not detain the committee any longer. The matter has been well covered. I simply wanted to make those few remarks and, more particularly, to thank the minister and the government on behalf of all those from Quebec who served in the merchant navy and in the transport command during the last war. (Text):


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Just before the resolution carries, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say

Civilian War Pensions
that I think many of the people who served in the various organizations covered by this legislation will welcome the proposal now being put forward by the government. Some of us have supported from time to time some of the organizations in their efforts, and personally I think it is a matter of regret that they were not recognized much sooner than they have been.
I should like to say a word or two about one of these organizations in particular. I refer to the professional firefighters who served overseas. I believe these men were led to believe that they would be treated in the same way as other persons who served in the armed forces of Canada. Throughout the years they have maintained that they were given some sort of undertaking by General LaFleche and that this undertaking was never fulfilled. They have asked specifically that they be considered as veterans with consequent entitlement to the benefits of the veterans charter and that they be given the right to wear the Canadian volunteer service medal. I think they will appreciate the present bill but will feel that it falls short of what they believe would be justice in their case.
I know the difficulty that the government has in this measure in trying to reconcile the claims of all these organizations, but I think that further consideration might perhaps be given to the firefighters who operated in many cases in danger areas, who did all of the things they were required to do as they would have done had they actually been members of the armed forces, and who feel they have a just grievance. I know that half a loaf is better than none, but I hope that the government will give further consideration to the requests they have received from this and other organizations.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, this is such a lovely resolution that I thought I would be sorry if our party only supported it with one voice, that of the hon. member for Kootenay West. I am rather disturbed to find that it may have an influence in Newfoundland that will conjure up some ill effects for the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I am sure this House of Commons would be very dull without him. I do not know how we would know what days the Prime Minister was in his office and so on.
In the main I think the resolution is one of which the minister can be proud and if, as has been rumoured, he is off to the Senate, I hope he will go with measures such as plus his famous Churchill thesis, so as to leave behind his fame on the House of Commons political scene.
The general part of this legislation as it fits into the larger picture that is complimentary to the government can be seen in my mind
[Mr. Hellyer.f
in the attack that is being marshalled at the present time by certain organizations in the country against the extension of social welfare benefits.
It is being marshalled on a very broad front. Any of the members who have been watching the papers will know that the Canadian chamber of commerce has presented its usual pre-budget brief to the Minister of Finance and Minister of National Revenue and the reports have been headed "Chamber deplores new welfare plan, deficits big enough, chamber raps more social security." I like to feel I am not being facetious or cynical when I say I compliment the government in this particular case, upon a program that is not paying any particular attention to what I can only think is the anachronistic voice of industry that is out of time and place with the march of events. This legislation that we approve of fits in with the other pieces that we approved last week. To me it seems a very worthwhile extension and we are happy to support it.
On a practical note, I gather from some of the hon. members that they look forward to this bill having some political influence, but I know two people, one a former fireman who was in the London blitz, the other a merchant seaman for some years; for whom this act will have little political influence. One is my landlord, the other is a reporter on my hometown paper of whom I am very fond. They are already such loyal Conservatives that this bill will have absolutely no effect on their allegiance.


Henry Frank Jones: Before the resolution carries, I should like to deal with one or two questions. The hon. member for York-Sunbury in his very able remarks raised a question regarding the number involved in the Canadian merchant marine. The figure in connection with the world war I group in the Canadian merchant marine and the group who served in the merchant services of the allies at that time, is around 5,000. The average age of the surviving seamen in this group is thought to be over 80 years. There are now only about 200 potential beneficiaries for allowances, including widows and orphan children of these seamen. Of these perhaps a total of 100 could qualify.
However, in regard to the world war II Canadian merchant marine and the group of Canadians who served with the Canadian allies on certified non-Canadian ships, the situation is a little different. It is estimated there are about 20,000 survivors of these groups, including the widows and orphan children of deceased members, and about 4,000 would now qualify for allow-

ances. But, as the age group of the second world war members of the merchant marine is quite a bit lower, they would not be expected to reach their peak in potential demands on this particular provision at this time.
In regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Port Arthur, I shall satisfy myself with the comment that as the election draws nigh the thoughts of that particular member seem to dwell ever more lovingly on a Senate seat. I do not know whether he will be satisfied in that regard over the years, but I think I can speak for all hon. members in this house when I say we hope the present Minister of Veterans Affairs will remain for years in the position he occupies. He has been a magnificent minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Henry Frank Jones: As I judge the feeling of the house is that it would like to move on to the next item dealing with the children of world war dead, I shall now conclude my remarks.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Churchill thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-64, to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a second time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Next sitting of the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Next sitting of the house. Agreed.



CHILDREN OF WAR DEAD ACT


Gordon Minto Churchill: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act to clarify the definition of "student"; to extend the benefits under the act to certain classes of children; to extend in certain cases the education-assistance period; to extend in the case of particular students the age limit at which all benefits will cease; to accept a student for assistance under the act where his education has been interrupted by ill health or other good cause; and to increase the rate of allowances.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Martineau in the chair.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This resolution, Mr. Chairman, deals with another important act in the veterans charter. This particular act has been in effect since July 1, 1953. It was intended to provide opportunities for advanced education to a child of a member of the forces who lost his life while on service during world war II, or afterwards from a cause deemed to be related to his wartime service, or
Civilian War Pensions
directly attributable to subsequent peacetime service. The children of those who died during the campaign in Korea, or as a result thereof, are also eligible. It was hoped that by this means children would be able to enjoy the academic advantages which their fathers would have endeavoured to give them had they lived.
When the original studies were made it was anticipated that perhaps 1,100 to 1,200 students in all would obtain benefits consisting of allowances payable during the academic year and the payment of annual fees up to a maximum of $500 a year.
The number of children assisted under the act has greatly exceeded the original estimate. Up to December 31 last, 2,541 applications have been approved. Of these students, 694 have completed their courses and 962 are now in training. The most popular university courses have proven to be arts and science, in which 358 students have completed their courses or are still in attendance, and in the field of education, where 309 students have graduated or are now pursuing a course. Large numbers have also enrolled for courses in engineering and applied science, and in commerce and business administration. Numbers of others are in such courses as medicine, theology, social work and agriculture. Over 350 have either completed their courses or are in training in the field of nursing.
This act has thus proven to be a most useful piece of veterans legislation, both for the families it was intended to help and for the country.
The present amendments proposed in the bill are primarily intended to give effect to the government's wish to provide assistance on the basis of the increased expenditures which are now required and to enable to completion of courses which are now cut short because of the limits at present imposed on maximum age and length of period of assistance.
The rate of allowances payable has been in the nature of a supplement to the pension a child receives because of the parent's death. The original allowance was $25 a month during each academic year. In September, 1958 the act was amended to increase the allowance to $60 a month to an entitled student over age 21 where his pension had ceased at that age, thus providing a continuing total income comparable to that received during the period pension was payable. It is only proper that, following the pension increases of last year, the allowances should be amended to keep pace. While a child is in receipt of a pension an additional monthly allowance of $25 is payable during the academic year. When the pension ceases, however, the additional monthly allowance now provided, $35,
794	HOUSE OF
Children of War Dead Act means that the total monthly income of the child is reduced from $79 to $60. It is now proposed to increase the allowance under this act so that when pension ceases the total income during the academic year is not affected. The annual total cost of this amendment is estimated at $71,000.
At present the act provides for a maximum period of assistance of 36 months or four academic years, and further that assistance may not be granted beyond the academic year in which the student attains age 25. A number of cases have come to attention in which a meritorious student has embarked upon a sound educational program requiring university training exceeding four years, such as a course in law or medicine. It does not seem right that such a student should be cut off from assistance while he is only part way through his course and shows promise of being able scholastically to complete it with distinction. It is therefore proposed that the minister have discretion to authorize the extension of the period during which assistance may be granted so that such a student may continue to receive assistance until the completion of an approved course of study which will lead to a definite goal.
There have also been a number of instances in which, through a combination of circumstances, students have been unable to commence their courses, usually for health or economic reasons, by age 21, as at present is generally required. It is therefore proposed, where circumstances warrant, to permit such a student to be enrolled under this act.
Where a student has been delayed in commencing or continuing this higher education it is further proposed to permit him to receive assistance, where these special circumstances and his progress warrant, up to the end of the academic year in which he attains age 30. It is evident that such exceptions to the general principle have considerable merit, as they will enable both the student and this country to benefit to the full from the career for which he is preparing.
There are two or three clarifications proposed in the section of the act defining a student in order to enable assistance to be granted to a number who seem to fall within the original intention of the legislation but through technicalities in the present definition are excluded. These are comparatively small groups who are deprived of benefits because of early marriage or the death of the parent after his married child became 21 years of age. There are one or two other amendments of an administrative nature needed to clarify and simplify the definition of student and the arrangement of the schedule.
That, Mr. Chairman, is an outline of what is intended in the bill which will follow this

resolution. It is obvious from the figures I have given that the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act has been very successful. I think that parliament and former members of the House of Commons who were responsible for this measure may feel quite pleased that 2,500 orphan children have been assisted through this particular act, which has provided the means for them to pursue higher education which would not normally have been available to them.
When one considers the various courses through which they have been passing, and the fact that they do not receive their allowances unless they prove they are capable of continuing the courses, hon. members will appreciate that this has been a very useful piece of legislation, and it is only fitting that orphan children of those who have lost their lives in the defence of our country should receive this type of help. It is only the type of help which, had their fathers lived, they perhaps would have obtained through parental resources, but handicapped by the loss of a parent they then become wards of the state in this connection and I think it is highly creditable to Canada that this provision has been made for these children.
(Translation):


Mr. Roberge:: Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively to the preliminary remarks just made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill), concerning this resolution which appears on the order paper of this day:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act to clarify the definition of "student"; to extend the benefits under the act to certain classes of children; to extend in certain cases the education-assistance period; etc.
The figures given by the minister show well enough how important this legislation was when its sponsors introduced it in this house in 1953.
I noticed that, in the course of his observations, the minister did not make any comments of a political nature. I shall follow his example, because I feel that a measure concerning veterans should be dealt with impartially, and that is what I intend to do.
From what the minister has told us, I understand that the two main bodies of amendments will result in larger assistance for the children of deceased war veterans and pensioners and in a certain extension of the period of assistance to education, especially in the case of those who are completing or have not completed their education at the time they reach the age limit set by this act.
Of course, we reserve the opportunity to discuss the bill in detail on second reading,

after which I suppose this bill will be sent to the standing committee on veterans' affairs. At that time, we shall be more familiar with the provisions of the bill. Its principle seems to be good and we are happy to support it.
(Text):


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, the chamber is so quiet and apparently in such agreement tonight compared with our proceedings a few nights ago, that one would be under the impression that we are attending a Quaker meeting.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Then the Minister of Public Works had the inner light.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: However, the reason for this spirit of unanimity and obvious agreement with respect to this resolution is that its particular purpose is to amend the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act, which has been of such benefit to some 2,500 orphans of veterans who lost their lives in the service of this country. The introduction of this legislation originally must be credited to the former government who listened to representations throughout the years from the Canadian Legion, the National Council of Veterans and a few other groups. There is one thing I want to bring to the attention of this committee in connection with this legislation and it is that from my own personal knowledge as a member of the Royal Canadian Legion it was the teachers who, in particular, brought the necessity for this type of legislation to the attention of the branches. They had knowledge of certain orphans among their pupils who would benefit from such assistance, but who were unable to continue their education because of the financial circumstances which existed at that time.
We were very pleased to listen to what the minister had to say, though his remarks were somewhat technical and I think we would have to read them before being able to digest fully the import of the amendments he proposes. Perhaps we shall have something more to say on second reading. However, to the best of my hearing I did understand the hon. gentleman to say that in the first instance there was to be an amendment to provide for an increase in the allowance which would prevent a reduction of income in certain circumstances. Second, there was to be an extension of assistance under the authority of the minister to meet certain particular circumstances. Third, I understood the minister to say, an amendment would be introduced to permit assistance to students until the academic year when a pupil becomes 30 years of age. Fourth, I understood him to say there
War Service Grants Act was to be some clarification of the present provisions to remove some ambiguities which affect certain small groups. Lastly, I understood him to say there would be certain amendments relating entirely to the improvement of administration.
I am sure that once again we are all in agreement with these proposals to improve this act as a result of experience. There is no question about it-it is the experience of administration throughout the years which has resulted in certain difficulties being brought to the attention of the veterans association in the first instance and, finally, to the government which has then recognized the need for amendments to be introduced. Once again this group is pleased to note that the government has responded to these representations and recognizes the need for the amendments which will be set out in the bill shortly to be before us.


Henry Frank Jones: I think from the tone of the remarks made by the hon. member for Megantic and the hon. member for Kootenay West that the committee is in general agreement that the most useful part of our discussion on this measure might take place when the bill itself is before the house. The amendments are of a somewhat technical nature and perhaps this course would commend itself to hon. members; we might pass this resolution and move forward to the next item which concerns the War Service Grants Act.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Churchill thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-65 to amend the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



WAR SERVICE GRANTS ACT


Gordon Minto Churchill: the second reading of Bill No. C-36 to amend the War Service Grants Act.
He said: The purpose of this bill and the following one which we are to consider, and the bill which I hope to bring in very soon dealing with the Veterans Land Act, is to extend the date of the termination of these acts until 1968.
This one in particular, the War Service Grants Act, was passed during the session of 1944-45 for the purpose of providing veterans and certain dependants with war service gratuities and re-establishment credits. The amounts were based on the length of service and depended on whether service was
79G

War Service Grants Act in this country or outside the western hemisphere. The benefits of the act are also available to those who took part in the campaign in Korea.
Up to December 31, 1961 the gratuities which were paid because of service during world war II amounted to a total of $470,056,000 and the total paid on account of special force service in Korea amounted to $6,695,000. The last annual report of the department, which was tabled the other day, shows that during the fiscal year 1960-61 nearly $10,000 in world war II gratuities were paid and about $900 arising from the action in Korea. The recent experience of the department indicates that there are still a number of veterans both of world war II and Korea who have not yet applied for their gratuities. The present deadline for the receipt of applications for gratuities is September 30 of this year.
Up to December 31,	1961 a total of
$309,369,000 world war II re-establishment credits has been paid and $3,704,000 as a result of service in Korea. At that time there were still 65,475 world war II veterans who had not received all of their credit, the outstanding total of which amounted to $10,264,000, an average amount of some $157. There were still 2,098 veterans with service in Korea who had an outstanding amount of credit of some $314,000. The present period during which a world war II veteran may apply for his credit expires on September 30, 1962 while the period available to a veteran Of Korea expires in 1968. The department has found that for the nine months ending December 31, 1961 there were 12,478 world war II credits approved for a total of $1,367,000 and during the same period 834 credits payable because of service in Korea were made available for a total of some $67,000. It is thus apparent that unless the period during which credits are available is extended, a great many veterans will not have a suitable opportunity to use their credits wisely or, indeed, will not be able to use them at all.
The major proposal contained in this bill is, therefore, the extension of the period during which application may be made for unpaid war service gratuity and outstanding re-establishment credit.
It is proposed to extend the period in each instance as it relates both to service during world war II or during the campaign in Korea, until October 31, 1968. Such an extended period should give an ample opportunity for the comparatively small number of veterans who have not yet received their war service gratuities to apply for them and provide sufficient time for the much larger


group of veterans to decide on the best way in which their remaining credit can be usefully employed.
Another amendment, which is of a technical nature, would allow veterans who have had their re-establishment credits frozen because of an application for benefits under the Veterans Land Act to have one year after the application is withdrawn or their qualification cancelled in which to apply for the use of their credits. At present such a one year period is available only where a contract has been actually made with the director and subsequently terminated. The effect of this amendment will, of course, not be felt until the normal period of availability expires, but will at that time prove to be a most useful provision.
There are also a few administrative amendments, two of which relate to the reservation of re-establishment credit for specific purposes; that is, the payment of premiums on veterans insurance and as a condition of qualification under the Veterans Land Act.
In summing up, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill before the house is to extend the terminal date to October 31, 1968.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I will speak briefly on second reading of this bill after listening to the minister's explanatory remarks.
As one who was a member of the parliamentary committee on veterans affairs in 1945, I think it is interesting to note that after a period of 17 years we are amending an act which has proved most successful. Toward the conclusion of world war II committees of both the federal and provincial governments gave some study and consideration to the rehabilitation of veterans returning from the war. Veterans organizations often discussed this matter in their branches and at provincial and federal conventions and subsequently made representations to the government. I remember clearly the myriad suggestions put forward at that time by organizations and persons who were seriously concerned with the introduction of sound legislation that would work to the advantage of veterans whose welfare was being considered.
I think it must be with some degree of satisfaction that hon. members who were in the house at that time look back to the period over which this act has been in operation. It requires very minor amendments today.
We are pleased the government of that day accepted some of the recommendations put forward by parliamentary committees and advanced by veterans organizations. If I remember correctly the bill was a composite of the large number of suggestions made. I

am sure it is correct to say that the government through this act pioneered an entirely new approach to the question of veterans rehabilitation.
I am glad the act is to be extended to October 31, 1968. On a number of occasions we have advanced the date of application of an act a few years and an amending bill had to be introduced extending it another two or three years. I think it is wise to take one bite of the cherry in dealing with legislation of this type instead of adopting a piecemeal approach.
The extended date will provide ample time for all those coming within the terms of the legislation to secure the benefits to which they are entitled.
When we reach the committee stage we will have questions to ask the minister concerning the meaning of certain phrases, clauses and so on.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, is it the intention of the minister to refer this bill to the standing committee on veterans affairs?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Speaker. I would prefer to see it carried through the committee of the whole house this evening. As I say, the main purpose is simply the extension of the terminal date.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Martineau in the chair.
On clause 1-Purposes jor and time within which available.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As a matter of curiosity, Mr. Chairman, would the minister inform the committee what caused the government to come to the conclusion that October 31, 1968 was the appropriate date for the extension of this act?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I thought it would be very useful to leave any further change in this act to my successor.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the minister mind explaining exactly what is meant by the reference in subclause (2) to subsection (2) of section 49 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member looks at the opposite page he will find that it used to be called the Royal Canadian Mounted Police act. It has been revised and has a new title.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Veterans Insurance Act
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time, by leave now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Next sitting.



VETERANS INSURANCE ACT


Gordon Minto Churchill: the second reading of Bill No. C-37, to amend the Veterans Insurance Act.
He said: The Veterans Insurance Act became effective in February, 1945. It provides an opportunity to secure life insurance protection with a very low medical standard. It was designed particularly to enable veterans who had lost insurability during world war II to provide an insurance estate.
Insurance is also available to widows of those who died on service during the war. It is also available to merchant seamen who were eligible to receive a special bonus or a war service bonus.
The benefits of the act have been extended to those who saw service in Korea, and their widows.
The original period of eligibility expired three years after discharge from service or the effective date of the act which was February 20, 1945. This period was extended by a further three years and then an additional four years. In 1958 eligibility was reopened for a period expiring on September 30, 1962. From 1955 to 1958 it was available to those with unused re-establishment credit.
Up to December 31, 1961 there were 51,772 applications received for a total amount of $167,971,500. Up to that date there were 49,960 policies issued for a total face amount of $161,052,000. There were 3,045 death claims received for a total amount of $8,523,567. On December 31 there were 30,848 policies in force for a total amount of $96,876,349.
The present proposal is to extend the period of eligibility from September 30, 1962, to October 31, 1968, both for those who became eligible because of service during world war II or during the campaign in Korea.
Applications for this insurance are still coming in at an average of 125 to 130 a month.
This extension will be of particular value to those veterans who have recently assumed family responsibilities or are now becoming able to afford life insurance protection for the members of their families. This extension should provide an opportunity to secure protection for several thousand veterans whose circumstances would not have enabled them to provide it before the present expiry date.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: should just like to say once again that this is another sound piece of legislation that was considered in 1945, although at the time the principle of the legislation was opposed by some interests in Canada, and in other cases its soundness was questioned by persons who thought that by applying, shall I say, very low medical standards, some risk would be involved in the legislation. However, once again experience has proved the value of this legislation to a large number of veterans and their dependants in Canada.
As far as this group is concerned, we hope governments in the near future, as a result of the experience with this type of legislation, will make it possible for the population in general to enjoy the advantages of, as Churchill once said, bringing the magic of the law of averages to the rescue of the millions. I just wish to explain that I was not referring to the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Martineau in the chair.
On clause 1.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should just like to ask the minister whether the reason for deciding on October 31, 1968, as the date for the termination of this extension is the same as the one he gave to the house under the War Service Grants Act.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes. The reason is exactly the same.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I simply wish to say this. I am very glad indeed to know that the veterans of Canada will benefit on this occasion from the minister's optimism.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thought he was very pessimistic.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Next sitting.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Next sitting of this house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Shall we call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, no; we must not waste any time.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If you would like to do so, Mr. Speaker, we could carry on with order No. 13 on today's order paper.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY AUTHORITY ACT AMENDMENT TO INCREASE AUTHORITY TO BORROW

Léon Balcer: that house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act to provide that the authority, with the approval of the governor in council, may from time to time borrow money from Her Majesty or otherwise to an aggregate that shall not at any time exceed $345,000,000 in lieu of $335,000,000 which it is already authorized to borrow by section 13 of the act.


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


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In view of the fact that it is two or three minutes to ten o'clock, I suggest that it is unfair to the minister to ask him to commence his statement at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We might have finished it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Let us call it ten o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Let us hear what the minister has to say.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Martineau in the chair.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister make a statement?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Balcer thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-66, to amend the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire from the house leader what the business will be for tomorrow and Wednesday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: 
[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 13, 1962