1964-04-21

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call your attention and the attention of members of the house to the presence in the Speaker's gallery of the right hon. Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, Dr. Williams, members of his cabinet, the high commissioner and staff members.
I am sure all members of this house will wish to give the warmest possible welcome to Dr. Williams and his party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We welcome the Prime Minister, not only as prime minister but as one who has achieved great personal distinction in the fields of scholarship, of education and international service as well as politics. We welcome him as the dynamic leader of a new, dynamic free state in the Caribbean and in the commonwealth of nations. Canada has long had warm and friendly contacts with Trinidad and Tobago and with the British Caribbean colonies, some of which are now independent states in the commonwealth, and it is our policy to strengthen those contacts in every way possible. I believe that the visit of our friends from Trinidad and Tobago will be helpful in that respect.
I hope their stay in Canada, though short, will be a pleasant one. I am confident that it will promote even closer co-operation between our two countries in the commonwealth of nations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I join the right hon. Prime Minister in welcoming the right hon. Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago. Indeed, it is rather an unusual occasion when two members of Her Majesty's privy council welcome a third member on Her Majesty's birthday. It emphasizes something of the importance, alluded to by the Prime Minister, of the commonwealth relationship.
Indeed, as one who through the years has been an avowed follower of the commonwealth principle, it is well that prime ministers of various parts of the commonwealth should meet together. I was attending the prime ministers' conference when the right hon. Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago made his initial appearance there. He is one who has given outstanding leadership in his country; one who all of us are proud to recognize as a leader of one of the newer members of the commonwealth and one of the older in the old empire. He comes with a mission, one that will receive the support of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. We believe that the commonwealth should be strengthened in every way possible and that every assistance that the older members of the commonwealth can give to the newer members to start them along the road to economic strength will be acceptable to all members of the commonwealth.
I join with the Prime Minister in welcoming not only Dr. Williams but also the members of his cabinet who are with him. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the people of Trinidad and Tobago that the Canadian people are proud to be associated with a nation with so traditionally fine a democratic history.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party wish to associate themselves with the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in extending a word of welcome to the right hon. Dr. Williams, Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, and the party accompanying him here today. We are pleased to have them here in Canada, and we trust that their visit will make for a closer relationship between our respective countries.
We in this party have been urging throughout the years that Canada take a more active part in promoting economic development programs, particularly in less developed areas of the world. Instead of scattering our assistance over a wide area it has often seemed to me that one of the most effective things we could do would be for Canada to adopt the Caribbean area, and particularly that part of the Caribbean area that is in the commonwealth. We have common interests and a common adherence to parliamentary institutions, and we could work closely together to help develop that area. I trust that the visit of the Prime

Visitors in Gallery
Minister of Trinidad and Tobago will lay the foundation for such a program of mutual help and assistance.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it is with genuine pleasure that we join the entire membership of this house in welcoming the right hon. Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, Dr. Williams, and the members of his party who are with him. As one who is personally familiar with the general Caribbean area I can say that the friendly relationships which are now developing again in a more intensive way between Canada and our sister commonwealth countries in the Caribbean area are not only a challenge but a means of strengthening our dual roles in this western hemisphere. My mind goes back to the days when the "Lady" boats did so much to bring us closer together, and now with air connections established we are within a few hours journey of each other. Certainly the neighbourly responsibilities and friendships which exist between us can be developed in the immediate years ahead to a greater potential than ever before.
Therefore we welcome the presence of our distinguished friends and neighbours with us here this afternoon and trust that their visit will be one of much benefit.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, we wish to join with the other members of the house to extend the warmest welcome to the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago.
There is talk about trade between the commonwealth countries. Well, trade relations with that country in particular can be very warm because it is a land of bright sunshine and beautiful waters, especially during those months when snow is plentiful in our own country.
Such trade could benefit our two countries. I feel that today in particular the understanding between the countries of the British commonwealth, which work together to maintain peaceful and friendly relations, can set an example to the other countries and make it easier for the whole world to achieve the understanding and harmony which exist within the commonwealth.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. James Forgie (Renfrew North) presented the first report of the standing committee on veterans affairs, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition has reminded us that this is Her Majesty's birthday. In joining as I am sure we all do in good wishes and congratulations on this day and the old desire for many happy returns, it seems appropriate that I should be in a position to make an announcement regarding a meeting of commonwealth prime ministers in London.
Hon. members will recall that after the visit to Ottawa of the British prime minister in mid February I said that we had had some talks about the possibility of a commonwealth prime ministers' meeting some time next summer. On March 30 I informed the house of my understanding that formal invitations for such a meeting were being sent out. It has now been agreed by all concerned-with one exception, Zanzibar, which has not yet replied-that the meeting should take place from July 8 to July 15. An announcement to this effect is also being made today in the British parliament in London.


John George Diefenbaker: I am very happy to learn that the meeting has now been specifically designated for July. I speak on behalf of all of us in the house when I wish the Prime Minister, as the representative for Canada, every good wish in discharging the great responsibilities that will come to him in that capacity at that conference.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General) moved: 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 amend the National Housing Act, 1954,
(a) to provide further assistance to provinces and municipalities carrying out urban renewal programs by authorizing Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the corporation") to make contributions and loans to provinces or municipalities to assist them in meeting the costs of such programs, and for this purpose to provide for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of amounts not exceeding in the aggregate one hundred million dollars:
(f>) to authorize the corporation to make loans and to insure loans made by approved lenders to owners of existing houses in areas included in urban renewal programs;

(c)	to authorize the corporation to make loans and contributions to provincially or municipally owned housing agencies for constructing or acquiring public housing projects and operating such projects, and to authorize the corporation to contribute a portion of the operating losses on any such projects that provide subsidized housing accommodation to individuals or families of low income;
(d)	to permit federal-provincial public housing projects to include existing housing and hostel or dormitory type housing accommodation;
(e)	to authorize the corporation to make loans to non-profit organizations to assist in the acquisition or construction of housing accommodation for individuals or families of low income;
(/) to authorize the corporation to make loans to co-operative associations and charitable corporations to assist in the construction of accommodation for university students and their families and to increase from one hundred million dollars to one hundred and fifty million dollars the maximum amount that may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund for this purpose;
(g)	to authorize the corporation to make loans to provinces to assist in the construction or expansion of sewage treatment projects and to authorize the corporation to forgive repayment of 25 per cent of the principal and interest on any loans made to provinces or municipalities for this purpose in respect of work completed by March 31, 1967;
(h)	to increase from two billion dollars to two and one half billion dollars the maximum charge on the consolidated revenue fund for direct loans by the corporation;
(i)	to provide for the establishment of a special account in the consolidated revenue fund out of which amounts not exceeding in the aggregate one hundred million dollars may be advanced to the corporation for the making of loans to the holders of mortgages issued in respect of loans insured under the act and for the purchase by the corporation of mortgages issued to secure such loans;
(j)	to increase the loan ratio for insured loans made to home owners and builders; and
(Jc) to provide for certain changes in the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of press reports to the effect that an attack was made on the commanding officer of the Canadian contingent of the United Nations force in Cyprus. I should like to ask him whether, in view of this, representations have been made to President Makarios, since he represents a nation also within the commonwealth, giving to the president the viewpoint that Canadians are not at all pleased with conduct such as this and asking for his undertaking that so far as possible he will afford protection against further actions of the kind.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: As soon as this report appeared the government asked, through the United Nations authorities and particularly the United Nations commander, for a full report on the incident. As soon as that report has been received I will make a further statement in the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister say whether or not, in view of the fact that Cyprus is a member of the commonwealth, direct representations should be made as well to the president of that country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think that would be an appropriate course to follow if the information we receive justifies representations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Prime Minister whether press reports are correct to the effect Archbishop Makarios has agreed to extend the powers of the United Nations force beyond mere self protection to keep a neutral zone clear, and if so have instructions to the United Nations force been clarified to that effect by the secretary general of the United Nations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, a report has also been requested on that newspaper report. I do not think it would be wise for me to comment on it until we get the exact facts as to what happened; then we will be glad to make a statement.


Mr. W. B. Nesbili (Oxford):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Has the government, as reported in the press, reached a decision to continue the Canadian force in Cyprus after the three month period, and have negotiations been entered into with the secretary general toward the ultimate financing of the force?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. No decision has been made yet on either of these points but a decision will be made, of course, before the three month period elapses and will be communicated to the house.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieife- L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs?
Does the minister intend to impress upon the United Nations, at the next assembly, that the cost of Canadian troops stationed in Cyprus should be shared by all U.N. members?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Although the question is obviously very important and also very interesting, nevertheless I think it is a question for the order paper.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I gave notice to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: I beg your pardon? Did I understand the hon. member to say he gave notice?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, you have said that this is a question for the order paper, and I think the matter of whether I should reply must be decided by you. You have said it is not a question that should be answered orally, although it is true that the hon. member did give me notice of his question.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the instructions given to me by the house, which I have here and on which I am glad to rely, such questions are (a) to be asked only in respect of matters of sufficient urgency and importance as to require an immediate answer. That was the reasoning behind my suggestion that the question should be put on the order paper.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice to the house that I shall discuss this matter after ten o'clock tonight.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Labour?
Could the minister give the house a progress report on the investigation and the work carried out by his department concerning the extension of the winter works program after April 30 in designated areas, as he announced one or two weeks ago?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I hope to give a definite answer to that question tomorrow.


INCOME TAX
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the numerous letters I have received from my constituents, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue.


Could he tell us whether officers from the income tax offices have been instructed to disregard the regulation authorizing taxpayers to claim a deduction not exceeding 10 per cent of their income for charity donations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must decide that this also is a question for the order paper.


CANADIAN FLAG
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coaies (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister assure the house that before a new flag design is adopted by the government the said design will be placed before parliament for adoption, and not forced on the Canadian people by order in council?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already dealt with that specific question.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the Prime Minister would reiterate what he has said previously.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I said that the rights of parliament would be maintained in this important matter.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister could give us any assurance with regard to the stories, of which we are all aware, about the trial balloon involving a flag with three maple leaves, and whether or not this was directed by his office.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have said already, Mr. Speaker, that stories to this effect were speculative.


Robert Carman Coates: Will the Prime Minister say whether or not the new flag design will be placed before the House of Commons for consideration?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the Prime Minister tell the country who is speculating?


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend's friends.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I asked a supplementary question. The Canadian people should know whether the government is willing to place this design before the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In these circumstances it seems to me the Prime Minister has attempted to answer the question this afternoon.


Robert Carman Coates: Then I give notice, Mr. Speaker, that I will debate this matter on the adjournment.


INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, and ask him whether the distinctive badge he is wearing today is being sent out to encourage people to sign up for their social security numbers.


Mr. Speaker:: I really cannot see the immediate urgency of this question.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Now that the national pension plan has become a Lesage plan rather than the LaMarsh plan, will the Prime Minister be accepting the resignation of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who promised in a speech before the National Press club to resign if her plan were rejected or even altered?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


INQUIRY AS TO HOLDING OF BY-ELECTIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid  Scoll@Danforlh: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Prime Minister. In view of the widespread interest, is the Prime Minister able to give the dates of the by-elections in Saskatoon and Nipissing?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in order to ensure that this matter will not be put on at 10.20 tonight, I would like to inform my hon. friend that no decision has yet been reached.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the acceptance by the government in its announcement yesterday of the principle that pensions, after they are started, should be increased according to the cost of living index, will the government consider legislation at this session to raise the pensions of retired civil servants?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not quite sure on which subsection this decision should rest, but in order to be sure I am going to use every subsection.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of standing order 39(5) I give notice that I will raise this question on the adjournment tonight.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I with respect, Mr. Speaker, ask for your guidance in regard to one aspect of this new procedure. When these matters are raised for discussion after ten o'clock, under the new rules is it obligatory for a minister to be present, or can his parliamentary secretary be here?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that if the Prime Minister will read the standing orders for which he expressed approval yesterday, he will find that either a minister or a parliamentary secretary may be present.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, I raise a question concerning a promise which the Minister of Transport made a few days ago, that he would look into the matter respecting the deal between TransAir and T.C.A. Can he inform the house what action the government has taken to date to see that TransAir and T.C.A. are in fact living up to the terms of the agreement?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member that he put this question on the order paper.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Webster (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Has the government yet made a final decision on the recommendation of the Gill commission that teachers and school boards be required to make contributions to the unemployment insurance fund?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been reached with respect to the coverage of any additional class within the unemployment insurance fund.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: As a
supplementary question to the Minister of Labour, does the government propose to introduce other legislation which has to do with the many excellent recommendations of the Gill commission?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Unfortunately for the hon. member, this comes under subsection (f) which says "not raise a matter of policy too large to be dealt with as an answer to a question," and also I might add for greater sufficiency subsection (a); questions to "be asked only in respect of matters of sufficient urgency and importance as to require an immediate answer."



URANIUM-INQUIRY AS TO ALTERNATIVE MARKETS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Hasiings-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry I would like to direct this question to the Prime Minister, who has a keen interest in the matter. In view of the announced cut-backs in uranium stockpiling by the governments of the United States and Great Britain, has the government been successful in obtaining alternative markets elsewhere for Canadian uranium, in order to avoid the shut down of Canadian uranium mines?


Mr. Speaker:: This surely is a question for the order paper, even though it is a very important one.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. When will the minister have a statement for us on the new tax arrangements, of which we were given a little bit of information yesterday, from the point of view of his department?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I was not here yesterday but I read Hansard, and I thought a very complete statement was made by the Prime Minister. I do not know what further details my hon. friend might have in mind, except those that will be incorporated in the necessary legislation.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Could the Minister of Finance tell us what will be the amount of the accrued deficit following the changes announced yesterday regarding the new tax arrangements?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not see how the minister could possibly be expected to answer that question on orders of the day.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, in view of the new procedure, I ask that this question be considered on the adjournment tonight.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, but in his absence I shall address it to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Now that we are two and a half weeks beyond the date set by the Minister of National Defence for the appointment of the special committee on defence matters, may I ask when we may anticipate the appointment of the committee?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Soon, Mr. Speaker.


Harold Edward Winch: As a supplementary, since it has taken two and a half weeks to get a definite answer, what does "soon" mean?



ROYAL VISIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question. Should it be found to be out of order, I will not submit it to the house at ten o'clock this evening.
Does a federal member who has taken the oath of allegiance to the Queen have the right to take part in revolutionary caucuses dedicated to the creation of a Quebec state and which has as one of its aims to oppose the Queen's visit to Canada? If not, should such a member be asked to resign?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minisier of Justice):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I must interrupt. This is asking for a legal opinion and, even if it were not, I must admit I could not understand the purport of the question.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the fact that in 1962 an act was passed by parliament making provision for the building of a railway in Gaspe peninsula, does the government intend to renew this act before it expires on December 31, 1964?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question for the order paper.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put off that question until after ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: May I at this point suggest to hon. members that if they wish to debate these questions later on they must give notice by five o'clock today.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the welcome statement the hon. gentleman made to the Canadian Labour Congress convention in Montreal this morning that a labour code would be introduced at this session of parliament, can he say what the date of that introduction will be?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, but we hope to get it on the order paper as quickly as possible.

The house resumed, from Monday, April 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Favreau (for the Minister of Finance) for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Churchill.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: When the house adjourned at ten o'clock last night I was speaking on the amendment to the supply motion with regard to the take-over by provincial or other authorities of the D.V.A. hospitals. I was making three points.
Veterans Hospitals Transfer
The first was that the minister gave an undertaking that before any change in the control or use of these hospitals was brought about this whole matter would be referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs. Second, his undertaking was that before any change was made in this regard he would refer the matter to the veterans associations both provincial and federal.
I now charge the minister with having misled not only the house but the public in this regard, and I say this because in the first place, the matter has not been referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs and, in the second place, he has not consulted with the federal president of the Legion or with other veterans organizations. I hold in my hand an article which appeared in the Calgary Herald of April 16 last stating that the Colonel Belcher hospital auxiliary association has asked the minister for a definite statement of policy on the future use of military hospitals and expressed its alarm, in a letter to the minister over this proposal to reorganize veterans hospital services.
I wish to make our position clear. Our position is hands off these hospitals. The position taken by hon. gentlemen opposite appears to be "Hands on these hospitals but keep the matter secret". We have heard talk lately about the new open diplomacy. Does the government intend to come forward in the last 24 hours and say it has only been negotiating as far as this question is concerned? Is this in accordance with the new point of view about open diplomacy?
I say to the minister that he has an obligation to the House of Commons and to every veteran in Canada to come clean on this subject and tell us where his government stands on this matter. Judging by the answers he has given to questions so far, he knows that during the last two months there have been negotiations under way with reference to transferring control of these hospitals to the provincial or municipal level. I charge him again with having been wishy-washy in his answers and in his decisions with reference to this subject. In fact there is a conflict between the position he took and the position taken by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister assured us that there would be no change in control. If it turns out that this means that the title is to remain with the department though the actual use goes to the provinces, if this is what "no change in control" means, I think we are merely playing with words. The house and the country are entitled to know what is taking place. I charge the minister with deliberately deceiving the veterans in this regard.

Veterans Hospitals Transfer


Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not my intention this afternoon to engage in a debate the like of which we have just heard. I think this subject is much too important for that, and I have serious doubts about anyone who suggests that any other member of this house would act with any intent to deceive either the House of Commons or the veterans of Canada.
The mover of this amendment yesterday repeatedly stated that a serious problem did exist in the administration of our D.V.A. hospitals. In fact he admitted that as far back as 1959 there was a recognition of this developing problem. I believe he said that when he was minister he decided to wait for the report of the Glassco commission before making a decision. As a result of that report he stated then, as was stated a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Bow River, that the policy was hands off the D.V.A. hospitals. I think that is a clearcut statement, and I do not quarrel with it.
However, all hon. members who are familiar with the hearings before the veterans affairs committee last year and all those who have spoken in this debate recognize that there is a serious problem in the administration of these hospitals. I do not intend to debate that fact, because I believe we can take it that the existence of the problem has been recognized. The mover of the amendment recognized it. The hon. member for Kootenay West recognized it. Perhaps I might also quote from the report which the committee made last year; this is recommendation number 12:
Your committee is aware that a point has been reached where a decision must be made regarding treatment service in both areas of responsibility and administration.
Your committee recommends that the fullest consultation be carried out with veterans organizations before any changes are made.
I think it may be useful at this stage to outline what the problem is. It is one which has been developing because of the increasing case load in our hospitals of long term and chronic illness with the result that we are no longer able to bring to bear on the treatment of veterans in our hospitals the kind of medical services which are available to the general community outside. This is aggravated, of course, by the fact that there is a shortage of professional staff throughout the country, and when medical people and nurses have a choice between our hospitals and others they naturally gravitate to those hospitals which can offer the broadest opportunities.
Among other things that have occurred is this. The Royal College of Physicians have [Mr. Woolliams.l
downgraded our hospitals in terms of facilities for teaching. Ten years ago a large number of medical people graduated after taking three year courses at our hospitals, but these facilities have now been downgraded because the case load at our hospitals does not supply the kind of cases which are of interest to professionals. Thus we are faced with circumstances which will prevent us, if our hospitals remain as they are, from providing for the veteran population the kind of medical treatment which every one of us would agree our veterans are entitled to receive.
So, facing this problem, what do we do about it? I do not think there is any point in saying that we just carry on. That was one of the alternatives, among many, that we faced. What do we do about this? How do we face this problem? Certainly one of the alternatives is "Do nothing; we will just carry on this way". Another alternative was certainly the recommendation of the Glassco commission. But if we read the recommendation of the Glassco commission, what does it recommend? It recommends that we gradually move our veteran patients from the hospitals, and its final recommendation reads as follows:
Active treatment hospitals now operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs, when cleared, be sold and converted into community hospitals under transfer agreements providing preferential admission rights for veterans with pensionable disabilities.
I can understand why the previous minister turned that down, because that recommendation is unacceptable; it would be impossible to really do a job of work. In effect it would mean a continuation of the downgrading of our hospitals until we moved our veteran patients elsewhere, and then ridding ourselves of the buildings.
Another alternative has been suggested. It is curious to note, Mr. Speaker, that in all the letters I have received, with the exception of two or three very thoughtful letters, the central problem was ignored. In some of these thoughtful letters it was said-and I have heard others make this recommendation -we could have opened our doors to the general public and therefore have brought into these hospitals the kind of patient case load which would enable us to bring into the hospitals the kind of medical people, professional staff, that would enable us to discharge our responsibilities adequately. That was an alternative that was looked at, but here we were moving into an area where constitutional difficulties would have arisen, because we would be moving into a strictly provincial field. The administration of hospitals is not within the prerogative of the federal government. There is no question about operating

our veterans hospitals; that is recognized and accepted, but the operation of hospitals for the general community is a provincial matter. I think we must accept and recognize that, particularly in the climate of today, we would have invited a controversy and difficulties here which would have made the treatment of our veterans even more difficult.
Then, of course, there was another alternative that suggested itself. That was the alternative I spoke of in the statement I made the other day; that where possible, and with adequate safeguards, we might be able to reach agreement with appropriate authorities whereby we would transfer the operation of a hospital into what I will call, for want of a better word, civilian hands; whereby we could have available in that hospital the highest possible standard of medical treatment that was available in the community; and within that hospital guarantee for ourselves enough space and beds to ensure that the department would carry out its responsibilities. In the statement I gave to the house the other day I laid down several conditions. I said:
At this point I would like to make it unequivocally and emphatically clear that no such agreements will be entered into by the government unless certain sine Qua non conditions are met. These conditions.. .are as follows: First, accommodation for the treatment of service connected disabilities among veterans must be immediately available at all times, and treatment must be provided in accordance with standards prescribed by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
We have some experience in this field. We have a situation in Saskatoon, for instance, where this exists; where the federal government made a grant to the university hospital and where enough beds are reserved with top priority for the Department of Veterans Affairs in order that it may discharge its duties. I do not think anyone will complain about the kind of treatment our veterans are receiving in that hospital. There is space provided for our people within the hospital and this, of course, we would ensure. We would have to have an absolute the premises, in order that the veterans Affairs would decide who should be admitted to the priority beds, when they would be discharged. Our staff would be available on the premises, in order that the veterans would report to the Department of Veterans Affairs staff. In other words we would retain complete and thorough control of the treatment of our veterans.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, would the minister answer a question at this stage?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Yes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The question briefly is this. Supposing that hospital in question had
Veterans Hospitals Transfer all its beds filled by people other than veterans; what would happen to the veterans?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: This is precisely why we must have an iron-clad guarantee. We would decide up to a top number of beds that we would reserve and which would be adequate for our purposes, and we would decide the use to be made of those beds. If such a situation should occur, then the veteran would have a bed even at the risk of moving someone else out of it.


Mr. Churchill:: Where would you move them to?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, where would you move them to; the street?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: This actually happens in Saskatoon; it works, and we know it works. The agreement is respected. I suggest to the house that in this instance we have the best medical service available to our veterans that is available to the community of Saskatoon. What is being suggested here is that people with whom we enter into an agreement are not responsible enough to respect it. I am sure that is not really a responsible statement, because we have experience of this kind of thing. We are not going to enter into an agreement with any group or body that is unreliable or will not respect the agreement that is entered into.
I would like to recall that when I made the statement the other day I also said this:
It is therefore the view of this government that the operational control of veterans hospitals should be transferred to non-federal agencies at times, in places, and under conditions which will best protect the standards of care to which veterans are entitled.
I readily admit that one of the difficulties that exists in this area is that the problem is quite different with each of the areas in Canada where hospitals are situated, and it is impossible to prescribe a set series of conditions which would apply in all cases. In this context, Mr. Speaker, may I say this regarding my agreeing to accept and respect the recommendations of the committee with respect to consultation with veterans organizations. It has seemed to me that rather than consulting, say, the dominion command or the veterans affairs committee in Ottawa we would be in a much better position if we were to consult the veterans who best know the area involved. In this instance I suggest we consult the veterans in the provincial command, who would best know the area, the conditions and the circumstances. In that regard I very much doubt whether in all the circumstances it will be possible to consult with the entire groupings, as I suggested previously, but we can certainly

Veterans Hospitals Transfer talk to the provincial command in the area of the hospital under discussion at the moment. That is a perfectly valid point, and we have undertaken to respect that recommendation. I interpret it in that light because surely that is where we will receive the best advice.
The question of when this consultation will take place is again a pretty difficult one, because until we reach the stage where we have a series of concrete proposals with conditions laid down and a draft document prepared, so that we can answer the questions which will be asked and have something specific to go on, I do not think we are in a position to consult intelligently.
As I indicated when answering questions in the course of my earlier statements, we have had proposals from a number of authorities. These are people who have written to us and suggested that they think they could meet the conditions that we have laid down. Before going further with the matter it would be necessary for my officials to take a look at the situation which these people were proposing. It would be necessary for these authorities to meet and discuss the details of the conditions we would require, so that we would be in a position to discuss more intelligently with the veterans organizations what we proposed to do.
I repeat, because I think it is extremely important, that it is my view that the standard of care to which veterans are entitled must be maintained, and that is the whole objective of this exercise, and we will retain control. In the one instance, that is true, that we have reached the stage where we are preparing the draft of an agreement in order to see whether these people are prepared to meet conditions which will satisfy us.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What are the terms of that agreement? What are you actually doing? Cannot you disclose that?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I will be in a position to disclose that when the draft is complete.


Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelsioke):: That will be too late.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Well, I will not indulge in that argument. Until the draft is completed surely it will be of little practical value to sit down and discuss it. When the draft is completed we will then have something concrete and specific, and will be in a position to discuss the question with these people and make the necessary changes if they are required. I think that is the proper way to proceed. After all, if our conditions cannot be met then we will have to look to other means, and that is going to be extremely difficult. The basis of this
[Mr. TeiUet.I
entire matter, I repeat, is the quality of medical services provided to our veterans.


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


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Yes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In view of the statement of the minister, a statement I have heard repeated and about which there has been some argument on that side of the house, why is it that I repeatedly run into cases-I am speaking of my personal experience in this matter -of veterans who are sent to Shaughnessy from the interior because they are told they can get better treatment for their disability there than they can at the local hospital? I have had one case brought to my attention this week.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: That is true in many of our hospitals today, but this is the standard which we want to maintain. Unfortunately this high standard is not true of all our hospitals, but in many of our hospitals today we still have a very high quality medical service. I thank my hon. friend for asking me that question, because it does permit me to underline the fact that we still have excellent staff in our hospitals. But recruiting is becoming more and more difficult, and before we reach the stage where that standard has deteriorated we feel we should take whatever action is necessary in order to put an end to the deterioration which we see coming in the near future.
While I am on that subject perhaps I might remove another misunderstanding with regard to the so-called empty beds in our hospitals. With very minor exceptions-and those exceptions are a result of staff problems-our hospitals are carrying patients at a capacity which is considered normal for a hospital. Our case loads run at an average of 75 per cent to 80 per cent capacity. So it is not a question of empty beds; it is a matter of the kind of patient we have in our hospitals. That is where the difficulty lies. We have a large percentage of chronic, long term care cases; in fact the average across the country of that type of case now runs to about 75 per cent, and therein lies our problem. Before any decision is taken, quite apart from the treatment factor involved, we have to make very sure that the veterans now in those hospitals and others who may come after them-long term, chronic cases-have adequate attention and facilities. That is another complicating factor. We must make sure that these people are looked after. They need medical attention. They do not need active treatment, but they do need medical attention.
Therefore-and this was the second condition in the statement I made the other day- we must assure ourselves that these facilities

are both in existence and are available to us. The hon. member who moved this amendment referred to construction programs last year. In Saskatoon we are providing this kind of facilities so as to make sure these people are looked after and removed from the kind of buildings in which they are presently housed; and that program is continuing. If hon. members were to study each case across Canada they would find there are as many variations in conditions as there are hospitals, and in some cases it will be many years before community resources are adequate to meet those conditions. We may have to make temporary arrangements in order to make available a full treatment program in such communities and to provide such facilities in our hospitals. This means that it will not be possible for me or for anybody else to set a specific standard which will apply to all our hospitals. We will have to deal with each one on its merits. We will have to study local circumstances and resources and the kind of arrangement that we should enter into.
There is another factor, which is not a negligible one and which I also mentioned, hon. members will recall, in my statement the other day. We have in these hospitals at the moment dedicated nurses and dedicated medical men, who are dedicated principally because they are veterans themselves. They are doing an excellent job of servicing these hospitals. While it is difficult to replace them, I think the Department of Veterans Affairs owes them some safeguard as well. We must make sure, given these conditions, that these people are adequately looked after.
Now, Mr. Speaker, to come to the amendment itself I find that it reads in part as follows:
This house deplores the announced decision of the government to abandon its responsibilities for the administration of veterans hospitals-
What we are being asked to do, and most of the letters I have received make the same request, is to ignore the problem; do not do anything. Hands off.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Who said that?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: This was the policy laid down by the hon. gentleman a few minutes ago and, in effect, that is what is intended by this amendment. I think, on the contrary, what we have tried to do has been to face the problem. What do we do about it? Do we let our veteran population take second class medical treatment in the years ahead or do we say to ourselves that our first responsibility is not necessarily to maintain buildings for our people, but our first responsibility is to ensure that they get the care which Canadians want them to have?
Veterans Hospitals Transfer


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, will the minister permit a question?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Yes.


Eric Alfred Winkler: In making such a statement, is the minister not taking the exact opposite view of that put forward by the mover of the amendment?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: That is not a question, it is an argument. I read the hon. gentleman's speech very carefully and the policy contained in it was "hands off". I think it was repeated; "hands off".
Now, Mr. Speaker, I must express some regret at this kind of amendment in a want of confidence motion-


Gordon Minto Churchill: You brought it on yourself.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Because I dared to face up to the problem. It would have been very easy for me to sit back and wait for the deterioration to come about. It would have been very easy to avoid controversy. However, there is a responsibility imposed on this department, and that responsibility is to carry out the moral obligations to make sure that treatment is adequate. We have said we are prepared to deal with each of these cases on its merits. We are prepared to make the kind of arrangements that will guarantee the best medical service available in Canada. We are prepared to do this provided we get the necessary safeguards so that we remain in control, so that we decide-that is the departmental officials- upon the admission or non-admission of veterans in any hospital where we may make such arrangements.
The hon. member for Kootenay West had some kind words to say, and I appreciate them very much. However, I think he will agree that a decision to do nothing at this stage will not benefit our veterans, because a decision to do nothing at this stage will only result in our veterans losing. They will lose the kind of treatment which has been available to them. In dealing with this problem we have to face up to the fact that the problem exists. Everybody agrees it exists.


Eric Alfred Winkler: How are they going to lose out?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: The problem was recognized and was stated by the mover of the amendment. The problem has been recognized by all and is referred to in the report of the committee. It is a matter of how best to deal with the problem.
I think in conclusion I can do nothing but reiterate what I said a while ago. There were certain alternatives placed before us. One alternative was to open our doors to the general community. I do not need to suggest to hon. members the kind of difficulties that
2402	HOUSE OF
Veterans Hospitals Transfer would arise from such a course. Another alternative was to follow the Glassco recommendation and, in effect, let our hospitals run down as the case load goes on decreasing.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You are not saying the Belcher hospital is run down?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: The other alternative is to do nothing; hands off. This is the course proposed by the hon. member who moved this amendment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Retain control of them in veterans affairs; that is what I am talking about.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Again I thank the hon. member for his intervention. It enables me to repeat what I said a while ago. I want to make this assurance doubly sure, that in anything we do about medical hospital care we will be safeguarding the interests and welfare of the veterans, and advancing those interests and improving that welfare. There will be no changes in respect of any veterans hospitals which do not fulfil these requirements. There will be consultation with veteran organizations. As I have indicated, there will be no change removing control of veterans admissions, and the care required, from the Department of Veterans Affairs. I have given assurance to the house before, and I can reiterate this assurance now, that control of medical services will remain with the department.
I can only suggest that under these circumstances the accusations contained in this amendment are false. We are trying to live up to our responsibilities, but they say "hands off". We say face the problem, deal with it effectively and guarantee the kind of service to which our veterans are entitled.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, the argument which the minister has just completed revolved around the possibility of veterans treatment services deteriorating at some time in the future. Mark you, he referred only to the possibility, and adduced no facts to support that argument. I will come back a bit later to the various points he made in regard to medical treatment.
Before doing that I should like to go on and make a few points, particularly one related to something the minister said shortly before he sat down, and something along the same line which was said by the parliamentary secretary to the minister yesterday. They said that the introduction of this motion meant the introduction of partisanship in the consideration of veterans affairs, something which has not been done before. I feel that both the minister and his parliamentary secretary fail to realize that our inability


during the past several weeks and the inability of veterans organizations to find out what government policy was in regard to veterans hospitals, to find out what course of action is to be followed by the government, has left those of us concerned with the welfare of veterans and veterans hospitals with no alternative but to bring up this matter in this way.
This is the only means open to us at the present time by which we can have a full discussion of this matter. We would be failing in our responsibility to the veterans and for the veterans if we did not take this means of bringing the whole matter into the open.
I think I should make it clear that the amendment before the house has been moved because of the serious concern that veterans hospital services are to be reduced to the detriment of Canadian veterans. That is the reason the amendment was moved, because of real concern in that regard not only on the part of members of this and other parties in the House of Commons but also very real concern on the part of veterans and veterans organizations throughout Canada.
This fear on the part of veterans and their organizations first arose out of newspaper stories that the Colonel Belcher hospital in Calgary was to be turned over to civic or provincial authorities for operation. Their fear over what was going to happen to their hospital facilities and the hospital treatment to which they had become accustomed has progressively increased because of the indefinite and evasive answers which the minister has given to questions of all kinds during the past few weeks concerning the policy of the government.
Since the session started a long series of questions has been asked regarding this matter, but throughout the government has refused to say that a change in policy with regard to D.V.A. hospitals has been decided upon. They have refused throughout to admit definitely that they have decided on a change of policy, in spite of specific questions on that very point, put by myself and others to the minister in the house. Nevertheless, discussions with regard to Colonel Belcher hospital have continued, quite evidently with a view to turning it over to the civic and provincial authorities. In addition, civic and provincial authorities have made a succession of statements to the newspapers in Calgary indicating the number of beds they are going to secure by means of this deal, the number of operating rooms which are going to be made available to them and so forth.
All of this, combined with the evasive answers of the minister, has made it clear to

most people, I think, that in effect a change in policy was accepted by the government at one time. The replies of the Prime Minister in answer to questions asked him have already been referred to. I will not take the time of the house to repeat them at this moment, but he did give the impression that no change was to be made. In other words he gave the impression that previous statements made by the minister and by civic and provincial authorities in Alberta were not correct, and that the control and operation of Colonel Belcher hospital and other veterans hospitals were going to remain in the hands of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
So strongly was this impression given that I advised several of my correspondents that in view of what the Prime Minister had said I thought our fears with regard to what was going to happen to the Colonel Belcher hospital could be set at rest. Then, of course, subsequent answers given by the Minister of Veterans Affairs were to the exactly opposite effect, with the result that the whole question was up in the air again. We now have a picture of confusion, and the matter can only be cleared up by a definite statement of policy on the part of the government as to the course of action they are going to pursue.
We have not yet had such a statement. In anything the minister has said there has really been nothing definite with regard to what the policy is going to be. He has continued to talk about the situation prevailing in one part of Canada being different from that prevailing in another, but he still refuses to admit that the government, as now appears clear, has made a change in policy and is progressively going to turn over the operation of the D.V.A. hospitals to civilian control.
There has been another very bad result arising from the confusion which has existed and the conflicting statements that have been made. In particular, because of the indefinite and evasive statements of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, a lack of confidence in the minister has developed on the part of veterans and veterans organizations. In the past veterans organizations and veterans generally have looked to the minister of veterans affairs, whoever he may have been, as their representative in the cabinet and the defender of their interests, the person to whom they could turn for general support because as far as the government was concerned the general welfare of veterans was in his hands. This situation has very definitely changed. The result is that at the present time most veterans and veterans organizations have now come to look upon the minister as the leader in a movement to decrease or eliminate their hospital and treatment benefits and guarantees.
Veterans Hospitals Transfer


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Nonsense.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is the situation. Naturally the minister will not admit this. I suppose he would hate very much to admit it; nevertheless I can assure him that on the basis of my experience that is the situation so far as the veterans organizations with which I am familiar are concerned, including my own branch of the Legion, No. 1 branch, Calgary, one of the biggest in Canada. I think it is most deplorable that the minister should have lost the confidence of veterans and veterans organizations to such a great extent, because it will make it very difficult for veterans affairs generally to be dealt with in a satisfactory way.
Several times during the past few weeks I have asked that the whole matter of future policy with regard to veterans hospitals be referred to the veterans affairs committee. On every occasion the minister has refused to say that this would be done. I ask why. Why does he refuse to say that the matter will be considered by the veterans affairs committee? Surely this is the body best fitted to consider the whole question of veterans hospitals. It is a body where evidence from representatives of the veterans organizations can be heard as well as evidence from departmental officials, medical bodies and so on. In other words, the matter could be thoroughly examined in that committee, and I do not know anywhere else where it can be thoroughly examined publicly and all the facts in connection with the matter brought out.
Surely it is essential that this be done so that members of the house and veterans and veterans organizations may be satisfied that the right course of action is being followed. Again I ask the question, why do the minister and the government refuse to have this matter considered and recommendations made thereon by the veterans affairs committee, the only place where the matter can be thoroughly aired?
The minister and his parliamentary secretary both continue to reiterate that their great concern is to safeguard the interests and welfare of the veterans. Once more I ask, if that is the case why do they not take the obvious step to ensure that this will be done, by referring the matter to the committee rather than refusing to have it thoroughly investigated? I would strongly urge on the minister and the government that they take this action now. The veterans affairs committee has been set up and had its first meeting this morning. It is ready to operate and go ahead. This matter could be referred to it immediately, and I trust that action will be taken.
On various occasions, in answer to questions and otherwise, the minister has stated that

Veterans Hospitals Transfer veterans organizations would be consulted in regard to this whole matter, and he went on to say that there is no use consulting them until the matter has been brought to a more complete stage than is the case at present. In other words, what he is saying is, "We are going to make a deal with the civic authorities and the provincial authorities, and then we are going to bring it to the veterans and tell them what the deal is." That is not consultation at all.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I am sure my hon. friend would not want to mislead anyone. I would hope the hon. gentleman knows that we had consultations at the beginning, and we are waiting for the final drafting on this thing before we consult them again.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is the point I have just been making. Before the minister goes ahead to make a deal with the civilian authorities for the takeover of the Colonel Belcher hospital he wants to have the thing all arranged, the "i's" dotted and the "t's" crossed, and then present it to the veterans and say, "This is what we have arranged with the civic and the provincial authorities." But by that time it will be too late for the veterans to have any influence on what is done.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Nonsense.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is not true consultation. This is merely calling the veterans in after the thing has been done, and saying, "This is what we are going to do." As a matter of fact, the minister has attempted to convey the impression that veterans organizations in Calgary were consulted, and also to convey the impression that they were not unanimously against this proposal to turn over the Colonel Belcher hospital. I see he nods his head up and down to agree that that is the case.
The actual fact is that there was no real consultation whatsoever with the veterans organizations in Calgary, and also that they are unanimously against the proposal to transfer control of the Colonel Belcher hospital.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: That is not true.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In order to establish that this is the fact I have only to refer to two or three telegrams and letters which I have received from veterans organizations in Calgary. The first telegram is dated March 17 and states:
Committee formed in February 1964 composed of all veterans groups in Calgary unanimously oppose veterans hospital takeover. What manner of man

can sanction this even as Canadian contingent embarks for Cyprus?
Frank Potts,
President No. 1 Branch, Royal Canadian Legion.
The second is a letter dated March 19, and deals with the consultation which the minister said took place. It reads:
Re: Veterans hospitals.
We note in Hansard of February 25, on page 195, Mr. Teillet, stated in part in answer to questions directed on this subject matter as follows:-
"I believe I stated yesterday or last week that we had received a proposal from the city of Calgary, that we had had a meeting with that city, their hospital people and some of the veterans organizations in Calgary."
While it is true that representatives of the veterans organizations did attend, as a result of an invitation from chief commissioner John Steel to this No. 1 branch only, nevertheless all concerned were unanimous that the whole matter was cut and dried before they ever entered the meeting and their observations had no direct bearing on the outcome, as they were in effect told by Dr. Crawford that he would not have been in Calgary were it not for the fact that his minister had approval of the cabinet in the matter.
In other words, the so-called consultation was merely a matter of calling the veterans organizations in and saying, "We are going ahead with this deal." They were being told in effect that the matter was decided and it did not matter what they said.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: That is completely wrong.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That again is signed by the president of the No. 1 branch of the Royal Canadian Legion.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: That is not an adequate report.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, if the minister says it is false I think that, to a man, the veterans in Calgary will believe what Frank Potts says in connection with this matter and not what the minister states in attempting to defend an indefensible policy.
The minister is also aware that a very large number of people in Calgary, and not only members of veterans organizations, have signed petitions urging that this hand-over of the Colonel Belcher hospital do not take place. In other words, there is very wide disapproval of this projected move, and opposition to it. Further the minister is aware of a telegram dated April 14, sent by Mr. Potts to the Prime Minister, which reads as follows:
No. 1 branch of the Royal Canadian Legion express strongest possible opposition to proposed Belcher hospital solution. Unable to see logic of this policy when veterans are presently being denied treatment.
I could read dozens of such statements, but there is no use in reading them all. There is no question whatever that the veterans were not consulted in any real sense or meaning of the term consultation, in connection

with the meetings held in Calgary; and there is absolutely no question that they are unanimously opposed to the handing over of the hospital. That being the situation, surely the minister and the government are not going to try to put over the idea that the veterans are being consulted satisfactorily, and that they are not against this move? There is no question in regard to these two points.
The minister and his parliamentary secretary emphasized in their speeches that everything they are doing is to safeguard the veterans interest, to look after their welfare, to ensure it will continue on the highest possible level and so forth. If this is the case, then I would ask them why are all the veterans organizations so strongly opposed to it? Is the minister going to try and maintain that these veterans organizations do not know what is good for veterans, and that they do not know what they are talking about? I do not think he would maintain that for a moment, yet the veterans organizations are very strongly opposed to the proposed change in policy which he wants to bring about.
I can tell him why they are opposed to it. It is because they see quite clearly that their treatment facilities will be reduced, and because they see quite clearly that there has been no real consultation. It is also because they have a very strong suspicion that the minister is attempting to face them with a fait accompli and say, "There it is. The deal has been made and you have just got to take it and like it." That is why they are so strongly opposed, not only to the general idea but to the method used in trying to put it across.
As I stated at the beginning, the minister made the claim that doctors would not be available at some time in the future, but when he was questioned in regard to this matter by two or three opposition members he said, "Oh, no, no, the doctors are available now all right; the treatment available to the veterans is still excellent; it has not declined."


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, again for the sake of accuracy I think my hon. friend should correct that. What I said is that at the present moment our treatment available in hospitals was of a high quality. I did not deal with the availability of doctors in that sense.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I wrote down what the minister said, he gave two or three reasons. One was that the service was excellent. In one case they would get better treatment if they went into the Shaughnessy hospital than if they took treatment at home or in some other place. In other words, I do not think the minister is making any claim that treatment given in the veterans hospitals is not good, or that the doctors are not good, or 20220-153J
Veterans Hospitals Transfer that the staff is not good. His whole argument was based on the fact that at some time in the future the standard might decline and that the service available to veterans would not be as good as it should be. But he produced no proof of that contention whatsoever. He merely made the statement. This is another reason why the whole matter should be gone into thoroughly with the veterans organizations and before the veterans affairs committee. This should be done so that everyone could find out what the picture really is in this regard.
In connection with the Belcher hospital, in particular, a hospital about which I happen to know a considerable amount, and the only one which is to be affected immediately, I do not think the minister will maintain that the staff is not good. I do not think he or anyone else can produce proof that the staff will not continue to be good in the future or that there is any threat to the standard of their services declining in two, three or five years or, indeed, in any particular length of time. I think there is no evidence at all that the treatment which veterans are able to get at this hospital will not continue to be excellent-as good as, if not better than any which they would be able to get elsewhere. From this point of view I think the minister's entire argument falls to the ground. Certainly he has not produced any evidence to support it.
The hon. gentleman talked about the constitutional difficulty which might arise if the general public was admitted to D.V.A. hospitals. Well, I doubt very much whether there would be any difficulty from that point of view. Certainly much more serious constitutional difficulties have been solved and I am sure this one could be overcome, too, without very much trouble. I do not think there would be a great deal of objection on the part of anyone to allowing a certain number of civilians from the general public to enter veterans hospitals.
The minister went on to say that if these hospitals were operated under civilian control-and I presume he meant in Colonel Belcher hospital, because that is where he intends to start-a certain number of beds would be set aside for veterans. I think that is an extremely doubtful proposition. In Calgary there is a serious shortage of hospital beds and operating facilities. It would appear from the talk among the civilian authorities that 150 beds would be reserved for veterans out of a total of 400 being used at the hospital. Who would contend that 150 beds where there were formerly 400 are going to provide adequate facilities for our veterans and an assurance that they will be looked after when they need care? The proposition does not hold
2406	HOUSE OF
Veterans Hospitals Transfer water. I do not think any reasonable person would contend that the facilities available for veterans in southern Alberta would not be seriously impaired and reduced if this proposition were to go through.
The minister also stated that the problem is a different one in every part of Canada. But he said nothing to support this contention. He said we cannot lay down a general policy because every one of these veterans hospitals is different and a different situation prevails. I think this is an argument which is hardly worthy of notice. The general policy has been to operate these hospitals by the Department of Veterans Affairs for the use of veterans. The minister is proposing to change that policy and to turn some of them and, eventually, all of them, over to civilian control. That is a change in policy which is going to apply to every part of the country either now or at some time in the future. It is of no use for the minister to try to tell us there is not a general change in policy. I think he should come out openly and say this is the case, if it is the intention of the government to proceed with this plan-and I very much hope it will not.
I mentioned a few minutes ago the serious shortage of hospital beds in Calgary. This situation is, of course, the responsibility of the city and of the province. It is their responsibility to make that shortage good and there should not be any attempt to make it good at the expense of veterans by decreasing the hospital facilities available to veterans. The shortage of beds arises because of a failure to provide the hospital construction which should have been provided in the city of Calgary. In fact, turning over the Belcher hospital, or a large proportion of it, for civilian use would not meet the need. The need there can only be met by extensive new construction. Making use of certain of the facilities of the Belcher hospital would be a palliative; it would help a little at the present time. But it would not solve the problem.
I have said on various occasions when asked about this matter that to the extent that beds and operating rooms are not being fully utilized at the Colonel Belcher hospital or at any other veterans hospitals they should be made available to ordinary civilian patients. I know the Department of Veterans Affairs has never looked with favour on this possible solution. One of the difficulties which the minister mentioned was the constitutional question involved. Well, there might be some difficulties but I do not think any of them are insuperable. I do not even think they are very serious and I believe the solution I have put forward is a reasonable one and that it should be followed. If there are beds and operating rooms available in these
[Mr. Harkness.l

veterans hospitals which are not being fully utilized, I can really see no serious reason in the world why they should not be made available for ordinary civilian use. I have talked about this to a number of doctors in Calgary and they see no difficulty about it. The difficulties which have been brought up, or dredged up, in this regard are, I think, entirely on the part of the department itself.
With regard to this whole matter, some allegations have been made that the veterans are trying to be selfish in regard to their hospitals-that they are trying to keep other people out of them, and so on. I have seen no signs or evidence of any such attitude. I do not think there is any desire on the part of any of the veterans organizations or on the part of anyone to deny the general population of this country facilities which are available and which are not fully in use. On the other hand, there is strong opposition to taking away from veterans the facilities which they have enjoyed over a long period, and the full benefits granted to them under the veterans charter. And this, in effect, is the proposal the minister is making.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I did not intend to take part in this debate but I should like to say a few words now on the amendment which has been moved.
I do not like the wording of this amendment. I would prefer to have seen an amendment which deplored the government's failure to make a clearcut statement on its intentions with reference to the administration of veterans hospitals, and criticized the government for failing to refer this matter to the veterans affairs committee. However, after listening to the defence which was put up by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet) I have become convinced I ought to vote in favour of this amendment because the minister, it seems to me, has completely failed to give the house any satisfactory statement with respect to the government's intentions regarding veterans hospitals.
The minister says that this is a very serious problem-and nobody doubts that. He says that he has faced up to the problem. That is like the Irishman saying you should take the bull by the horns and look it straight in the face, because it may turn out to be a wolf in sheep's clothing. To look at the problem and face up to the problem is not enough. We need some statement of the government's solution to the problem. When the minister says that my colleague from Kootenay West is simply suggesting that they make a decision to do nothing, that is not in accordance with the facts. We are asking the government what it is going to do; we want to know what the government is going to do. More important,

we would like to make sure that the minister knows what he is going to do; and certainly there was nothing in his statement today that would indicate that he has any clear idea of what he intends to do about this problem.
The minister said that there is a serious problem and he has outlined it to the house. I take it, first of all, that the problem is not that the veterans hospitals have empty beds and are unoccupied. The minister says, instead, that bed occupancy is running around 75 per cent to 80 per cent capacity. That is normal occupancy for any hospital; anything much higher than that is too crowded for good administration. So there is no problem that there are empty beds or that space is going to waste. The problem is not the lack of good medical care at the present time. The minister says the problem lies in the fact that veterans hospitals in this country, like veterans hospitals in every other country, are gradually changing their function. This is to be expected. In the years immediately following the war, veterans hospitals were largely active treatment centres providing medical, surgical, nursing care and physiotherapy for veterans who had been badly wounded and were in need of active treatment. With the passage of time these hospitals are increasingly adopting a custodial care program of looking after long-stay cases and the chronically ill.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot brush this aside. The function of these hospitals has changed, but the importance of the problem remains, and I suggest to the minister that it will increase; that in the next 10 or 15 years, when the veterans of the last war are getting into their 50's and 60's, there will be a greatly increased number of applicants for admission to veterans hospitals. These will be burnt-out veterans and men who because of their war service will find in their later years that they require long-stay care.
The minister's argument is that because these hospitals have changed the nature of their function, this creates a problem of staff; that it is difficult to keep medical staff, who are naturally more concerned with active treatment care. This does pose a problem and it may mean a change in the kind of staff provided; because let us not delude ourselves, hospitals providing custodial care for the chronically ill need specially trained staff, as is proved by the geriatric centres that are being built in this country. They need the kind of staff that are specially trained to look after these particular kind of people. But the mere fact that these hospitals are changing their function does not mean they are no longer required.
Veterans Hospitals Transfer
What the government has to do, it seems to me, is to decide one of two things. Are these hospitals now going to become almost exclusively custodial care institutions to look after long-stay cases and the chronically ill? If they are, then both the staff and the equipment needs to be changed. The other alternative the government has is this. If these hospitals have such large investments for diagnostic equipment and diagnostic procedures that it would be a shame to waste it, then the policy ought to be to build custodial care institutions, move the veterans into those custodial care institutions, and leave in the present hospitals those who need active treatment-they will be a relatively small number and a diminishing number-and make arrangements to either take in civilians or enter into some arrangement with the local authorities so that active treatment centres can be used by both veterans and the general public.
The minister has made mention of the Saskatoon situation. There a very ideal arrangement has been worked out. In the University hospital space has been set aside and beds are reserved for veterans requiring active treatment. But the important point is that at the same time the government is building a hospital to provide custodial care for the chronically ill veterans; and until the latter is done, nothing can be done about the former. What concerns us is that the minister seems to be charging ahead with a program to dispose of veterans hospitals without telling us where the veteran long-stay cases who are there now are going to be cared for. If they are left in the hospitals they are in now, the hospitals are going to be 75 per cent to 80 per cent full, so where are the civilians going to go? If they are going to be moved out of those hospitals, where are they going to be sent?
I want to tell the minister that turning these hospitals hack to the municipalities and the provincial governments means that all those veterans who are not receiving active treatment will be denied admission, of necessity, because the provincial governments do not provide under their hospital plans-except in one province-for custodial care for the chronically ill. The veterans who are in these hospitals now have to be assured that there is some place for them to go; and we have to be assured that the increasing numbers of veterans who will require long term care will be provided for.
If the minister were coming before this house to say it is the intention of the government to build hospitals to take care of the chronically ill veterans, hospitals that will cost less per bed because less expensive diagnostic equipment will be installed, and that when these institutions have been built

Veterans Hospitals Transfer and the chronically ill veterans have been moved into them this will leave room in the active treatment centres-when that day comes the government is prepared to enter into agreements with the provinces and the municipalities so that whatever space is left in these active treatment hospitals can be made available to civilians, that would make sense; that would be a solution to the problem. But I listened very carefully to the minister this afternoon. He talked about dealing with the problem of each hospital on its merits; of the decision in each case being taken in view of the time, the place and the circumstances. This does not answer anything. Let us take the Colonel Belcher hospital as an example. Are the custodial care veterans in that hospital to be moved? If so, where are they going to go? If they are not going to be moved, then all the problems the minister has outlined concerning the difficulty of getting medical personnel who want to look after active treatment cases and not the chronically ill will still remain.
It seems to me that the minister is going at this whole problem the wrong way. It may be that his department has worked out a plan. If it has, the minister certainly has not outlined it to the house this afternoon. This is why I would support the idea which we have advanced several times during this session, namely that the whole question of veterans hospitals be referred to the veterans affairs committee, where the department can put its plans forward, where the veterans organizations can present their views, and where hospital and medical authorities can give us their opinions on this question. Then whatever the government's plan is, if it is going to continue to look after veterans adequately I am sure the house will go along with it.
We are not anxious to retain ownership or control. It does not seem to me that it is important whether an active treatment hospital is run by the Department of Veterans Affairs and civilians are allowed to use it, and the Department of Veterans Affairs gets paid by the hospital insurance branch; or whether it is vice versa and the municipality operates the hospital with the Department of Veterans Affairs being allocated a given number of beds which are reserved for the use of veterans. I do not think we ought to be arguing about this very minor point.
It seems to me that the important point, a point which appears to have escaped the minister entirely, is that you cannot take veterans out of active treatment hospitals unless you have some place to put them. That means building hospitals for the chronically ill; and until they are built it is simply

absurd to talk of turning these veterans hospitals over to some other body. The government need not think that they can discharge their responsibility by turning these hospitals over to the provinces and the municipalities and then say: "Well, if there are not enough rooms for the veterans you can put the civilians out". Surely that is not a very satisfactory solution.
I want to emphasize a point which I think needs to be reiterated again and again, and that is that chronically ill veterans as they get older need custodial care. There is no place to equal a veterans institution. In the first place most of the provinces and municipalities do not supply that kind of facility anyway under the hospital insurance plan, so there are no facilities for them to go to. But even if there were it is of great importance that these men in their latter years should be able to spend their time in the companionship of their comrades with whom they served in the services. This is something to which they are entitled. It is bad enough for any man to spend years of his life, particularly the declining years, being a semi-invalid; the least we can do is to make those years happy so that he can have the companionship and association of men who have common memories and have had the common experience of serving together in Her Majesty's forces. This is why, before the government talks of getting rid of active treatment hospitals, it seems to me it has to embark upon a program of building hospitals for chronically ill veterans. When those hospitals have been established, if it is found that the number of veterans who need active treatment is relatively small, then the government has the choice either of reserving wings in general hospitals and providing for the care of veterans in those wings, or of turning over the veterans active treatment hospitals to the municipalities and reserving sufficient rooms so that those veterans who need active treatment care can be assured of getting it.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question. He is aware, of course, that I have stated that one of the conditions required would be that adequate facilities for chronic and long term care patients are to be made available.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister said this in general terms, Mr. Speaker, but I have heard of no program, for instance, to build hospitals for the chronically ill veterans in, say, Calgary, where right now the minister's department is negotiating to turn over the Colonel Belcher hospital to the municipality. It is no use putting the cart before the horse. It is no use arranging to get rid of a hospital unless you have some place to take these veterans.

If the minister does not plan to place these patients in hospitals for the chronically ill, he will be leaving them in the Colonel Belcher hospital. If the number of beds in the Colonel Belcher hospital is reduced to 150, who will take care of the veterans who do not need active treatment but who do need custodial care in the years ahead? If the minister tells us that there are adequate facilities to take care of all these veterans and that all we need is to provide space for those requiring active treatment, then as far as I am concerned I am prepared to go along with whatever adjustments are necessary. But I am saying to the minister that he has not yet given us a clearcut statement of policy. The government has not brought down a program. I am not talking about words; I am talking about votes and expenditures which will make this program a reality.
Before the government goes any further I think it should refer this whole question to the veterans affairs committee, where the matter can be thoroughly investigated, where the minister and his officials can lay out the whole problem and their suggested solutions to it and where the veterans organizations and those most vitally concerned can make their views known to the members of the house. It has always been true that two heads are better than one, and in this case half a dozen heads and the experience of different organizations and people would very greatly aid in working out a suitable policy. Because after all, Mr. Speaker, this is a very important matter, as the minister himself has said; and I think he understands why the members of this house are concerned. It will be too late to do anything after the minister gets up on the orders of the day and announces that he has just turned over three or four hospitals to municipalities. The door will be closed and we will have embarked upon a policy from which it will be difficult to retreat. Once these hospitals have been turned over it will not be easy for the minister to retrace his steps. Therefore I urge him, before we start down a path that may have an uncertain and an unfortunate ending, to submit this whole question to the veterans affairs committee so that the policy which will emanate from that committee will be carefully considered, will be well thought out, and will be in the best interests of the veterans of this country.


Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker,
I would think that if there were an admonition that we should bear in mind as we approach this very important matter it is contained in the words of Francis Bacon, when he said:
He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils; for time is the greatest innovator.
Veterans Hospitals Transfer It seems to me that this poses the problem which is before this house today-the fact that time is the greatest innovator and that time does effect serious changes which require a government to be responsible and to face new problems as they arise. I am interested in this problem. I did not know I would be participating in this debate when yesterday I had a conversation with an amputee who had served with the Hastings-Prince Edward regiment. We had lunch at the Tri-Service hospital where we were both receiving treatment. He had his amputation effected after being wounded on the island of Sicily. Apparently at one time we were together in Ste. Anne de Bellevue military hospital. I speak on this subject with real interest because in Canada alone I have been in the following hospitals as a D.V.A. patient: Quebec military hospital; Montreal neurological institute, the veterans ward; Ste. Anne de Bellevue; the veterans wing of Kingston General; Kingston D.Y.A. hospital; Christie st. hospital; Sunny-brook hospital, and the Tri-Service hospital on Alta Vista road here in Ottawa. I have been at some of these hospitals on several occasions. I have some dear friends who are still in these institutions.
I believe all hon. members will agree that conditions do change very radically. In the course of our conversation yesterday at lunch this veteran, who incidentally is carrying on a very good business in the Cornwall area, indicated some of the changes he had seen in the Tri-Service hospital even during the time he had been accepting medical care there. I am sure the veterans across this country are very much indebted to the Department of Veterans Affairs for the extraordinarily high quality, and personal interest, of the service given. I have been very much obligated for the care, for instance, of the prosthetic services branch wherever I have used these facilities across Canada. It seems to me these services are so good that before very long this parliament should consider whether or not they might be available to many more people than the small group of veterans who can presently use them.
There are very real problems with regard to the care of veterans. I do not believe in this debate we are being quite frank. It seems to me that, in some respects, services have already changed and the character and care in these hospitals has changed. There has been a reference to the veterans affairs committee. This committee has, over the years, attained the reputation of being nonpartisan. In every part of the house there have been people who have made very valuable contributions to that committee.

Veterans Hospitals Transfer
I should like to refer hon. members to some of the evidence given in that committee on Tuesday, December 10, 1963. On that occasion Dr. J. N. B. Crawford, the director general of treatment services was called and was subjected to a line of examination, in the first instance, by the hon. member for Kootenay West. Let me just read these questions and answers into the record. Dr. Crawford said:
In June of 1960, I called a conference in Montreal of all chiefs of medical service in all the D.V.A. hospitals. We met here for one or two days and threshed out this problem.
This was a problem in June of 1960.
The consensus at that time was that the high proportion of older men in our hospitals certainly did have an effect on the quality of care which could be given in a hospital that was trying to be a general hospital.
Later, he told the committee:
I then wrote a paper or report for my minister in which I outlined the problem and proposed three possible solutions as I saw them at that time.
This, remember, is June, 1960.
The first was that we would admit to our hospitals a younger patient load.
Some hon. members suggested this as a possible solution.
The second possibility was that we would buy the services we required in the federal government from community hospitals, and in this way there was a possibility that D.V.A. hospitals which were potentially active treatment hospitals might be turned over to suitable agencies.
The third possibility was that we would carry on as we were doing, accepting the fact that we would thereby more and more come to be hospitals for the care of chronic diseases and for the provision of domiciliary care.
He stressed the fact that this meeting took place in the early summer of 1960. Since that time, we have had a number of ministers of veterans affairs. They were Hon. Alfred J. Brooks; Hon. Gordon Churchill and Hon. Marcel Lambert. I think perhaps hon. members of this house would be interested in the rather penetrating comments and questions that were put to the director of treatment services by the last Conservative minister of veterans affairs. Incidentally this hon. gentleman has made a singularly high contribution to this house, certainly in matters of national defence, as speaker and as a man with a good military record of his own; who went through the Dieppe campaign and who was a prisoner of war. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is reported as follows on page 441 of the committee report:
On the other hand the Colonel Belcher hospital in Calgary being a modern grade A hospital has a great deal of its hospital population either chronically ill or domiciliary because you have no other facilities. Do you feel that this is the most economical use of such facilities that you

have at the Colonel Belcher hospital and, undoubtedly, in some other parts of the country?


Mr.   Crawford@: The answer to that question Mr. Lambert, depends on one's breadth of vision. If in my vision I encompass the hospital needs of the entire community, then the answer is clearly no, this is not an efficient way of using hospital beds. If on the other hand I narrow my vision and say I am interested only in the treatment of veterans, then I can justify the use of beds in the Colonel Belcher by saying that we are using them for the kind of care that veterans need.
Taking the broader view, knowing that Calgary at the moment in respect of active treatment hospitals is very short, then I must admit that this is not an economical or efficient way of using the active treatment hospital beds.
I do not know what the real considerations behind the hon. member's questions were. Certainly, this appealed to me as being the most penetrating examination we can find in the committee of the director of treatment services. I continue to quote from the committee report:


Mr. Lambert:: I had in mind the operating
theatres and modern facilities which you do have at the Colonel Belcher hospital.


Mr.   Crawford@: This is what makes an active treatment bed, Mr. Lambert. A hospital bed is a hospital bed. The thing that is different in an active treatment hospital is the existence of these very costly and efficient ancillary services, such as X-ray, laboratories, operating room theatres and so forth.


Norman Platt Lambert: Have you any comment to make in respect of the situation where you are able to use general hospitals for disability treatment patients who are there, for instance, for a matter of surgery and can be treated in a surgical ward or surgical wing of a modern community hospital operated either by the municipality or some religious order or hospital board? I feel those individuals would receive better medical treatment under those circumstances than in a veterans hospital-
I just interject at this point that having been at Ste. Anne de Bellevue for many months-that is where I met my wife, who was on staff there-I can assure you that most veterans who have been in this hospital would agree with this view, that they cannot expect to get the same level of special nursing services and other services.


Mr.   Crawford@: In our veterans hospitals at the moment we have these specialist wards and we have the highly qualified treatment teams that are required to provide this excellent care. At the moment the sort of surgery that we do in veterans hospitals is as good as surgery done any place else. My concern has to do with my ability to continue this state of affairs.


Norman Platt Lambert: I am also concerned, Dr. Crawford, whether you can maintain that standard and whether you can continue to maintain that high specialized staff to provide this service, because you are in a very competitive market. I am wondering whether we can realistically view the future and decide that we can continue this program.


Mr.   Crawford@: That is exactly the theme of my discourse, Mr. Lambert.

I have served for some years as a governor of a hospital and as a member of the board of trustees of a university. As such I have been interested in medical facilities and in the operation of a medical school. As a matter of fact, the dean of the Queen's medical school at this time is Dr. Harry Botterell who cared for me at Basingstoke military hospital in England. I know the record of this man's performance as one of the top ranking neurosurgeons in Canada. After that I was cared for by Colonel Botterell for a time at Christie street and later at Sunny-brook and now it is my good fortune to be able to refer to him again because he is at a university training hospital, Kingston general hospital. He has pointed out repeatedly to the board of trustees of Queen's University the importance of integration of university and hospital facilities. Training and service go together.
What is the real problem we are facing today? Our veterans hospitals are more and more becoming institutions for the treatment or accommodation of the chronically ill. We have been told that 70 per cent of our patient population is now in this category and that the median age of the patient population is 67 years in spite of the 6 per cent of the population made up of young patients drawn from the armed services. What would the situation be, for instance, if it was not policy to send these young soldiers to the D.V.A. hospitals in order to provide some element of active treatment care? Seventy seven per cent of all patients in D.V.A. hospitals now are over 50 years of age.
I think it was the last speaker who commented that there is no place to equal a veterans institution for the care of these people. I want to say, with great respect, that I do not entirely agree with that proposition. One of my dear and respected friends, and a great friend of my father, was Colonel Fred Kemp. I remember going to visit this man many times before 1939. He was seriously wounded in world war I and he had three gallantry awards, including the D.S.O. and bar. This man lived for many years under D.V.A. care before he died. I want to tell the house that I always left that hospital shocked that a man who had been acclaimed as a distinguished hero of the first world war should be living in such circumstances.
The fact is that conditions for the care of veterans did not continue between the wars as we would have liked them to. It is true that we did our best. Often there was paint on the wall but in many cases there was a hunger on the part of veterans to be treated like other people and to have some of the benefit of the good facilities that go with a progressive active service hospital.
Veterans Hospitals Transfer
I emphasize again the importance of teaching. The fact is that there must be some sort of teaching facilities related to these hospitals. The best doctors want to teach medicine and the success of veterans treatment in the past has been largely due to close integration with medical teaching and the resultant ability to attract the best doctors and internes to the staff. Veterans hospitals are beginning to lose their attraction as teaching centres.
I might point out this fact because it is of some importance to people who care about hospitals generally. Ten years ago a young doctor seeking a higher specialist qualification such as F.R.C.S. could take all his required training in a veterans hospital. That is not so today. Today most of our hospitals are approved for only one year of required training. Therefore the tendency is for the candidate to apply in the first instance to a hospital where he can do his complete training.
It has become increasingly difficult to maintain the interest of treatment staff, especially to recruit new medical and nursing staff. Interest can only be maintained, even on the part of physiotherapists, if some way can be found to combine the treatment of veterans with the treatment of a younger age group. In saying this I am in no way suggesting that there is not very great importance attached to domiciliary care. I am simply pointing out the fact that there is a change, and a dynamic and useful ministry of veterans affairs has got to have the courage, notwithstanding the criticisms that will be bound to come to it, to adjust to change and to prepare for change.
As I see it, these changes are not going to occur overnight. I think this debate is a useful one because it is preparing the way, we hope, for a more serious and responsible examination of these problems by the veterans affairs committee in due course. The Brockville Recorder and Times of March 23 last had this to say:
This consternation on the part of the organizations representing veterans is not likely to last, however, when closer scrutiny is given the reasons behind the government's move and just what such a move will mean to veterans.
Veterans affairs minister Teillet and the government are merely following the recommendations of the Glassco commission, a commission authorized by the former Progressive Conservative government. Neither Mr. Teillet, nor the federal Liberal government, are about to betray the veterans as suggested by Gordon Churchill, former Conservative veterans affairs minister. Mr. Churchill must have overlooked the reasons behind the Glassco recommendations. This commission was of the opinion that in the gradual merging of veterans hospital services-
I stress the word "gradual''.
-and those of the general community lay greater hope of obtaining high standards of care for veterans over the long term.

Veterans Hospitals Transfer
The government is not proposing this move merely to save money-
If that were the case I would be opposed to it.
-but that beds in veterans hospitals, now empty, could be utilized by communities across the country. And unless this is done, the Glassco commission felt, the quality of medical care will fall from its high standard originally achieved.
With regard to emptiness of beds in veterans hospitals I would point out that we have the problem of Sunnybrook hospital where two wards cannot be staffed with nurses. With an establishment of 302 nurses there are only 206 employed and 48 of these are casuals not on the permanent staff. As a result it has been necessary to close two wards completely due to lack of staff.


Norman Platt Lambert: What capacity have those two wards?


John Ross Matheson: I cannot say what those wards were used for, but I remember Sunnybrook hospital as being one of the finest institutions in the mid-forties for surgery, internal medicine and almost everything else. Sunnybrook was the pride of the medical fraternity in Toronto. But now Sunnybrook hospital, although the salaries paid by D.V.A. to nurses are reasonably competitive with salaries paid elsewhere, just cannot get nurses because of the nature of the patient load.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Where does the solution lie?


John Ross Matheson: When we look for a solution I think we have got to look deeply at the problem. I assure the hon. member I am not one to believe everything recommended by the Glassco commission. There are parts of the Glassco commission report with which I certainly do not agree. But let me touch on a few of the skeletal conclusions on which the Glassco recommendations are based. They point out that the Canadian expeditionary force in the first world war suffered heavy casualties and accordingly in world war II the government had every reason to expect that the volume of casualties would be larger. The result was that the government undertook a very busy program of renovation and construction so that we now have 11 D.V.A. hospitals scattered across Canada.
It was expected that the casualties of world war II would be substantially more than in the earlier conflict and this assumption proved to be false. However, a program of new hospital construction was undertaken on a large scale and since the end of the war older hospitals have either been replaced or in the main rebuilt. Therefore we now have these 11 veterans institutions with a total capacity of 8,408 beds.

The Glassco commission points out that in the past standards of medical care in these hospitals have been high. They state that the original aim of these hospitals was to provide for the grievously wounded-this touches on the point raised by the hon. member from the N.D.P.-and that therefore many of these hospitals were constructed with specialized surgical facilities and specialized neurosurgical and X-ray facilities. They certainly were not planned as domiciliary in character. If we are to continue simply according to the terms of the amendment with a policy of hands off the veterans hospitals, let things carry on pretty well as they are-


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, make changes as time goes on. That is what I have said.


John Ross Matheson: Let me refer to the language of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre as found on page 2374 of Hansard. He said:
The stand our party takes is: Hands off the veterans hospitals-
Not only that, but we heard the same thing a few minutes ago from the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams). He echoed almost exactly the same thing. His words were, "Our policy is hands off the hospitals." Let us take a look at what hands off the hospitals really means.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Why don't you read from the second paragraph on page 2373, if you want to be fair?


John Ross Matheson: Perhaps the hon. member would be gracious enough to allow me to continue because I am rather rushed in trying to get my point across. What I am indicating-*


Gordon Minto Churchill: You do not want to be fair.


John Ross Matheson: -is that, right or wrong, the Glassco commission, set up by the former government, says that costs, if we carry on this way will rise materially and that the standard of care is bound to decline. As matters now stand the prospect is that by 1980, if no other war intervenes, if there are no casualties from Cyprus or from any other trouble we are going to have to spend an additional $200 million simply to double the present bed capacity.
We are going to have an increased operating budget for expenses alone of over $100 million annually. Further, the hospitals will be almost wholly occupied by patients requiring domiciliary care, and the quality of medical care will have fallen from the high standards originally achieved. Therefore the Glassco commission recommends that no further hospitals be constructed by the government as active treatment hospitals for war veterans; progressively, the treatment of veterans with pensionable disabilities be transferred to

public hospitals, with the cost borne by the federal government; that veterans with major pensionable disabilities who require chronic or domiciliary care continue to be a federal responsibility; that veterans without major pensionable disabilities now receiving chronic and domiciliary care at public expense be progressively transferred to community facilities under such financial arrangements as may be expedient and, finally, that active treatment hospitals now operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs, when cleared, be sold and converted into community hospitals under transfer agreements providing preferential admission rights for veterans with pensionable disabilities.
I am not agreeable to all these recommendations, and I am perfectly sure the government which I have the honour to support is not agreeable to all of them either. But 1 think it is only reasonable that a government that follows in succession, that follows the former administration, has to take a look at its Glassco commission recommendations and has to be guided by our director of treatment services, Brigadier Crawford, who apparently thought enough about this problem to have a conference in June, 1960, and apparently brought it to the attention of the responsible ministers Messrs. A. G. Brooks, Gordon Churchill and Marcel Lambert.
What about a little straight talk on this? I happen to have had the distinct honour to have got to know one veteran, and I think this is something that is germane to our discussion. He enlisted on August 21, 1939. He went overseas as an observer-navigator. He flew on 21 missions as navigator in Halifax bombers before being given the special assignment of pathfinder, which as we remember, represented an elite classification in bomber command. He was shot down on his third pathfinder flight between Reims and Chalons-Sur-Marne, not far from the Argonne wood. He was on the loose for two weeks, walking by night and hiding by day.
He passed through Paris on the underground, and was captured by the gestapo as he was about to swim across the river marking the boundary to unoccupied France. He was turned over to the German luftwaffe, spent two nights in jail in France, and was then sent to the infamous Stalag Luft III. He spent the balance of the war there, except for the final stages when he, along with many other prisoners, was put on forced marches in the month of January, when his nazi captors were retreating many hundreds of miles in the face of allied advances. I believe, because I lived with him for a year in the twenty fifth parliament, that Flight 20220-154J
Veterans Hospitals Transfer Lieutenant Teillet, who now adorns the office of Minister of Veterans Affairs, cares as much about the veterans of this country as anybody else, and I want to say how bitterly disappointed I am that any member of the house would suggest that this man has lost the confidence of veterans.
He is not the most diplomatic man in the world. Sometimes he was difficult to live with in the house, but he is one of the most honest and direct men I have ever met, a man with the blood of Louis Riel in his veins. I wish to say that I believe we are going to face this problem very honestly, and I do not think the government is going to move rapidly in any direction. I do not believe there can be a formula, a Glassco commission formula or any other, that can actually apply to all these institutions. When I think of Sunnybrook hospital, of which I am very fond, the Ste. Anne de Bellevue hospital or Kingston hospital, I am perfectly satisfied there should be an adjustment for some in one way, and for others some other arrangement.
This is an intricate and complex problem, which calls for the best and most sophisticated analysis possible, and I hope this matter will not be placed before the veterans affairs committee until a good body of material has been gathered for serious study. I believe we have done some fairly good work in committees in this twenty sixth parliament. I have seen the kind of work which the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), as vice chairman of the defence committee, has done, with other hon. members, on the very difficult matter of defence, and the reason for the good work of that committee was because a lot of serious preparation had been undertaken and much material gathered before members of the committee began to meet.
It is in that spirit that we have to approach this matter of D.V.A. hospitals. The idea of veterans being sold down the river is ridiculous. We have presiding over this government as Prime Minister the first veteran of Canada who actually served in active service in war, a man who had a year and a half in the Gallipoli campaign and saw more people mangled, twisted and broken up than any other member in this house.
I suggest that the idea that the Minister of Veterans Affairs is going to treat this matter in a cavalier or casual manner is completely dishonest and unfair. I would ask the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam who is a fair and very humanitarian person-I agree with many of the things he said-to believe the proposition, and perhaps I am speaking more personally than is in good taste because

Veterans Hospitals Transfer I know the Minister of Veterans Affairs intimately, that for a period of some weeks and months he has been deeply concerned about this problem.
I am satisfied that the fears expressed by some members are groundless, and that what will ultimately develop will be to the credit of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and will be to the everlasting good and happiness of those people who are entitled in any way to D.V.A. assistance.


Mr. F. J. W. Fane (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I feel I must make a few remarks on this subject. I assure you I will not make many, and first I want to commend the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) upon his very fair and cogent address this afternoon. He put forward the matter of the Colonel Belcher hospital and the feelings of the veterans in a reasonable and precise manner.
I fail to see how veterans on the government side of the house can support the projected turnover of D.V.A. hospitals to other authorities. To hand over any of the facilities that the government of Canada is supposed to maintain for veterans, is definitely giving up their duty and responsibility to the veterans who made it possible for the country to survive even this long.
I speak as a representative of a constituency which contains at least 20 branches of the Canadian Legion, some of which hold numbers as early as 26, 33 and 35. I have had many telegrams from these branches of the Royal Canadian Legion and every one of them demands that the proposed hand-over of veterans hospitals to other organizations be not proceeded with and that everything possible be done to stop it. It may be that in the course of time it may be necessary to hand over certain parts of the responsibility of the government of Canada in this regard to other organizations, but I believe this must be gone into very carefully and very slowly. I just want to quote at this time from the address made yesterday by my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) in which he stated our outlook on this question. He said, as reported on page 2373 of Hansard:
As I see it, the solution is to let things remain as they are, with such modifications in the care and treatment of our veterans as are acceptable to our medical advisers, to the veterans themselves and to the veterans organizations. If this means making provision for those who do not require active treatment right in the D.V.A. hospitals, then let us make that provision; but to seize on this other course of handing these hospitals over to other control is repugnant to me and is certainly repugnant to the veterans organizations.
That is the paragraph which the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) would not read into the record. He chose to latch on to

some other statement which he said my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre had made.
In this proposed hand-over of D.V.A. hospitals I wonder why the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet) did not choose as a guinea pig Deer Lodge military hospital in Winnipeg, in the province from which he himself comes. Why did he choose the province of Alberta and, especially, the Colonel Belcher military hospital in Calgary? While I live some 300 miles away from the city of Calgary, now, my personal interest in the Colonel Belcher hospital is very great. I was one of the earliest patients in that hospital after it was organized and before that I was on the staff of the district depot in Calgary which was the forerunner of the present regional office of the D.V.A. in Alberta. I was there when this hospital was being organized. When the hospital was organized I was a patient and then I was on the staff of that hospital. So my interest in the Colonel Belcher hospital is very great. It was not the hospital then that it is now, because a new building has been provided. But it was the Colonel Belcher military hospital at that time. Even at that time the service there was the very best and I do believe that the idea of turning such hospitals over to other organizations is very wrong, because, as the minister said, even at present beds available in military hospitals are from 75 per cent to 80 per cent occupied.
The trouble seems to be that there is difficulty in getting sufficient staff. Well, as has been pointed out by the minister, the staff of military hospitals receive the same remuneration and have the same working conditions as, or perhaps better working conditions than those in many hospitals which are not D.V.A. hospitals. For the life of me I cannot see why it should be so difficult to recruit medical staff, that is, doctors and nurses, for these hospitals. The minister mentioned something about second class medical treatment which might be available later on. That is something I fail to understand, because the doctors and the nurses who enlist for work in military hospitals are dedicated people. They dedicate their lives to this great service, and people whose lives are dedicated do not provide second class service for anybody.
The minister also maintained that the situation is different in every part of Canada. I do not agree with that statement at all. Wherever you have a veteran in Canada, that veteran is in practically every case a man who had volunteered for service. This service was rendered without any idea of reward and it is the duty of the government of Canada to look after such people when they

need treatment. There can be no question about that. Handing over the medical services and the hospitals available to our veterans is just no good, because you cannot expect those who are looking after sick people to give the same consideration to everybody as they do to operative cases; and so many of these veterans are not now operative cases.
The veterans who will require hospital treatment are likely to increase in numbers in the next few years for the simple reason that the veterans of the second world war are now reaching middle age, and the results of their active service will begin to show, whether they were wounded or not; the results of the privations they suffered will begin to show. As for the veterans of the first world war, there are not as many of us left as there were. A great many will require treatment. This is not likely to be operative treatment, and where and how is this care to be arranged if we do not retain our D.V.A. hospitals?
There is no provision for the domiciliary care of veterans who are disabled, except in some places. The area which I represent is contiguous to the city of Edmonton. In that city there is not a veterans hospital. The veterans at the university hospital receive treatment in the Mewburn pavilion, and that pavilion is staffed by D.V.A. doctors. All the arrangements with regard to hospitalization are made and provided by the University of Alberta hospital, which is a child of the provincial government of Alberta. I have received a great many complaints about the provisions for hospitalization in that hospital, but I have yet to receive even one complaint about the medical or nursing attention. The complaint is with regard to the arrangements of the hospital and the lack of attention to veterans who are perhaps not operative cases. This is something that I believe could happen in all hospitals which may not be operated by the D.V.A.
I think that in the proposed turnover of these hospitals at this time the government is just trying to run before it walks. It is not making any provision for what is going to happen in the future, and the veterans would just be forced to take their chance on being looked after properly. I therefore am wholly in support of the amendment that has been moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) and I think every veteran in this house should also be in accord with that amendment.
I remarked when I began my speech, Mr. Speaker, that I would only say a few words.
I have been longer than I intended to be, but I have said things that I believe must be said, and must be said by a person who is a long time veteran.
Veterans Hospitals Transfer


Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have an opportunity to speak in this debate. I would like to say right away that, as a veteran, although I agree with some of the things that have been said during this debate from the other side of the house, I am not in favour of this amendment and I plan to vote against it. I will outline my reasons as I proceed, although I do not expect to speak for very long because I know there are others who have important things to say. However, Mr. Speaker, there are a few points that I wish to make.
First of all, I am a member of the veterans affairs committee and am concerned, having had the experience in that committee of a great deal of good will and free exchange of opinion, that this amendment will prejudice that good will by making this a political issue, that it most certainly is not. I think all of us on this side of the house, as well as those on the other side, are trying to do our utmost to look after the best interests of our veterans. I for one am satisfied from what the minister has said that our policy is to provide the best possible care for veterans even if this means making changes. I am also convinced that part of our policy is to consult with the veterans when the right time arrives.
My particular concern in this matter, apart from being a member of the veterans affairs committee, is that I have a veterans hospital in my riding, the Victoria veterans hospital. I can say from various studies I have made of this hospital that in my part of the country we are going to be in the veterans business for a long, long time to come, I would say probably longer than any other part of the nation, because the statistics show that, for one reason or another-and I believe it is because of the temperate climate which we enjoy out there-veterans from other parts of Canada gravitate towards Victoria in their later years. The census taken in 1961 shows that of all the male veteran population over 30 years of age, those living in the Victoria riding represent the highest percentage of anywhere in Canada; 42 per cent of all the male population over the age of 30 in the vicinity of Victoria are veterans. When we break this down even further, we see in the higher age groups, those of 65 years of age or over, once again we have the highest percentage in Canada. From age 60 to 64, 46 per cent are veterans; from 65 to 69, 53 per cent are veterans. This compares with a nationwide average of about 25 per cent to 28 per cent. So I am very, very concerned, Mr. Speaker, with the matter of veterans hospitals and their future.

Veterans Hospitals Transfer In view of the figures which I have just given to the house, I would like to say that I agree with many of the points raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), particularly with respect to the chronically ill or domiciliary care patients. We have a great number of them in our riding. For some time past we have been getting together with the other hospital agencies in my part of the country and trying to work out means of using joint facilities. I tbinTr our experience in this regard has been very successful and I hope it will be copied in other parts of the country. I am not trying to claim that anything we do in my riding regarding the veterans hospital in Victoria can be duplicated exactly in ridings in other parts of the country, because I agree wholeheartedly with the minister when he says that the arrangements for the various hospitals have to be different because they have different circumstances. For example, we have the circumstances that 1 have just outlined; that is, a higher percentage of veterans than in other parts of the country. In some parts of the country this figures is as low as 8 per cent. However, it is not in every part of the country that the veterans hospital is fortunate enough to have a large public hospital immediately adjacent to it. We do. We have for some time been sharing some of our facilities between the veterans hospital and the public hospital, and to our mutual advantage. It is this sort of thing that I would like to see investigated, to see whether there is not some further advantage to be gained for the veterans by more of this type of co-operation. For example, the D.V.A. hospital in Victoria already uses the facilities of the Royal Jubilee hospital for the treatment of cancer. We use their psychiatric clinic, and they provide emergency services and share their laboratory facilities.
This is the sort of thing I should like to investigate in my riding to the benefit of all the veterans. It has been explained to me that there is all sorts of room for this type of co-operation. I am told that new techniques are being developed in medicine which require not only expensive equipment but also, and much more importantly, highly skilled and trained teams of doctors and nurses to operate the equipment. I fully realize there is no one in this house who would wish to deny the veterans the full advantage of the use of this type of equipment in an emergency. I know we would all vote the money to acquire such equipment, but we cannot vote the experience that these teams require. These teams have to be put together, and having been introduced to the equipment have to use the equipment and use it frequently so that they know how to
[Mr. Groos.l
use it properly when the time comes. I think that most doctors will agree with me when I say that these teams cannot be duplicated in every hospital across the country. It is much better to have a highly skilled team in one central position and to make it available to veterans when the time comes. This is the sort of thing I am looking for in any revision of our plans for veterans hospitals.
I do not want to take up too much time this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to make two or three other points. An attempt has been made today to show that all veterans are against any change in policy.
I do not think this is so. However, I must confess I have sympathy with the veterans who are not aware of what changes the government have in mind. I am also in sympathy with the minister, who cannot possibly approach the veterans with the changes which he has in mind until he has been able to consult with all the individual hospitals and work out solutions for each individual case so that he can present his plans to the veterans.
When I have explained this matter to the veterans groups in my riding they have accepted it in the way I would have expected.
I have received over 1,300 cards from veterans as well as a number of letters from veterans organizations in my riding. These cards read:
I,	the undersigned, a veteran, protest the handing over of the Victoria veterans hospital to any other administration.
I think hon. members will agree with me that 1,300 cards all worded exactly alike are some sign of an organized protest, and it is the kind of protest I welcome because it is the type of information which a member of parliament needs to show how the people are thinking. It is interesting to note that of the 1,300 letters I have received there are signs that perhaps this highly organized campaign is being a little over-organized. A number of these protests have been duplicated. Some people have sent in two or three protests bearing the same name and address, and I have had over 50 of my replies returned marked "Not known at this address". I tried to reply to these letters straight away when they first came in at the rate of some 200 or 300 a day, and I think I have replied to over 1,000 of them.
I might also point out that a number of these cards have been sent to me with the word "protest" crossed out and the word "favour" inserted instead, so that the card would read:
I,	the undersigned, a veteran, favour the handing over of the Victoria veterans hospital to any other administration.

Or it might read:
I, the undersigned, a veteran, applaud the handing over of the Victoria veterans hospital to any other administration.
However, I do not attach any particular significance to this sort of thing, Mr. Speaker, other than that it goes to show that this objection is not a unanimous one. 1 have had letters from veterans who take the sane and sensible view, which I think is shared by many hon. members of this house on both sides, that it is time that at least a study was made of this problem so as to find out whether some changes should be made which would be of advantage to the veterans in some parts of the country. That is all we are looking for; at least that is all I am looking for. I want better care for our veterans, and I know of no one who will disagree with me on that.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that we can provide better care. One of the complaints that a veteran makes at the moment is that when he arrives at a veterans hospital he cannot always have his own doctor because the doctor concerned is not an accredited doctor at that hospital. It is surely better for a patient undergoing surgery in a hospital to have his own doctor who is well acquainted with the case. Then there is also the question of equipment to which I have referred. This new, highly technical equipment could be made available on a joint basis at a number of hospitals.
I should like to come back to the remarks made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, because I said that I agreed with a great deal of what he said. He was talking about domiciliary care. This is care which is in the main given to the older veterans, who comprise primarily the world war I group. All of these men have our profound sympathy. However, what I should like to see as a result of this debate is some clarification of the position of those undergoing domiciliary care. There is the suspicion that they are being treated only on sufferance, and I think that this suspicion must be removed. In particular, I think of the case of world war I veterans who fought under really awful, almost inconceivable conditions for months and months on end. There is no doubt, whether or not they were wounded, that this country owes them all a debt which we can never repay; and I for one wish to see them looked after in their old age even if it means that we have to provide domiciliary quarters for them under the operation of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I have been making investigations in Victoria with the local groups to see whether or not this can be done. As has been pointed out
Veterans Hospitals Transfer on more than one occasion, the veterans are a very understanding group. They know perfectly well that it would be better for everyone concerned if, instead of occupying beds in a hospital each of which costs somewhere around $25,000 a year to maintain, they were occupying beds much more suitable for their circumstances, namely those designed for domiciliary-type care. Although I cannot say I have achieved any result yet, I am exploring the possibility of taking the lead and attempting to establish the groundwork for the provision of this type of domiciliary accommodation in Victoria. What a fine thing this would be for the veterans. What a fine thing this would be for the community, and for Canada. It would be wonderful if this type of accommodation were made possible through the three various levels of government.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the difficult position the minister is facing has been amply demonstrated here by the various suggestions that have been put forward by the various members from both sides of the house as to how he should accomplish his purpose. This demonstrates to me the extent of the problem. I should like to reiterate, however, that I am in complete sympathy with the minister in his search for a solution to the problem which unquestionably faces us. I want to say again that I am satisfied our policy is to provide the best possible care for veterans, even if this means making changes. I do not believe there are any members in this house who will disagree with that policy.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, we have had a very interesting debate occasioned by the introduction of the amendment with regard to the possible transfer of veterans hospitals to provincial and municipal control. I say it has been an interesting debate, and I think it is understandable that varied feelings and convictions should be indicated in the discussion of a subject such as this one. I have followed with special interest the statements and interventions of those who have served in the armed forces. Some of us were not in that particular role, but possibly in roles that the national government considered essential to the successful prosecution of the war effort. Since we are dealing with veterans, as I say, I have been especially interested in listening to those who have served and who have expressed their views with regard to the matter now before us.
Possibly the first indication we had that something was moving in this regard was the report of the Glassco commission. This has been brought to our attention also and the various sections of it have been placed

Veterans Hospitals Transfer on the record tor public information. I believe, as was pointed out, that we must remember this was a task that was committed to the Glassco commission based almost wholly upon economic considerations. We are called upon to temper a report based purely upon economic considerations with the human elements that are involved in a situation such as the one now before us. Mention has been made of the announced policy or lack of policy indicated by the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I believe possibly he has to be blamed for not making forthright statements in this house in answer to the many questions that have been asked and the many submissions that have been made.
We waited for a long time before any statement was made outlining government policy. When that statement was made I fear that in many respects it was rather inconclusive, rather indefinite and left us very much in the dark regarding the policy the government intended to put into effect. When the minister made his statement on March 16, he outlined three main considerations that were to be kept in mind in relation to this important matter. As reported at page 930 of Hansard for March 16, the minister said:
These conditions, three in number, are as follows: First, accommodation for the treatment of service connected disabilities among veterans must be immediately available at all times, and treatment must be provided in accordance with standards prescribed by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Second, community institutions of acceptable standards must be available to look after the work load created by other classes of veterans, which means that such veterans will be able to obtain treatment in their own communities, near their own friends and families. Finally, satisfactory arrangements must be made for the continued employment of professional and other staffs now serving in our institutions.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that these considerations are very commendable, but as pointed out this afternoon, it would seem to me that specific steps must be indicated to ensure that these safeguards can be implemented and our veterans will continue to receive the high standard of service and treatment that they have received up to this time. We have all received communications with regard to this matter. I, personally, have received communications from various branches urging that we oppose any attempt to make this transfer of D.V.A. hospitals to other agencies.
A letter appeared in the April issue of The Legionary and it was directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs by Mr. D. M. Thompson, dominion secretary of the Royal Canadian Legion. He had been instructed to convey to the minister certain requests. I am not going to read the letter, but I am going to read the requests that are made.

(1)	That no action be taken by the government in regard to the handing over of D.V.A. hospitals until the Royal Canadian Legion has had an opportunity to discuss this problem further with you;
(2)	That you give a definite statement on government policy regarding these hospitals and the provision for future treatment for Canadian veterans;
(3)	That this statement indicate clearly the government's future policy as it will apply to treatment provided under each of the general classification sections of the veterans treatment regulations;
(4)	That when this statement has been received and studied, the dominion president and elected officers of the Royal Canadian Legion be given an opportunity to meet with you and discuss this entire matter.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the dangers that are inherent in such proposals as have been advanced. We can understand very well the fears of the veterans and those who are responsible for the welfare of the veterans. We can appreciate their fears. We would urge the minister, therefore, to go slowly in the implementation of these proposals which he has outlined or on the proposals that have been outlined by the Glassco commission. As I pointed out, the Glassco commission was operating from the point of view of economic considerations. I am sure the minister recognizes the fact, as does every member in this house, that the human element must be taken into consideration in the issue which is currently before us.
I suggest, therefore, that the government and the minister move very slowly in the implementation of this policy. Above all, I believe discussions should continue with the veterans organizations. We should try to reconcile their problems, dispel their fears and allay their suspicions that when the matter is finally proceeded with it will be with the knowledge that the veterans organizations have a clear understanding of what the minister has in mind, and the veterans will be assured that the treatment they may require in the future will be available at the time it is required.
As I have said, we have listened to veterans on both sides of the house and, as was pointed out today, the minister himself has a very laudable service record. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) also spoke, as well as members of the official opposition and others on this side of the house. All of these hon. members have laudable service records. Yet we see how widely divergent their views are with respect to this problem.
I do not think we can charge the government with being oblivious to the needs of the veterans. I do not think we can charge members of the opposition with making this matter purely a political football. I think we must credit each and every member with a sincere motivation so far as this question is concerned.

I simply wish to point out the fact that the veterans themselves hold widely divergent views with respect to this problem.
I think this points up very clearly the importance of further negotiations and discussions in an endeavour to resolve the problem and find some common ground of understanding before we proceed in this fashion. Once again I urge, as I did on a previous occasion when this matter was first broached by the minister, that the committee on veterans affairs be seized with this problem. The committee can then call before it members of veterans organizations and others who want to present opinions, suggestions and proposals. I believe that in this way we can resolve the problems involved and find a satisfactory solution to them.
I do not believe that this matter should involve a want of confidence motion so far as the government is concerned. I think this is a rather radical and drastic step because I believe that through co-operation and the pooling of the suggestions, knowledge and understanding of those who are vitally concerned we can arrive at a satisfactory solution, one which will, as I have said, allay the fears of the veterans and still provide for any change in the administrative field that is considered vital and important at this time.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). I am prompted to do so for three reasons, first, because of my medical training, second, because of the great number of veterans who have written me and sent me telegrams as well as communications even from civilians and, third, because I believe the veterans hospitals across Canada are serving a very useful function in looking after our veterans and are also doing great work in the field of research.
We have in Canada today over 200,000 veterans who are entitled to treatment. There are approximately 8,500 beds in the 11 veterans hospitals across Canada and when we look at the record we find that there were approximately 75,000 admissions last year which produced a case load of approximately 80 per cent usage of available hospital beds. This is a reasonable average considering that the length of stay of the veterans was approximately three weeks.
I also want to emphasize that the veterans hospitals are well equipped. On the basis of knowledge I can refer to Sunnybrook, and on the basis of advice received to Shaugh-nessy. They not only have the finest of equipment, but in the case of Sunnybrook members of the staff are associated with the
Business of the House
University of Toronto. Their staffs are the finest in Canada. These hospitals are doing a tremendous job not only in the work they are carrying on but in the training of young doctors who go forth with excellent training to treat people across the country.
The veterans in these hospitals make ideal cases for study and treatment. They can be given the most modern medical and surgical treatment in these hospitals but, above all, their cases can be followed up over the years to see what the results of the treatment may be, which may be very difficult in respect of the civilian population. The veterans are also unique in relation to the civilian population in that most of them have suffered the stresses and strains of war. Many of them have hidden injuries that do not appear until years later. They are a special group of people because the civilian population has not undergone the hidden stresses and strains of war. Only a veterans hospital with a veterans outlook and staffed by people such as work in these institutions will have the proper perspective to look after these people and give them the best treatment.
I want to refer for a few minutes to the general hospitals. General hospitals are active treatment hospitals. Their patients stay from 10 to 12 days, I suppose, but they are active treatment hospitals in that the cases they de'al with involve people who are acutely ill medically or who need emergency operations or who have been involved in accidents. I would remind the house that 12 per cent of all the beds in general hospitals today are occupied by accident cases. Today most of our veterans are over 35 years of age.
I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Before we call it six o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock p.m. this day are as follows: First, the proposed renewal of the law dealing with the construction of a railroad in Gaspe, raised by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm; second, the question of the adoption of a new flag for Canada and the placing of such design before parliament, raised by the hon. member for Cumberland: third, the question of raising pensions of superannuated civil servants in accordance with increases in the cost of living index, raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
2420	HOUSE OF
Veterans Hospitals Transfer AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at 8 p.m.



Mr. Speaker:: If hon. members would permit me, the hon. member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) had submitted two questions for discussion at ten o'clock, and at six o'clock, due to inadvertence, one of them was selected whereas he preferred the other one to be discussed. I have spoken to him since, and to the minister concerned, and instead of discussing the railroad in Gaspe I have decided that the subject of Cyprus should be discussed. There is no change in the member and no change in the minister. It was due entirely to confusion existing at six o'clock.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, I might say I am bitterly disappointed.

The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Favreau (for the Minister of Finance) for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Churchill.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, before the house adjourned at six o'clock I had stated that veterans hospitals were well equipped and that they were well staffed. For example, the Sunnybrook hospital has many excellently trained men, and I had stated its consulting staff was of the highest professional skill and training, that the hospital carried on with well kept records, a great deal of scientific research, that young graduates in medicine received a splendid internship there, and that the veterans received the most modern treatment they could have anywhere in Canada in an environment suitable to them.
I might have added further that many teaching postgraduate courses have been held there, which have brought in doctors from many hundreds of miles away, and all the doctors I have talked to have stated these were fine teaching courses and were of great benefit to them in their practices.
Now, having said this, I want to draw a distinction again between active treatment hospitals, as general hospitals are, that deal with the acutely ill both medically and surgically, and 12 per cent of whose beds are taken by accident cases and, on the other hand, treatment hospitals for those chronically ill, either surgically, medically or mentally. Mr. Speaker, I would like you to consider that between the ages of five to 35 years the biggest cause of illness and death is accidents.


After the age of 35 the picture changes and we find that people suffer cardio-vascular diseases, cancer, and rheumatic disorders, and other chronic disease. In Canada today we have 1,400,000 people with heart conditions, 350,000 of whom are seriously handicapped, and 72,000 of whom die annually from this disease. Cancer is the next biggest killer, claiming 50 per cent of all its victims. It is not good enough, to write off half of all its victims. Rheumatism and arthritic diseases affect over another one million people, 285,000 of whom are handicapped and 63,000 of whom are hopelessly crippled.
I could go on to state that custodial care is not good enough or adequate enough for a record like this, when we have those great killers striking people after the age of 35 years. We have a population including veterans that is gradually getting older and we must funnel our research and efforts into those cases we are likely going to get anyway.
There must be a constant struggle to achieve the best methods of treatment. Custodial care should be reserved only for those who have no hope of cure. General hospitals have recognized this and have constructed their own arthritic, physiotherapy and mental units close to or as part of the hospital. We require more and more chronic disease beds, and more active treatment going on all the time, if we are to control disease in a population that is constantly getting older, with more people moving into the age group above 35 years.
Veterans hospitals play a very important role in this phase of research and treatment. Let us keep the veterans in their own hospitals, within their own environment. Surely those who went into the army, navy or air force and took the chance of giving their all, and who bear the scars of their adventures, should get the best treatment possible in the best environment it is possible to give them. This will give them the best chance of recovery, by providing them with a happy environment among their old pals who understand them and who fought with them.
This is their right. This is their due, and all of us will not only feel that justice is being done but that some research carried out in those institutions may in the long run save the lives of many human beings. The veterans are entitled to have consideration. In the troubled world of today, the world of the cold wars, we have Canadian troops in quite a few places overseas. Just recently we sent troops to Cyprus, and on more than one occasion it has been suggested that Canadian troops adopt a greater police role. This means, in the event of the outbreak of conflict, that we may need more and more hospital beds.

Therefore I appeal to hon. members, regardless of their political affiliations, for a reconsideration of the rights of veterans across Canada. It is not true to say that we have lots of beds available for them in general hospitals. This is evident right across the country, and it is a complete hoax to say otherwise. The veterans must be treated in their own hospitals and given the best treatment possible.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, in the two or three minutes available to me I would like to add my voice to the veterans organizations urging the support and maintenance of our veterans hospitals. The minister may not be aware of why we have these hospitals, but each veteran is, because he figures that the hospitals operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs are ones that were promised to him. These are not hospitals in the true sense of some civic administration, and civic authorities are not capable of operating them.
At one time I was in the old Christie street hospital and I know some people who spent their lifetime in it. They felt it was not a hospital but a home to them. The minister may be a separatist; he may be one of these Liberals who believe in dividing everything up, but I am not.
I believe that as long as we are Canadians we have a responsibility toward those who served us in two world wars and who may be asked to serve again in the future. We have to honour our commitments. Everybody knows that commitments which were undertaken by the previous government were honoured by the minister who was in office at that time. But the hon. gentleman who now holds office is not honouring them; he is entering into arrangements with the provinces and municipalities rather than face up to the task. He has an obligation in terms of the unity of this nation and of the veterans charter, to bring his proposal before the veterans affairs committee. I venture to suggest he has done more thinking about this problem in the last two days than he has done in all the time previous to this debate.
I know some people are committed in this house to voting with a particular object in mind, such as whether to sustain the government. But I believe anyone who gives any thought to this matter will consider this issue to be a major part of the veterans charter and will feel obliged to vote for the amendment before us tonight.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 8.15 p.m. it is my duty to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question on any amendment now before the house.
Division


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. [Translation]


Mr. Cyr:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired; otherwise I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Cashin:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I not been paired I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, I was
paired with the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the amendment.


Mr. Clancy:: In the interest of all, could we have the result of the vote announced in French?


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; an hon. member
wishes to have the result of the vote announced in English and French.
En francais: en faveur, 94; contre, 123.
In English: Yeas, 94; nays, 123.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a grievance concerning this evening a most important minister on the treasury benches, the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill). It concerns, sir, what we feel to be a complete lack of any coordination in national transportation policy, involving transportation by air, by rail and the marine services in this country. There are others on this side who will be dealing with the question of rail transportation, and also with national policy concerning the marine. I intend to deal very briefly with our national air policies.
I may say, sir, at the outset that the reason which prompted the raising of this grievance is the complete lack of any clear answers to questions which members over on this side of the house-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could implore for the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) a little silence in the house so that the few of us who would like to hear him will have the opportunity of hearing him; perhaps the other hon. members may enjoy themselves more in the lobbies. While I am on my feet perhaps I can implore the hon. gentleman to state precisely what his grievance is so that I will be able to make a good rebuttal.


Norman Platt Lambert: Don't be so sanctimonious.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order in the house.


Erik Nielsen: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for his intervention. I often wish I had the ability of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) to make myself heard in this house, but unfortunately I am not endowed as graciously as he is with such attribute. The other thing I should like to say to the minister is that I intend to raise these issues this evening on a sufficiently broad basis that all hon. members will be able to participate in the discussion of the minister's responsibilities. I shall do so in a fashion with which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) is extremely familiar. There should be, therefore, no lack of opportunity for hon. members to participate in this grievance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit me to ask him a question? Does the hon. gentleman not think that in ranging so far afield he would be anticipating the debate on my estimates, and thus ruining it?


Erik Nielsen: I do not think that will be the result at all, Mr. Speaker, because there have been innumerable questions asked in this house concerning the abandonment of rail line facilities, for instance, and this piecemeal attack on a national problem which is of great concern to almost every area in Canada. I believe this is a grievance which should be raised and should be dealt with at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It should be dealt with tomorrow.


Erik Nielsen: The minister has already given us a hint as to which estimates will be considered tomorrow and the end of the week. In so far as marine services are concerned, again there have been sufficient inquiries on orders of the day about ferry systems in this country and the lack of other marine services to warrant these questions being dealt with now.
In so far as air services are concerned, there has been question after question directed to the minister with regard to air services across Canada to which no answer was received, or an evasive answer was given. This period will provide the minister with an opportunity of satisfying all the concern that is felt in the country with regard to these various transportation problems.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do you not think it would have been a good idea if the Minister of Agriculture had been here because he looks after rail abandonment?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is anticipating legislation, and that is against the rules.


Erik Nielsen: Before allowing this tangential debate to develop, I think perhaps I should direct my attention to the specific subject with which I am going to be dealing in the next five or six minutes, and that is the lack of any co-ordinated national air policy in the country. I am sure the minister has received innumerable representations from aviation organizations across the country dealing with all sorts of problems which confront not only the air lines but general aviation in Canada today.
I think we are lagging far behind some of the more forward looking nations of the world in the development of a national air policy. I know the minister has been extremely busy in looking after such matters as redistribution, but I feel it is essential that immediate attention be directed to the establishment of a national aviation policy which will be directed toward the growth rather than the retardation of aviation in Canada. At one time Canada was one of the leaders
21,	1S64
National Transportation Policy in this field. I feel we are rapidly dropping into the position of a second-rate nation in the field of general aviation.
One of the matters to which I believe the minister should give consideration is the subject of a national air organization similar to those international air organizations in which Canada participates. I am thinking specifically now of ICAO and IATA. On the civilian side, we have the international council of aircraft owners and pilots, the international federation of air line pilots, and the like. I am thinking also of the federal aeronautical international association. What appears to be happening, and I am sure the minister is aware of this-


An hon. Member:: He is not even listening.


Erik Nielsen: I do not know whether or not the minister is listening. You know, he refuses these briefs from the associations, he does not appear to be listening to them, and likewise he does not appear to be listening this evening. I suggest to the minister these are matters that are of sufficient importance that they would call for all his concentrated attention, because they are of international concern.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was following the hon. gentleman very closely.


Erik Nielsen: I am sure that the minister will be interested in one or two very brief points I shall be making. As I was saying at the time when perhaps the minister's attention was distracted, the establishment of a national organization should be considered for the purpose of considering general aviation matters in this country, in the same way that ICAO and IATA have been set up. We have all sorts of international representation from the civil side of aviation in this country, but we do not have any national association or national body upon which representation of general aviation in Canada can be heard. All we have is this assistant deputy minister for air and the air transport board. There is no representative within any of these organizations for the airing of opinions and views of general aviation in Canada. Of the approximately 6,500 aircraft registered in Canada, some 90 per cent are owned and operated by private individuals and organizations. However, these people are not represented on any association set up for the purpose of presenting views to the government.
If the minister does not agree with setting up a Canadian aviation council or aeronautics commission of Canadian origin upon which would be represented the views of general aviation in the country, perhaps he would consider representation on the air transport board of the views of general aviation by including

National Transportation Policy in the composition of that board representatives from the charter operators, and from the Canadian owners and pilots association within Canada. The air transport board has done a marvellous job in the contribution they have made to the organizing and orderly development of aviation in this country. At the same time it is still an exclusively government body. We recall that Hon. George Hees established a Canadian airworthiness council on which there were representatives from de Havilland, from insurance companies, from T.C.A., from the maintenance people, parts and supply people, and so on. However, there was not a representative from the 6,500 odd private aircraft owners in the country. I am going to leave that suggestion with the minister, that he give immediate and serious consideration to the setting up of a Canadian aviation council as a first step toward the development of a national air policy in this country which would be truly representative of the views not only of the air line companies but of general aviation.
In so far as rail line abandonments are concerned, I may say that I have no problems of that nature in my own constituency. I have problems, rather, with the construction of railroads themselves. However, I have heard members on several occasions bring this matter to the attention of the minister, and particularly the piecemeal disintegration of the railroad system in this country. I feel this matter is sufficiently important for the minister to stand up and declare some sort of cohesive integrated policy which will not only satisfy the innumerable questions that have been put to him but will reassure the house that we are not abandoning the very essential services which the railways provide, particularly to the grain growing part of our country.
The other matter which I want to include in this grievance has to do with an over-all marine policy for the country, perhaps along the lines-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I realize that for a while the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has been speaking on policy or rather on the general principles of the government policy about transport matters. Well, I wonder if this is a grievance matter, or rather a gap to be filled as far as government policy is concerned.
To my mind, a grievance is a complaint not against general principles of administration, but against any damage suffered or against some very dangerous thing. And the dictionary will confirm this definition.

Now today there are some complaints, not on specific grounds with regard to something damaging or very dangerous, but about the general principles of government policy. Consequently, I wonder if this is a true grievance, because we, in this corner of the house, would have real grievances to submit to the house, and since the beginning of the period set apart for grievances, we have heard the hon. member from the Yukon advance fine arguments and resort to great flights of oratory. Yet, I do not think that he raised a grievance, but rather that he is discussing the general government policy in matters of transportation.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether this short period of time should not be left to those who have real grievances, more particularly in view of the fact that the official opposition may have criticized this government's policy with regard to veterans' hospitalization, and that we did not have the opportunity of airing our grievances in the house during the two days set aside for discussing the first item of the subsidies.
Mr. Speaker, we would like to take advantage of the few minutes which are left to air our grievances. We think that the hon. member for the Yukon should submit a real grievance to the house or that Your Honour should declare the grievance raised by the hon. member irregular, and enable us to put well-founded grievances before the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I listened attentively and with interest to the argument that the hon. member for Lapointe has just put forward.
I also followed with attention the remarks of the hon. member for Yukon, with respect to the grievance he raised in the house. Right from the start, the hon. member said that his grievance was related to a lack of co-ordination in the government policy in the field of air transportation and, in my opinion, such grievance can be considered during the period specially allowed for that purpose. In fact, I suggest that the hon. member for Lapointe refer to the first paragraph of citation 234 of Beauchesne, fourth edition, which reads as follows:

When such motion is proposed, it shall he permissible to discuss any public matter within the powers of the federal parliament or to ask for the redress of any grievance.

As the hon. member can see, it provides a rather wide scope for debate, and I am of the opinion that the hon. member for Yukon is within the rules in submitting his grievance to the house.


Mr. Moreau:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Gilles Grégoire: Then, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: For the sake of good order perhaps we might allow the hon. member for Lapointe to speak. From the way he introduced his remarks I understand he has just one word to say.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to ask the hon. member for Yukon if he would allow me a question.

Could the hon. member tell me whether the transport situation is worse today than it was just a year ago, when the Conservative party was in power?


Erik Nielsen: Before answering the facetious question of the hon. member for Lapointe, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that there seems to be a misunderstanding of the nature of the grievance I have raised. I have not raised a grievance relating specifically to the lack of national air policy but rather to the complete lack of any transportation policy including not only an air policy but a rail policy and a marine policy. I want to make that quite clear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I might say that when the point was raised by the Minister of Transport at the outset of the remarks of the hon. member for Yukon that his grievance should be specific the hon. member did say in reply to the point raised by the minister that specifically he was dealing with air transportation policy. If the hon. member is the only one who has this particular grievance I might say that this will not preclude other members from raising another grievance with reference to another aspect of transportation policy.


Erik Nielsen: Like the Minister of Transport, 1 want at all times, of course, to be strictly within the rules of the house-


John Whitney Pickersgill: You are learning.


Erik Nielsen: -but I must say that when the minister raised the point first I replied that I intended to discuss as a grievance the complete lack of any integrated or co-ordinated national transport policy, air, rail and marine. I made it quite clear that this was the specific nature of the grievance. I went on to say that several members on this side of the house had raised questions concerning
National Transportation Policy rail line abandonment. I dealt with that question first. Then I went on to deal with matters concerning ferries and other marine matters that have arisen in the past several weeks in the house to which no satisfactory answers or evasive answers have been given. I dealt lastly with the question of air transportation. So I feel there should be the widest possible latitude allowed to all members in discussing these three aspects of the complete lack of a national transportation policy, air, rail and marine.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would permit me to ask him a question. Is the hon. gentleman entirely satisfied with the telegraphic and telephonic communications in the country? He seems to have left something out.


Erik Nielsen: Hardly, Mr. Speaker. I just did not want to throw in the kitchen sink, even though questions I have asked on the order paper with respect to telecommunication systems in the country have received absolutely no answers. I refer specifically to the program "Telepol". If the minister will refer to that question I think he will know what I mean. I could have dragged in two hotels that come under the minister but I did not do that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about the meteorological services?


Erik Nielsen: All I want to do, and in the least possible time, is to draw the attention of the minister and members of the house generally to the fact that the transportation situation in Canada today is an absolute and complete mess and I think the minister is largely responsible for it. He said he was going to bring in a national transportation policy.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know if the hon. member for Yukon is going to answer my question. He told me he would answer it.


Erik Nielsen: I did not think the hon. member was serious in his question but if he wants an answer in the nature of his question I can only say that more was done in six years with regard to transport matters under the Conservative administration than was done by the Liberals in 20 years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Yukon has the floor.


Erik Nielsen: I do not mind questions but I know that other members want to take part in this debate and if I may be allowed to complete my remarks as quickly as possible I can do so in two or three minutes. I have already

National Transportation Policy drawn the attention of the minister to my suggestion that he set up, as part of the government complex that governs air policy in this country, a Canadian aviation council or aeronautics commission upon which there would be representatives of the owners and operators who do 90 per cent of the flying in this country. This is a demand that has been made over and over again, and the minister would be well advised to allow his deputies and assistant deputies to devote themselves to other specific problems and, by the establishment of such a commission, allow some consultation to be had on the problem of the growth of general aviation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I was dealing with rail line abandonment. I had been disturbed by the number of questions asked in the house about the piecemeal disintegration of our national railroads in areas which will be seriously affected economically if a halt is not called to the indiscriminate abandonment of these rail lines. I think there are other hon. members more qualified to deal with this subject than I.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would think so.


Erik Nielsen: But I raise it as a grievance so that it can be dealt with, and I would remind the minister it is still part of my concern because it is a national transportation matter.
Similarly, I have heard questions asked of the minister with regard to the ferry systems throughout the country. The hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) has a motion on the order paper calling for the reviving of the Canadian merchant marine, and questions have been asked of the government along these lines, questions which have not been answered or, if answered, the answers have been evasive. I know it is extremely difficult for the minister to be specific in answering these questions, but I hope he will be as generous in his answers to hon. members who will follow me on this particular grievance as he would have expected of those answers given to him when he was sitting on this side of the house, when he became so indignant when he did not receive the type of answer to which he felt he was entitled.
Perhaps it would help the minister in the transport problems that beset him if another Kent were hired for him, in order to coordinate the efforts of his department. Maybe the responsibilities placed upon the minister are too much for him to handle, or perhaps in his new role as the acting Prime Minister he has too many other responsibilities to deal with, and it is difficult for him to give full attention to the responsibilities of his department. Whatever the trouble may be, I suggest some immediate solution is required, and I

urge upon him the specific suggestions I have made with regard to air transport. I am sure those who follow will deal more adequately with railway and marine problems.


Mr. D. G. Hahn (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite has raised the whole field-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
According to the citation from Beauchesne's which you read very well in English a short while ago-I congratulate you for being perfectly bilingual-after the question has been put, it is time to set forth grievances and not to reply to them. No rule says that it is the proper time to reply to grievances as the hon. member is going to do.
Mr. Speaker, I very humbly submit that this period is reserved for opposition members who have grievances to make against the government, and not to government members who want to defend themselves against some grievances.


Mr. Dupuis:: Let him speak to see what he has to say.


David George Hahn: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, how come the hon. member knows that I am replying to a grievance when he has yet to hear what I have to say?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: According to the custom of the house, the grievances period is not reserved for one particular hon. member or one side of the house to the exclusion of others. I think the hon. member for Broadview is entitled to answer, if he so wishes, to grievances expressed by others or to state his own grievances.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, must I conclude that, according to standing orders, the hon. member is allowed to speak only if he wants to raise a grievance? That is what the standing orders say, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No, as is customary the debate on a grievance must be carried on till the subject has been exhausted. There is nothing in the standing orders or in precedents in the house which prevents an hon. member on the government side to speak during the debate on a particular grievance. [Tea:t]


David George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, before I was slightly rudely interrupted I had started to say that the hon. member opposite had raised as his grievance what he called the mess in transportation and in transportation policy.

The first thing I would like to state, and this is not the general gist of my remarks, is that at this stage we are essentially carrying forward policies that were in existence when we came to power. Therefore, if there is a mess, who created it?
It is not my intention to deal with the whole field of transportation policy. The hon. member opposite wears a pair of wings and is obviously some sort of junior birdman. I too have wound up a pair of rubber bands and propelled myself through space at 30 miles an hour, and so I would like to discuss the portion of his grievance that dealt with air policy.
As I deciphered and distilled his remarks on air policy, and if we cut the verbiage down by about two thirds, his first point is lack of aviation policy and, second, a lack of aviation organization. Aviation really splits itself in this country into two fundamental parts. One is the scheduled air transport carrier. The second is general aviation, which I believe is the thing the hon. member is interested in; and certainly that part of it which I am interested in is general aviation.
In 1957 the government supported by the hon. member opposite came to power. At that time we had one national air line across Canada, and general aviation composed of a relatively small group of operators who had to prove need before they could get charters. Then, when the Tory party came to power, it established two air carriers across the country. I am not going to discuss the pros and cons of that, but they also changed the regulations so that anybody could get a charter to operate a public but non-scheduled air line business.
The result a vast increase in the number of non-schedule operators. The result of that is that most of those who were in the business were rapidly going broke, and the standards of maintenance that applied to this sort of service were forced to go by the board because these people could not afford to carry them out. There was too much competition. People jumped in without any need and without adequate equipment, and before the general election of last year, when the Conservative party was still in power, anybody who subscribed to the aviation press read in it, time and time again, a plea by the aviation industry that for heaven's sake let us-


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Gordon Drummond Clancy: That is right. I have not seen him in the house for two months.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I feel it has been established by precedent over a long period
21, 1964
National Transportation Policy that the hour for grievances is for that purpose, and not for a debate on the pros and cons of a particular subject.
These are grievances concerning the transportation problems of Canada. Surely any justification of what one government is now doing or discussion of what another government did previously should not be forthcoming from a private member, and I think we shall defeat the whole purpose of this grievance procedure if the government is allowed to have a member rise and protect its interest.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say a word on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). I suggest that every member of this house is equal in any debate, and the idea that because certain hon. members on this side choose to exercise their God-given right in a free assembly and a free country to speak is no excuse for hon. members on the other side trying to throttle their freedom to take part in our discussions.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: The house leader was accusing me. I was just indicating the member, that is all.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Timmins rising on a point of order?


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It appears to me that the reason we have a grievance procedure is to enable members of the opposition to raise grievances. Surely, if a member on the government side has a grievance to raise, if it is against a previous government it is out of order and if it is against the present government he should raise it in caucus, not in this house. Otherwise this procedure means nothing at all.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Is the speaker a member of the house? A number of us down here do not recognize him. He is a stranger to us.


Mr. Habel:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I find it strange that points of order should be raised as was done tonight, when one considers that during the last six years, on many occasions once the question was put, it was precisely government members who raised grievances. Therefore, I do not understand at all the attitude of the opposition tonight.


William Arnold Peters: Further to this point of order, I agree with the Minister of Transport that all members have an equal right to speak. My point of order is this: The hon. member should raise a grievance in the true sense,

National Transportation Policy not make comparisons between one government and another government and attempt to answer the grievance which has been raised. I do not say he has no right, as a supporter of the government, to speak.


Mr. Enns:: I wish to raise a point of order, and it is this. Our procedure now seems to be moving toward a debate. If the hon. member wishes to enter the discussion let him state a grievance rather than defend the government against the charges made by my hon. friend from Yukon.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I agree almost completely with the Minister of Transport that every member of this house is equal and that, generally speaking, we all have an equal right to raise grievances during supply motions. But I have followed the remarks which the hon. member has made up to this point and it seems to me he has not raised any grievance. What he is attempting to do is substitute himself for someone on the treasury benches who has been told by the Speaker that he does not have the right to reply to these grievances. He is not, in fact, raising a grievance but he is trying to do, as it were, by the left hand what the right hand may not do in these circumstances.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say a word about the serious point raised by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. I think it misconceives the whole idea of debate. Debate, if it means anything, means the presentation of both sides of a question and surely it is not being argued that the only person in the house who is allowed to present one particular side of a question is a minister of the crown and that every other person to speak during this period must speak against the government.
Surely, if an hon. member gets up and raises a grievance which any other member regards as being utterly phony it is perfectly competent for that other member to reply, and there is no reason why he should be denied the right to do so, any more than the hon. member who brought up the grievance should be denied his right to do that. If it were otherwise, the situation would be this: We would not have debate; we would have attack and no right of reply and it seems to me that to think along these lines is utterly to misconceive the purpose of our procedure. The period during which grievances may be raised is no different, in essence, from the period before the vote is taken. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) raised a grievance then, and I hope it is never argued in this house that once that grievance was made and a question of nonconfidence had been raised nobody could


defend the government except a member of the government. I have never heard that argument put forward before. It seems to me that the standing order and the citation from Beauchesne apply equally to the period before and after the vote is taken, and that there is no monopoly given to either side of the house in this matter; all hon. members have an equal right to deal with the subject which is brought up, provided of course that they do not introduce a new subject. As long as they do not introduce a new subject, they have a perfect right to differ from one another. I suggest this is the purpose of debate and that this doctrine that no one can deal with opposition attacks is a denial of free speech which cannot be tolerated in a free assembly.


Stuart A. Fleming: On
this point of order and the interesting intervention by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) may I say this: the grievances which are raised at this time are grievances against the actions, or lack of action, of the government. There is only one authority which can satisfy those who raise grievances, namely, a member of the government-a spokesman for the government, for those who create government policy and take responsibility for that policy. We do not wish to hear the government's apologists. We want to hear the government itself, through its official spokesmen, and those who raise matters of grievance on this side of the house are only interested, if they have legitimate grievances, as we believe in this case we have, in hearing the government's reply, not the reply of someone who has no responsibility.


David George Hahn: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Fleming) has the floor on a point of order.


Stuart A. Fleming: I do
not suggest that the hon. member who has been giving the response on behalf of the government is not an expert on the subject, but he is not necessarily a person who has responsibility for the policy of the government. What we want to know when we raise grievances here is whether those who respond speak for the government or whether they only speak for the sake of speaking. We shall not be satisfied with apologists. We want to hear from those who make policy and accept responsibility for that policy. We want to hear from them and from no others.


David George Hahn: On a question of privilege. I believe that as a member of this house I have the same right to discuss a grievance as any other member.


An hon. Member:: What is your grievance?


David George Hahn: As I understood it, the grievance fell into two parts. I was refuting one part so that I could deal with the second and I believe I have a right to get to the next point in my argument.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You have no power.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I wonder if the hon. member would kindly resume his seat. I have heard many interesting arguments, most of them against the position which I felt should be adopted by the Chair in this regard. I have already explained my view, when the point was raised originally by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). My reading of Beauchesne and standing orders since this discussion started has not altered my view in the slightest. There is nothing at all in the precedents of this house or in the practice of this house to prevent an hon. member on the government side giving his views on a grievance, even though he is not himself expressing a grievance.
I am advised that there is a clear decision following this line by Mr. Speaker Michener. Unfortunately I do not have it before me, but I am advised that there is such a decision, which supports my ruling. I feel that in the circumstances we should allow the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hahn) to reply to the specific grievance raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).


David George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, before the points of order, and so on, were raised-and I hope that all these do not come out of my time, although I need very few seconds to complete my arguments-we were tied somewhere up on cloud nine discussing aviation policy. To wind that portion up, all I would like to say is that prior to the assuming of office by this government there was a great, crying need, as expressed by the operators in the industry, for a change in aviation policy. The policies that had been instituted by the previous government had not worked, had caused great economic hardship in the industry and were due for an overhaul. We are in the process now, as I understand it, of announcing new aviation policies. I recently noticed a statement by the minister indicating that class 7 were going to have to prove, temporarily, need before new charters would be issued. I think these are steps in the right direction and I think if we are patient we will see that a proper policy is brought forward.
The second point raised by the hon. member for Yukon dealt with the need or the desire to have an aviation organization. Private aviation in this country needs encouragement, and I agree with the hon. member opposite that this is a crying need. It is necessary that we have good navigational
21, 1964
National Transportation Policy facilities across the country. We need facilities with which to land our aircraft. We need encouragement in terms of low cost operation and minimum cost facilities or private aviation cannot exist. I believe that the use of small and medium sized aircraft is a very efficient way in which to travel from one part of the country to another. It is a method of transportation that has a great economic business use as well as a private one, and I am anxious to see it encouraged. In the private segment there are private organizations. The hon. member opposite mentioned, I think, C.O.P.A., the Canadian owners and pilots association. This is largely a pressure group that collects the ideas of aviation and then tries to stop legislation that the government is bringing forward that might be detrimental. It tries to work with government. I would like to see a closer liaison here. I would like to see an organization set up and sponsored by government to which representatives of general aviation could come, so that we would have a real forum for the airing of the views of people who are interested in aviation. In this way we might create in this country a climate that is suitable for the development of this segment of aviation. So that in the sense that the hon. member opposite wished to see an organization created, that would serve as a proper forum for the development of aviation, I support that portion of his grievance. I refute the rest of the things that he said.


Mr. Rheaume:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


David George Hahn: I will answer a brief question, but I think we should allow other hon. members to speak.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: It is just a question on the statement made by the hon. member, who said that because of the former policy many operators were entering the business without adequate safeguards and were going broke, and so on. I wonder whether the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hahn) could give the house a few examples of these cases of which he is so sure.


Erik Nielsen: Just one.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Yes, just one.


David George Hahn: I unfortunately do not have the figures here, because I did not know this debate was coming up; but if you look at the number of charters in existence in 1957, and the number of charters in existence in 1963 in the private segment, the answer is very obvious. If my memory serves me well, something like four or five times the number of

National Transportation Policy operators were in business after the change in government policy in 1957 or 1958.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member perhaps did not understand my question. I am interested in whether he could give the house even a single example of an aircraft company which entered the business and did not maintain the safety rules, which is the charge he levelled, and went broke because of the policy. Can he name one single company?


David George Hahn: I can, Mr. Speaker, but I do not think the House of Commons is the place to mention or indicate the names of private, commercial operators who have had trouble in private business. I would be very glad to discuss this matter with the hon. member and give him the names of companies that I know.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take this opportunity to deal briefly with certain aspects of the grievance raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I would like to deal a little more specifically with not only the lack of an over-all transportation policy but also with some of the factors of the present policy, or at least the present practice, that has neither common sense nor any fairness. I would hasten to say that this is not a brand new condition that has cropped up in the last year in the tenure of office of this particular government. I recall first bringing this condition to the attention of Hon. George Hees when he was minister of transport, and then to the attention of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) when he was minister of transport. I also brought it to the attention of the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) when he was minister of transport. We are now going through our fourth minister of transport. Apparently this is a very bad office for ministers, because we do not seem to get any that last too long in the job.
To give the house a proper picture of this situation I think I should give a little of the background. The constituency of Timmins consists of approximately 50 per cent French Canadian people and 50 per cent of all others put together. The area serviced by the Timmins airport also takes in part of the riding of Cochrane, which is about 70 per cent French Canadian, and parts of the ridings of Timiskaming and Nickel Belt, which are also quite heavily populated by French Canadians. It would seem that the natural link of these people would be with Montreal rather than Toronto. I would like to give the house the situation as it exists and as it has existed for some time. In fact, it has got worse instead


of better. The distance by highway from Timmins to Toronto is only 12 miles different from the distance to Ottawa, but the cost of T.C.A. travel is almost double to Ottawa, and of course on to Montreal, as it is to Toronto. At the time this condition was arising we found there was a general deterioration in transportation facilities; that is, with regard to the rail service connecting this part of the country with the south and particularly the Ottawa and Montreal regions. These services have deteriorated at a very rapid rate. I recall that when I first came down here in 1957, if you were travelling to Ottawa you could get your berth in Timmins. About a year later you had to go down to Por-quis Junction, and the next year you had to travel down to Englehart. Then the following year it was North Bay-and finally they took the sleepers off that train altogether. My point is that while the service on the railroad was deteriorating year after year, the cost by air was increasing rather than being reduced to compensate for the deterioration in this other form of transportation.
This situation has been greatly aggravated owing to the recent tremendous strike in the Timmins area. Last week end when I was home in my constituency I found the airport completely ringed with private planes and helicopters. Prospectors, geologists, international finance people and heaven knows who else are making use of the Timmins airport at the present time and are certainly putting great stress and strain on its facilities, even to the extent that I would say that there could quite possibly be some danger with all these planes flying around and with the limited facilities presently at the airport. In fact, if one can believe all of the stories which fly around at an excitable time like this I am given to understand that someone has staked the airport at Timmins, so that the minister had better be careful to check into this or he might find a shafthouse in the middle of the runway one of these days which I am sure would further interfere with the air traffic.
However, I do wish to stress that the present situation is completely inadequate to cope not only with the traffic using the airport but with what appears will be the traffic over the next few months and years. This is one particular aspect which should receive immediate attention.
There is another point with regard to rail transportation which again makes no sense whatsoever. I refer to the apparent agreement which has been worked out between the C.N.R. and the O.N.R. to discontinue one of the daily trains which run into Timmins. It

was bad enough prior to these new developments in the Porcupine camp, but about six months ago it seemed that for the first time in possibly 20 years the C.N.R. had realized that if they want to get passengers they should do something to attract passengers. Therefore they adopted a new policy with regard to passengers on the railways.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member after the difficulties we have had in connection with the application of the rules at this particular time. I may not have understood correctly the grievance which was raised originally by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), but I did say earlier it was my understanding of his grievance that it related to air transportation. If it does, and that is my understanding, the hon. member would be out of order. If his grievance has a broader application and includes transportation in general I would then assume that the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) is in order.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order which Your Honour has raised, with regard to railroad transport policy in the country my specific grievance was rail line abondonment. So far as marine policy was concerned it was ferry services, merchant marine and general marine policy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I might just say a word, I think the hon. gentleman on the one occasion when he really defined his grievance said that it was against the lack of any national transportation policies, so I would think the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) is completely in order in what he is saying.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes, that would be my opinion too, but I wanted to have the matter cleared up right at this point. I recognize, therefore, that the hon. member for Timmins is in order at this time.


Murdo William Martin: I thank the house for this opportunity. The grievance was a little fuzzy at first but I thought this matter would come within its ambit. However, I will only take a few minutes to complete the grievance I am raising.
As I was saying, some six months ago a very real effort was made on the part of the C.N.R. to attract passengers. This effort had astonishing effects, and I am sure that anyone who has ridden on a train in the last few months has realized these effects, because all of a sudden rail travel has become very popular again, and to ride on a train nowadays almost takes one back to the war years when it was very difficult to find a seat aboard a train. However in spite of this
National Transportation Policy tremendous increase in traffic we find that an agreement has been worked out between the C.N.R. and the O.N.R. to discontinue one of the two daily trains which are going into the Porcupine camp.
I fail to understand how there can be any common sense in this move. After years of a slowly deteriorating volume of passenger traffic all of a sudden one train is going to be discontinued at a time when traffic has increased at a tremendous rate over the last few months. Particularly in view of the recent developments in the Porcupine area I am sure that the minister will use his influence, in conjunction with the Ontario Northland Railway, or the provincial government who are in charge of that particular section of the railway at least to postpone the plans which have been made to cut off one train into the Timmins area at the end of this month. This is a problem which is very real and which has been building up over the years. It has now reached a climax with these new developments in the area. I am sure the minister will give it his closest attention and will correct the situation before it causes any more difficulty.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on this grievance for only a very few minutes. The reasons I do so is because a few days ago I related some of the background respecting the southern prairie air service. The reason I now avail myself of this opportunity is because there have been some changes during the last few days, which have not been good changes, with respect to what has happened to the deal made between TransAir and Trans-Canada Air Lines.
As I pointed out a few days ago, an application was made by Trans-Canada Air Lines in November 1962 to be relieved of the obligation to provide an air service on the southern prairie air run. They were granted the right to withdraw from this service and a number of air lines from western Canada applied to the air transport board for the franchise. However, at that time the Department of Transport did not indicate that any subsidies would be available to any of the applicants in providing this service on the southern prairie air run. TransAir was granted the franchise to provide a service from Winnipeg to Brandon to Dauphin to Yorkton and into Regina, and also from Regina to Swift Current to Medicine Hat and into Calgary.
Several months after the franchise was granted to TransAir, on the basis of a submission which they made at the air transport board hearings in Regina, Trans-Canada Air
2432	HOUSE OF
National Transportation Policy Lines gave TransAir $500,000 worth of aircraft and airline equipment, such as communication facilities, etc., provided that they would maintain a reasonably good service, or the service they were required to set up, for a period of three years.
My grievance this evening is that TransAir in fact discontinued the service on a large part of the southern prairie air run before one full year of operation, and as far as I know they are retaining this $500,000 of equipment, which includes one Viscount aircraft, two DC-3 aircraft and a multitude of other pieces of airport and communications equipment. According to a Canadian Press report dated Winnipeg, April 10, this appears:
TransAir Limited said today a United States group has bought into the Winnipeg-based air line.
A spokesman said two Minneapolis businessmen have been added to the board of directors to represent the American group.
It seems to me that we have to ask the Minister of Transport to look very deeply into this matter. Apparently the balance sheet of TransAir for the past year has been attractive enough to induce certain United States interests to buy into that company. This has happened in spite of the fact they claimed they lost so much money they were justified in withdrawing from the service they undertook to provide in the southern prairies. In fact, according to information that was provided at the hearings, TransAir lost $114,000 during the period from April 1963 to January 11, 1964 when they suspended the service they had undertaken to provide. I am not sure of the exact starting date, but it was April, 1963 and the final date was January 11, 1964. The company claimed it lost $114,000 during that period. If that is so, then they have profited from this deal with Trans-Canada Air Lines to the tune of something like $386,000 in ten months.
We have an obligation to see that TransAir does not get away with this amount of public property. I will not accept the contention that has been put forward by more than one minister of transport that the dealings of Trans-Canada Air Lines with other corporations are really beyond the sphere of the minister's activities. This is public property. The people of Canada, through the federal government, own all the shares in Trans-Canada Air Lines. Mr. McGregor, the president of Trans-Canada Air Lines, has absolutely no right to give away half a million dollars worth of the assets of this country.
I do not want to take any more time because one or two other members may wish to speak on this subject. In closing, I want to say to the Minister of Transport that we have no intention of allowing TransAir to


get away with this. We find ourselves in a position where there is now no air line service at all for the southern part of the prairies. While we accept the minister's statement that his department is studying the matter of feeder lines, and perhaps this is something to which he cannot find an answer quickly, we still believe there is some kind of policy that should be enunciated very quickly, because there are airports in this part of the country and there is a need for freight service to transport greenhouse products and other things that require fast transport. I believe it should be part of the government's general transportation policy to have Trans-Canada provide these regional and feeder services in all parts of Canada, including the southern prairies.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wonder if I might have the indulgence of the house for a moment to put on the record a statement by Mr. Speaker Michener to which I referred a moment ago when rendering judgment in connection with a point of order discussed by a number of hon. members. I am quoting from Hansard for May 3, 1960, page 3528:
The practice in dealing with grievances after the amendments have been disposed of has been to speak to one grievance at a time, and I would not deny any member in the house the right to speak to the matter before the house. In recognizing an hon. member I do not know whether he is going to speak for or against the proposition. However, if he keeps on the same subject it seems to me he is within the rules and that a member who disagrees with the point of view raised by a member speaking to a grievance is just as much entitled to speak as any member who wants to support a grievance.
This was the point of view which I expressed a moment ago and this is the quotation to which I had reference.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to participate in this debate briefly this evening since the problems created by a lack of transportation facilities have been of major concern to Nova Scotia for many years. Due to Nova Scotia's slow but certain economic growth, these problems have been further aggravated in recent years and it is now evident that further steps must be taken to provide additional transportation links for our expanding fishing industry, secondary manufacturing industry and our tourist industry.
My grievance tonight, therefore, deals with marine transportation problems which face our genial minister who represents one of the maritime constituencies. As many of you are aware, Nova Scotia is almost an island. When the Chignecto canal and power complex is built, we will be actually surrounded by water. However, despite our geographical handicaps, Nova Scotia is going forward.

In 1963 the province's crown corporation negotiated the establishment of 11 new industries, three of which were from outside Canada. Our province became the first one on the continent to produce European motor vehicles when Volvo of Sweden announced its decision to locate an assembly plant at Dartmouth; a British company chose Truro as its home for a new carpet manufacturing plant and the Canada Cement Company began construction of a new plant at Brookfield near Truro. We have a heavy water plant to be built near Glace Bay and new fish processing plants are under way at Lunenburg and Canso. Mineral explorations have been intensified and there has been an increasing awareness of the annual value of between $75 million and $100 million of the province's forest resources. All these projects represent additions to our regional capacity in the primary and secondary industries, but despite this progress we still have a high unemployment rate in the Atlantic provinces which indicate we cannot rest on our oars, and still more must be done if we are to reach the level of prosperity enjoyed by other parts of Canada.
Two things in my opinion must be done to bring this about. First, an immense effort is necessary on the part of industry in cooperation with our provincial and federal governments if our economic lag is to be overcome. Only money, huge amounts of investment capital, can do this. Massive investments over the next decade is the prime requirement. Of course, money alone is not enough. Many human qualities must be added, qualities of judgment, industry, ambition and enterprise. We have these qualities to a great degree in our people but they cannot succeed without investment capital. Here is where the federal government can enter the picture, by improving the transportation needs of our provinces.
We need a second ferry between Nova Scotia and New England to bring us closer to the vast market to the south of us. There is every economic justification for this second ferry at the present time. Here we are in Nova Scotia with average incomes lower by one third than those of the rest of Canada, with double the unemployment and half the capital investment per capita for the remainder of Canada. We have a growing labour force and everywhere mechanization tends to reduce the number of jobs available. In order to substantiate my remarks I need only quote from a recent editorial under date of April 20 in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald:
Figures released last week by the department of labour and the dominion bureau of statistics show that unemployment during March represented 6.8
21, 1964	2433
National Transportation Policy per cent of the labour force, compared with 8.4 per cent a year earlier and 8.7 per cent in March of 1962-
This is the national picture. What of the regional story? When the over-all statistics are broken down, a different tale is told-
But on the negative side, Quebec had unemployment of 8.9 per cent during March while a full 13 per cent of the labour force in the Atlantic provinces was jobless. And while these figures represent a considerable improvement over March, 1963, when the unemployment rates were 11 per cent in Quebec and 15.3 per cent in this region, they are still too high to be tolerated.
It is perhaps significant that the rate of 13 per cent in the Atlantic provinces is almost the same as that prevailing in that area of the United States which has come to be known as Appalachia, and which is a focal point of President Johnson's "war on poverty".
The despondency which has infected the Appalachian mountain region is not present here; quite the opposite. A new air of optimism permeates Atlantic Canada. Where once we looked ahead with unrelieved despair, there is now a faith in the future.
But the fact that things are getting better, and will continue to do so, must not blind us to the realization that we still have a long way to go to reach the level of prosperity of the rest of the country.
This then, Mr. Speaker, is the challenge. The next question is-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the hon. gentleman a question. Did the hon. gentleman understand that we were discussing the lack of a transportation policy or did he think the grievance had to do with employment?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I was laying the groundwork. I should possibly explain, Mr. Speaker, that for 22 years we in Nova Scotia lived under a Liberal government and our economic growth during that period was very slow. Our biggest export was brains. We sent them to Upper Canada and to the United States.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was a form of transport.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: That was a form of transport. But since 1956 the province made progress under a Conservative government, and I wanted to lay the groundwork to show the minister the progress being made in Nova Scotia and the need to have further transportation links between our province and the United States.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not for the kind of transportation the hon. gentleman is suggesting though.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: To substantiate my remarks further I should like to quote from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of April 20. The article is headed, "Extra Trip For M.V. Bluenose", and reads as follows:
In order to accommodate the many truck transports bound for the U.S. the M.V. Bluenose made an extra trip to Bar Harbor Sunday. The ferry's
2434	HOUSE OF
National Transportation Policy truck deck will take 17 large vehicles and port agent K. M. Beazley said besides the load taken over Sunday there were already 14 on the list for Monday when the ship resumes its normal run. Lobster and fresh fish was the main cargo.
So, Mr. Speaker, there is a definite need for a second ferry. This article will give the house some idea of the value of the present ferry, Bluenose, to our secondary industries, especially our expanding fishing industry. While it is true that the ferry now in existence operates at a small deficit yearly, I believe the expanding fishing industry will eventually take care of the deficit by reason of the increased amount of freight shipped to the United States.
I know the government is interested in assisting the Atlantic provinces and, having pointed out the value of the existing service, I cannot help but wonder what would happen to our fresh fish industry if the present ferry broke down and became inoperative over an extended period. If this happened during July and August it would spell disaster for literally hundreds of Nova Scotians who are dependant upon the tourist industry for a livelihood. Ten years ago the tourist industry was not considered a vital economic factor in Nova Scotia but today it is big business, with the number of persons visiting our province almost double the figure of 1953. Last year over 700,000 tourists visited the province leaving revenue there of some $55 million.
We are not the only ones interested in the provision of a second ferry. The city fathers of Gloucester, Massachusetts, have been eagerly campaigning for a number of years for a second ferry. They have prepared a brief. X will not read it into the record because of the late hour but among other things it indicates that the area surrounding Gloucester, that is, Boston and New York, has a population of approximately 30 million to 35 million people and this vast area could be tapped if a second ferry was in service between the province of Nova Scotia and the New England states.
The Nova Scotia government is vitally interested in this matter. The provincial department of trade and industry in June of 1963 made a formal submission to the federal government for additional ferry service between western Nova Scotia and New England. Specifically, the proposal advanced was for a second vessel to supplement the service now being provided. In support of this proposal a traffic study was presented to the minister. I cannot help but wonder what happened to this proposal. We have heard nothing from the minister and nothing from the government regarding the action they propose taking.


In view of the interest in this matter and the benefits that would accrue to Nova Scotia I sincerely hope that the government will take steps in the near future to strengthen the transportation link between our province and New England through the provision of a second ferry.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, in three minutes, which seems to be the new magic time given to ministers to reply, it will be very difficult for me to reply to the many and detailed specific grievances set out by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), most of whose speech, I thought, was in the air. But there have been one or two serious points raised by some other hon. members about which I will attempt to say a word or two.
I am a little surprised that the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse) did not mention the fact that his distinguished predecessor was largely responsible for the Bluenose which he praised so highly. We are very proud of that and we only wish that the hon. member was able to be proud of a second ferry that he had been able to get in the six years when he supported a government that did nothing about the problem. It is a problem and it is getting a lot more attention than it got under the previous government. As soon as a conclusion is reached as a result of the studies that are being carried on at the present time it will be announced to the house.
With respect to the problem at Timmins there is no doubt that if things develop in Timmins in the way that seems likely to happen now the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) was not exaggerating in any way in what he said, and I intend to see that everything that can be done is done as quickly as possible to meet this problem which has suddenly come upon us.
The hon. member for Yukon talked about the haphazard policy of rail abandonment. There have been no railway lines abandoned in western Canada, of course, because there is a moratorium on the abandonment of railway lines which was established by the previous government, and although the hon. gentleman did not seem to be aware of what was going on it is still in effect.


Stuart A. Fleming: Will
the minister permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It will continue in effect until new legislation is adopted and until an orderly method of dealing with these problems is set up under an authority which I hope parliament will authorize which will be under my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays), and which will ensure that no lines are

abandoned that are essential either on economic or social grounds. That is the position.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Despite the demands that I speak of, hon. gentlemen do not seem to want my answers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being ten o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to section 4 (f) of standing order 56, to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith the question on the motion now before the house.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
1.	Departmental administration including the national co-ordinating committee on agricultural services, contributions to commonwealth agricultural bureaux and a contribution to the agricultural economics research council in an amount equal to the contributions of the provinces but not exceeding $50,000, $3,368,900.

[Stage Direction]
1.	Administration, operation and maintenance including payment of remuneration, subject to the approval of the governor in council and notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, in connection with the assignment by the Canadian government of Canadians to the staffs of the international organizations detailed in the estimates (part recoverable from those organizations) and authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amounts of the shares of those organizations of such expenses, and authority, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, for the appointment and fixing of salaries of commissioners (international commissions for supervision and control in Indo-China), secretaries and staff by the governor in council; official hospitality; relief and repatriation of distressed Canadian citizens abroad and their dependents and reimbursement of the United Kingdom for relief expenditures incurred by its diplomatic and consular posts on Canadian account (part recoverable); Canadian representation at international conferences; expenses of the third commonwealth education conference; a cultural relations and academic exchange program with the French community, and grants as detailed in the estimates, $10,826,300.
[Stage Direction]
1.	Departmental administration including federal share of the expenses of the secretariat for the Canadian council of resource ministers and $120,000 for grants for northern research and for northern scientific research expeditions, $1,591,500.
[Stage Direction]
1.	Departmental administration, $1,130,500.
[Stage Direction]
I.	General administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates; the expenses of the inter-20220-155
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion national labour conferences; the promotion of labour-management co-operation; the promotion of a program for the employment of the older worker; the promotion of a program for combating seasonal unemployment; the organization and use of workers for farming and related industries; and the manpower consultative service, $4,243,100.
[Stage Direction]
1.	General administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $12,114,500.
Proceedings reported.
[Stage Direction]
(Subject matter of questions debated under adjournment motion.)
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, do the new rules permit a question with regard to the business of the house? Although I might be very much interested in the half hour debate, on the other hand I might wish to leave when the ministers get up to speak.


Mr. Speaker:: The broadest interpretation of the answer to that question is yes, either now or at the end of the half hour.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then may I ask the house leader what is the business for tomorrow?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I understand any time I may take will not be taken off the adjournment debate period, but I will be very brief. Tomorrow we hope to be able to finish the debate in committee on the electoral boundaries bill, and tomorrow evening I hope to be able to announce the business of the house for quite a few days ahead.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielie-L'Assomplion-
Monicalm): Mr. Speaker, first I wish to thank the Secretary of State for External Affairs for being present in the house to answer the important question I put to him on the orders of the day and which Your Honour did not accept on the grounds that it was not urgent.
Mr. Speaker, Canada has sent 1,150 men to Cyprus for a three month period on a peace keeping mission. That period will expire on June 27. I should like the minister to tell me if the government intends to ask the house to extend the term of the Canadian forces in Cyprus, should circumstances warrant it.
What astonishes me, Mr. Speaker, is that when the Secretary of State for External
2436	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Affairs agreed to send a Canadian peacekeeping force in Cyprus, under the control of the United Nations, he did not insist that the expenses of the Canadian force in Cyprus be borne by the United Nations, that is by all member countries of the United Nations.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the authority of the United Nations has been destroyed when Canada was allowed to support alone the costs resulting from the posting of a Canadian peace keeping force. The United Nations must exercise a joint action and not a unilateral one. It seems to me that such a situation jeopardizes the future of the United Nations, because it creates a precedent which compels a country to spend large sums of money to restore peace in that part of the world while member countries of that international organization refuse to accept their responsibilities by sharing those expenses. [Text]
Maurice John Moreau: Yould the hon. member permit a question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to make a speech, he will have the opportunity to do so when we discuss the external affairs estimates-


Maurice John Moreau: Will the hon. member allow a question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: If it is refused, he will have the opportunity to discuss it after ten o'clock.
Mr. Speaker, I shall ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs why the Canadian government, or the United Nations, did not demand from Archbishop Makarios, before sending Canadian forces, or others, to Cyprus, that Turkish or Greek Cypriots be disarmed.
At this time, the Cypriots, whether Turkish or Greek, are armed and killing each other; every day we read in the papers that some accidents have happened.
I wonder why the Canadian government has not, through the Secretary of State for External Affairs, asked the secretary general of the United Nations to demand from Archbishop Makarios, that the United Nations forces have the privilege and the responsibility to disarm Cypriots, whether Turkish or Greek.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has done more than its share to help the United Nations. Not only do we pay our share as a member country, but we also have to pay considerable amounts for those countries, which refuse to meet their obligations. Those countries, Mr. Speaker, have the same voting right as those who honour their responsibilities. To my mind, such a situation is abnormal and the existence of the United Nations is endangered if its member countries refuse to do their duty from a financial point of view.


At the next general assembly of the United Nations, the Secretary of State for External Affairs should be firm and even make a speech to the effect that, if necessary, Canada would withdraw from the United Nations, if the member countries refused to honour their financial obligations.
The Canadian government authorized the Canadian force to stay in Cyprus until June 27, but some people suggest that it will have to stay there for three years because the conflict will not be settled.
Furthermore, until the next sitting of the United Nations, when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) will be able to ask the member countries of that organization to share the expenses of the Canadian force in Cyprus, the Canadian government will spend over $8 million, because the next UN sitting scheduled for September, will be postponed until the American election, that is in November.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up.

The hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I continue, Mr. Speaker? [Text]


Mr. Speaker:: I give the floor to the hon. member for Cumberland.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: No question of privilege can be allowed at this time.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You do not know my question, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There can be no question of privilege.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: If the hon. gentleman has anything to say, let him stand up.

I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I must ask the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to resume his seat. We are limited as to time.


CANADIAN FLAG
Robert Carman Coates: This afternoon I directed a question to the Prime Minister. In effect I asked him to assure this

house that before a new flag design was adopted by the government it would be submitted to parliament for consideration and approval, should parliament desire to give such approval. I regret very much that the Prime Minister has not found it possible to be in his seat tonight to listen to my explanation of why I feel such an assurance is necessary.
The reason for my question is that I know of no explanation given to date in which the Prime Minister or the government has given an unequivocal assurance that the new flag design which they propose to provide to the Canadian people, which is to be representative of our history and traditions, will be submitted to parliament for its approval. I should like to quote from page 2279 of Hansard of April 17, where the Prime Minister is reported as having said:
As to what is going on in connection with this matter-
He was referring to the flag:
-that will be announced to the house when a decision has been taken and the house will be asked to take its responsibility in this matter as the government must take its responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you, what could that mean? It could mean almost anything to anyone who might read it, but in effect it means nothing to everyone. I would like an assurance from the Prime Minister in this regard. It only takes a yes or no; it is very simple.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: You will never get it out of him.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion of Commons are prepared to stand on their feet and vote the red ensign out of existence. I am as interested in that as anything going on and being proposed by this government at the present time.
To date we are without this assurance. We need, and must demand, this assurance. I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), who is the senior government official sitting in the front benches this evening, to stand in his place when I resume my seat and inform this house that we have no need to be concerned about this, and that the flag design which they propose will be brought before the house and we will be given an opportunity to speak on it and to vote on it. This assurance should be given to the 100,000 people who have already indicated that they wish to have the red ensign continue as our national flag. A million people or more will indicate that to this government before two years in office are up. They will have the assurance that their representatives in Ottawa will be able to say what they wish about our flag, about our heritage, about our tradition and about the fact that the red ensign will continue to fly from the peace tower of the parliament of Canada.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: O.K., you decide it.


Robert Carman Coates: I agree with you. We want to know what is this new flag design which they hope will appease certain groups in this country who apparently do not appreciate all the things that the red ensign represents in this great Canadian nation of ours. They want to force upon the Canadian public a flag which represents nothing to everyone. All I have asked the Prime Minister to do is provide us with the assurance that we will have something to say about this flag and its design whenever it is produced. That is a very simple statement for the Prime Minister to give to the people he is supposed to represent about a question as important as this.
There are Canadians writing me from all across this country who are terribly concerned about what this government intends to do with our flag. I am most anxious that they should have the assurance that this new design which is proposed will be placed before this house, so that their representatives can say how they feel about the flag we now fly, the flag that flies from our peace tower.
I would like to know which representatives of the Canadian people sitting in this House 20220-1554


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as most hon. members know, the Prime Minister (Mr Pearson) is unavoidably absent from the house tonight. He is acting as host at a state dinner for the prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago, and therefore he has asked me to reply to this question from the hon member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates).
this question, or questions similar to it, has been asked on many occasions and i think the answer has been very clear and quite categorical. It has been to this effect, that within two years of the government taking office it will submit to parliament a design for a flag which cannot be mistaken for the flag of any other country. This should not come as any surprise because, for example, in the campaign literature of 1962, referring to a document headed "The Liberal program, general election, 1962", the following statement appears at page 21:
Within two years of taking office a new Liberal government will submit to parliament a design for a flag which cannot be mistaken for the emblem of any other country. When adopted this will be the flag of Canada. "O Canada" will be proclaimed as our official anthem.
2438	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: We want action.


Yvon Dupuis: What did you do tor six years?


John (Jack) Davis: The position of the government on the procedure for the adoption of a flag so far as this concerns parliament is also perfectly straightforward. The government makes a recommendation to parliament in an appropriate form and parliament, representing all the people of Canada, accepts or rejects that recommendation. The Prime Minister has said this more than once. On February 24 of this year, for example, in answer to a question in this house he said that parliament should certainly be put in a position to decide for or against a particular flag. I believe that that specifically answers the question put by the member for Cumberland.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No further questions are allowed at this time under the provisional standing order 39-A. I now give the floor to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who will discuss the question of raising the pensions of superannuated civil servants in accordance with the increase in the cost of living index.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when I asked my question on the orders of the day this afternoon on behalf of superannuated civil servants I did so on the basis of one sentence which appears at page 2389 of yesterday's Hansard. At that point there is recorded in Hansard the Prime Minister's telegram of April 16 to the premiers of the provinces concerning the revised Canada pension plan. One of the additions to the Canada pension plan in its new form, and a welcome addition, is spelled out in this sentence:
Benefits in payment would be adjusted to changes in the cost of living, subject to a maximum increase of 2 per cent in any year.
My question therefore this afternoon, and my question tonight is quite straightforward. In view of the fact that the government has now accepted the principle that pensions that have been put in payment should subsequently be increased if the cost of living goes up, will the government apply this principle to its own superannuated civil servants? As the government knows, this is a question I have raised in this house a good many times during the past two decades. The answers have a certain monotony about them. The answer generally is that the matter


is under consideration. On March 6 of this year the Minister of Finance put it this way: As I have said on other occasions, the matter is under consideration all the time.
A few days ago I asked the Prime Minister if he had received a letter from the federal superannuates national association asking for legislation in this session to amend the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act. The Prime Minister replied that he thought he had received this letter, and he said that the matter would be given consideration and that a report would be made to the house as soon as possible. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of answer has been made month in and month out for a great many years.
The only time there has ever been any increase in the pensions of civil servants already retired was during the regime of the last Conservative government which put on the statute books the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act. The Liberals in their previous incarnation, and the Liberals in this incarnation, have never done anything to improve the pensions of civil servants already retired. They have improved the civil service pension legislation for persons still employed, and they have made other pension improvements. Hov/ever, so far as civil servants already retired are concerned, there has been nothing done for them.
We have been told to wait for the Canada pension plan. We are glad to see it being improved. We know, however, that the Canada pension plan, even in its best form, will not provide any increase in the pensions of persons already retired. This goes for superannuated civil servants, because no provision has yet been made for these people.
Will the government, having now accepted the principle that pensions that have been started should subsequently be increased if the cost of living goes up, be consistent? When is the government going to play fair with these retired civil servants? When is it going to quit asking these people to wait and wait? When is it going to apply this principle and increase the pensions of retired civil servants, which it can do by amending the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act or in any other way it deems fit?


Mr. E. J. Benson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: First of all, I should like to apologize to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on behalf of the Minister of Finance, who is at a dinner in honour of the prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago.
The government reviews from time to time the question of whether any special action needs to be taken to revise the pensions being paid to superannuated civil servants. It

will be recalled that some increases were authorized under an appropriation act in 1958 and under the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act of 1959. These were not an integral part of the superannuation plan and were not a contractual obligation of the government to its employees or former employees as are benefits payable under the Superannuation Act.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is to be congratulated for raising this question so quickly after the Prime Minister's announcement concerning the Canada pension plan.
It will be realized that retired civil servants, as others, have benefited from the several increases in the old age security pension that have been made in recent years. This has to be taken into account in considering the effect on their pension position of the increases in the cost of living in the past decade. In the short space of time available tonight I cannot give a full analysis of the situation. I can say, however, that the government has had no opportunity to consider the situation with respect to retired civil servants in view of the proposed Canada pension plan legislation.
I should add that the acceptance of the principle of adjustment for the pensions to be payable under a general pension plan for all Canadians does not necessarily imply that
21, 1964	2439
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the same principle will be applied in respect of other benefits paid by the government of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It ought to.


Edgar John Benson: In particular, it cannot be held as necessarily implying that the benefits paid under the superannuation act, which are broadly speaking much more generous than the pensions received by most retired employees in Canada, will be adjusted in this way when those retired under other pension plans cannot anticipate any such comparable adjustment. When the Canada pension plan is passed by this parliament and one can appraise the situation of those who will come under it, the situation of retired civil servants will be reviewed again and we will see whether a legitimate case can be made on the grounds I have mentioned.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Under the provisions of standing order 39A this house stands adjourned until 2.30 o'clock tomorrow afternoon.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Can we have extended time to permit the Secretary of State for External Affairs to reply to my question?
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Wednesday, April 22, 1964