[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister)1: Mr. Speaker, I desire to table the first interim report of the national capital planning committee, together with related documents and reports, with the exception of appendix 4 to the first interim report.
The present report of the national capital planning committee is an interim report dealing with two particular projects involved in the general planning of the capital. The first recommendation in the report deals with the acquisition of certain areas on the outskirts of the cities of Ottawa and Hull for industrial development purposes. The second recommendation deals with the construction of a new bridge across the Rideau canal, a,t a point about midway between Rideau and Laurier streets, in order to provide a new thoroughfare to relieve the present congestion of traffic in the area of confederation square.
So far as the first recommendation is concerned the proposal is to have certain areas
Capital Planning Committee
[Stage Direction]
acquired by the government in order that they may be made available for industrial uses. A tentative recommendation with regard to the precise areas involved has been submitted on appendix 4 to the report. However, it is felt that on these details further study is desirable and, for this reason, copies of appendix 4 are not being tabled at this time. The appendix, or such modification of it as is finally decided on, will be tabled at a later date.
The broad purpose in recommending the acquisition of industrial sites is to enable land to be used for industry in locations where there would be no conflict with the general plans for the capital. These locations would be so selected as to make possible the ultimate removal of many of the railway lines which at present intersect the capital in such a way as to mar its appearance and to add to the hazards and congestion of traffic. The proposal is that initially the cost of acquiring the areas should be borne by the government. However, it is recommended that the property should be sold, over a period of time, to industrial users wishing to locate in the capital area, in such a way that the project would become largely or completely self-liquidating.
So far as the second recommendation, with regard to the bridge, is concerned. I believe hon. members who have had experience with the traffic congestion in confederation square and in front of the station will agree that something must be done a<t an early day to improve conditions. The proposal for the bridge appears to be a possible solution, and an item will be included in the supplementary estimates for $100,000 to enable preliminary engineering surveys and estimates of cost to be made.
I wish to emphasize that both projects which I have mentioned are at present simply recommendations of the national capital planning committee, carrying with them the approval of the federal district commission. Before any final decisions are taken with regard to them they will be given most careful consideration by the government and discussed in such manner as may be necessary with the municipal authorities involved.
Mr. BOUCHER:: Docs the government contemplate taking any further action on this report this session?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I have mentioned that there will be a vote in the supplementary estimates which will refer to what I have just said. It is intended to permit of further action forthwith.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. RALPH MAYBANK moved:: That for the remainder of the session standing order .105, respecting the posting of private bills, he suspended.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 414, to incorporate The Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Labrador.-Mr. Dorion.
Bill No. 416, to incorporate the Yellowknife Telephone Company.-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East).
Bill No. 418, for the relief of Maud Mary Rose Denton.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 419, for the relief of Judith Bychow-sky Sanders.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 420, for the relief of Marie Irene Joly Martineau.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 421, for the relief of Sam Pronman. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 422, for the relief of Eva Greenblatt Thow.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 423, for the relief of Edith Norma Issac Davidson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 424, for the relief of Ida Lottie Stubina Pollack.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 425, for the relief of Minnie Black Herman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 426, for the relief of Clifford Gilbert Adams.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 427, for the relief of Dallas Sara Barnes Millington.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 428, for the relief of Madeleine Agnes Joly de Lotbiniere Doucet.-Mr. May-bank.
Bill No. 429, for the relief of Adeline Charlotte Simone Desjardins Teakle.-Mr. May-bank.
Bill No. 430, for the relief of Margaret Blane Bowen Adair.'-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 431, for the relief of Mary Hrab Navrotzki.-Mr. Maybank.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved the first reading of Bill No. 417 (from the Senate) to amend the Trust Companies Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Questions

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
conversion of ship for transport of IMMIGRANTS
['Sales of ammonium phosphate for direct use as fertilizer\nYear ended\t\nJune 30\t(tons)\n1939 \t\t\t 8,977\n1940 \t\t\t 12,444\n1941 \t\t\t 10,084\n1942 \t\t\t 11,478\n1943 \t\t\n1944 \t\t\t 16,910\n1945 \t\t\t 32,182\n1946 \t\t\t\t 33,298\nQuestions', 'Ammonium phosphate used in manufacture of\nmixed fertilizers\nCalendar year\t(tons)\n1939\t\t 3,575\n1940\t\t   4,071\n1941\t\t 3,122\n1942\t\t 3,358\n1943\t\t 3,890\n1944\t\t 1,946\n1945\t\t 3,938\nSales of superphosphate for direct use as fertilizer\nYear ended\nJune 30\t(tons)\n1939\t\t 53,721\n1940\t\t 44,999\n1941\t\t 39,824\n1942\t\t 38,630\n1943\t\t 40,319\n1944\t\t 38,268\n1945\t\t 33,710\n1946\t\t 30,811\nSuperphosphate used in manufacture of mixed fertilizers\nCalendar year\t(tons)\n1939\t\t 174,849\n1940\t\t 175,045\n1941\t\t 143,420\n1942\t\t 178,221\n1943\t\t 214,340\n1944\t\t 234,172\n1945\t\t  220,423']
Mr. HOWE:: Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to answer this question, in its present form, but perhaps I can give the information my hon. friend desires. The question refers to the ship Huascaran, which was delivered to Canada by Germany as part of the reparations. The ship was reported to be available at a German harbour in a damaged condition. The government had no convenient means of taking charge of the ship in a German harbour; therefore it was turned over to War Assets Corporation and tenders were called for, with reserve bid by the government in the amount shown by the reparations commission. The ship was purchased by a Canadian firm, was repaired in Germany and then moved to Britain for further repairs, and has now been delivered in Canada. The ship has been surveyed and is found capable of carrying 600 immigrants. The survey was made at the request of the present owners, who propose to convert the ship at their own expense for carrying immigrants. The Department of Mines and Resources will cooperate to the extent of furnishing the immigrants, provided that the ship will accept immigrants at such points as are nominated . by the department.



Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	What was the cost to the government of the Polymer plant for producing rubber at Sarnia?
2.	When did it begin producing rubber?
3.	What would be the amount of depreciation of capital allowed for taxation purposes had the corporation been a privately owned plant constructed for and working for war contracts?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	549,931,163.92 to March 31, 1947.
2.	September 29, 1943.
3.	This is a hypothetical question amounting to: if it paid taxes how much taxes would it pay? Hypothetical questions are barred
under the rules, as the hon. member will see if he consults Beauchesne, third edition,, page 119, paragraph 295. I may say, however, that up to March 31 last the earnings of the Polymer Corporation, if applied to reduction of capital, would have reduced capital expenditure by something in excess of $19,000,000.


MURIATE OF POTASH USED AS FERTILIZER
Mr. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: How much muriate of potash has been used for fertilizer in Canada in each of the years 1939 to 1946, inclusive?


Mr. MacKINNON:: Sales of muriate of potash for direct use as
fertilizer
Year ended
June 30	(tons)
1939		 8,643
1940		 7,808
1941		 7,425
1942		 5,419
1943		 5,376
1944		 4,924
1945		 5,223
1946		 3,794
Muriate of potash used in the manufacture of mixed fertilizers
Calendar year	(tons)
1939		 40,320
1940		 43,902
1941		 42,815
1942		 41,648
1943		 51,500
1944		  52,863
1945		 69,730


AMMONIUM PHOSPHATE AND SUPERPHOSPHATES -CONSUMPTION IN CANADA
Edward George McCullough: How much ammonium phosphate and/or superphosphates has been used in Canada for each of the years 1939 to 1946, inclusive?


James Angus MacKinnon: Sales of ammonium phosphate for direct use as fertilizer
Year ended	
June 30	(tons)
1939 			 8,977
1940 			 12,444
1941 			 10,084
1942 			 11,478
1943 		
1944 			 16,910
1945 			 32,182
1946 				 33,298
Questions

Ammonium phosphate used in manufacture of
mixed fertilizers
Calendar year	(tons)
1939		 3,575
1940		   4,071
1941		 3,122
1942		 3,358
1943		 3,890
1944		 1,946
1945		 3,938
Sales of superphosphate for direct use as fertilizer
Year ended
June 30	(tons)
1939		 53,721
1940		 44,999
1941		 39,824
1942		 38,630
1943		 40,319
1944		 38,268
1945		 33,710
1946		 30,811
Superphosphate used in manufacture of mixed fertilizers
Calendar year	(tons)
1939		 174,849
1940		 175,045
1941		 143,420
1942		 178,221
1943		 214,340
1944		 234,172
1945		  220,423



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. SHAW:: 4.	Has War Assets Corporation at any time employed agents to assist in disposing of surplus crown assets within Canada?
2.. If so (a) what are the names of all such agents; (b) what was the total amount of sales made or arranged by each agent; (c) what commission and/or other compensation has been paid to each such agent to date?


Mr. McILRAITH:: Return tabled.


CHALK RIVER, ONT., FOREST RESEARCH STATION- SUPERINTENDENT
Mr. GREEN:: 1.	How many applications were received for the position of superintendent, Forest Research Station, at Chalk River, Ontario? (Competition No. 46-3458.)
2.	How many of the applicants were veterans?
3.	Who was awarded the position?
4.	Is he a veteran?

5.	Previous to this appointment was this man permanently employed with the dominion forest
service ?
6.	If not a veteran, what special qualifications did this man have to give him preference over veterans who applied for this position?


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: Return tabled.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask a question of the government. Is there a secret meeting of the house to be held tomorrow, and on what matters? Because when Sir Robert Borden had a secret he used to tell it to his cabinet.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 

EXCISE AND SALES TAXES-PETITION FROM BREEDERS' ASSOCIATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens): Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Did he receive a resolution or petition from the Canadian National Silver Fox Breeders Association asking for the removal of the excise tax on ranch furs and the sales tax on articles manufactured or trimmed with ranch raised furs?
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: I do not recall. I may have received such representations. I received a great many of a similar kind. I will make inquiries.



DOMINION COAL BOARD


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply) moved the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 340, to establish the dominion coal board.
Mr. GREEN:: Will the minister explain the amendment?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is to correct a small drafting error. The word "and" is substituted for "or".
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.

National Parks



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, July 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe for the second reading of Bill No. 365, respecting certain national parks and to amend the National Parks Act.
Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: This seems to be a sort of omnibus bill covering quite a number of parks. With some of the recommendations contained in the bill I can find no fault. Some of them are excellent, but there is one vicious recommendation, namely, the part which refers to the Prince Albert park. A measure having to do with this park was withdrawn in this house some six years ago.
I see no objection whatever, in fact I am quite in accord with- the recommendation to increase the size of the Fort Beausejour park. If I understand the bill properly, the land consists of twenty acres, and is being donated by Doctor J. C. Webster who is the chairman of the national parks board. If I might digress for a moment-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman. May I ask the hon. members to moderate their voices? It is almost impossible to follow the hon. member who has the floor.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I was about to say that the house and the country should pay marked respect to Doctor Webster for his great generosity in donating some twenty acres of land, as I understand it, to the country. If it can be done in any way that will be accepted, the house should pay that mark of respect to Doctor Webster. Fort Beausejour is a fine park and one that is visited by many tourists. The parcel of land which Doctor Webster has donated contains the site of General Moncton's lines of attack in the siege of 1775. That part of the bill I can very strongly support.
I see no objection to the part pertaining to Riding Mountain. It looks to me like an exchange of one square mile of land inside Riding Mountain park in Manitoba for a square mile of land on the borders of Riding Mountain park. I have been in Riding Mountain park on several occasions. In Riding Mountain park Manitoba has a magnificent area, but I should like to see it enlarged. I am sure that the people of Manitoba are delighted to have such a splendid park in their province, and I see no reason why the part of the bill having to do with this park should not be supported.
As I understand it the bill does not indi-83166-328
cate that any payment is to be made for this exchange. When the minister closes the debate I should like him to explain whether the exchange in Riding Mountain park is an exchange of 640 acres in the park for 640 acres outside. If so, whoever is responsible for the exchange should be complimented.
Elk Island park, which I have visited, is some distance east of Edmonton where we have many buffalo which belong to this country. That part of the bill I can support, because it increases the grazing area for the buffalo and the other animals in Elk Island park. I do not know why the government wishes to reduce Waterton Lakes park. I cannot understand it. If there is some legitimate reason for it I would not particularly oppose it, but that area of Alberta needs all the watershed ^of Waterton that it can get. The reduction will not be very large, some sixteen square miles, I believe, but we own it, and in my judgment, any reduction of the area adjacent to Waterton Lake will be bad for this country. It should not be supported. It is such a small matter that I am not going to carry on the debate too long. I should like the minister to look into that. I realize that the minister who is piloting the bill is perhaps not familiar with all these areas. I want to be as sympathetic to him as I can; I want to help him rather than to obstruct him. Waterton is a beautiful lake. I doubt whether there is a more beautiful lake in North America. These sixteen square miles adjacent to it have been used for the feeding of wild animals. We are now told that these animals are getting numerous. If we take this feeding area of sixteen square miles away from that area we shall be reducing the feeding area roundabout for the animals. If we do not have to do it, and if the public does not gain anything by doing it, if I were the minister I would oppose any recommendation to reduce the area around Waterton Lake.
Another recommendation of the bill has to do with the Nemiskam park and Buffalo park areas. I am not familiar with either one of those, therefore I cannot comment on them. Apparently these two parks are to be wiped out. Not having seen them I am not going to say anything about either one of these changes. If there is no reason why they should be kept, perhaps there is no reason why I should oppose their not being kept.
The next recommendation is one which I strongly oppose. I refer to the reduction in area of the Prince Albert park. The one province in Canada that has very little park area is Saskatchewan. I know of only two other Saskatchewan parks, one near the

National Parks

Cypress hills and the other around Watrous. The third is Prince Albert park. I do not know whether I have been to Prince Albert park. I drove northwest of Prince Albert for perhaps forty or fifty miles at the time I was making a survey of the watershed of the Sturgeon river. I was interested in that because during the Northwest rebellion the Hudson bay boats wintered at the mouth of the Sturgeon river. Years before that the Hudson bay boats traversing the Saskatchewan river wintered at the junction of the Sturgeon and Saskatchewan rivers. I like to see areas in which I am interested. I was interested in the history associated with the Sturgeon river. The Sturgeon river forms about one-third to one-half of the west boundary of the Prince Albert park.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I wish the hon.
member woud face this way. I cannot hear a word he says.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I had started to say that one reason I became interested in the Prince Albert park is that about one-third of the west boundary of the park is formed by the Sturgeon river. It is an historical river in that part of Saskatchewan. In the early days the Hudson bay boats wintered at the mouth of the Sturgeon river because of the water roads at the mouth of the river. During the rebellion of 1885 it played a small part in that rebellion.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member is
now discussing Prince Albert.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes: I believe the south boundary of Prince Albert park is about forty miles north of Prince Albert. I do not claim to know anything about the inside of the park, never having travelled through it. I travelled through much of the area east of it. I presume the area is much the same as the park itself. It is about fifty-four miles down the west boundary and about thirty miles across the top boundary; there is a large part of the park projecting about eighteen miles east of the third meridian, and that projection ranges about twenty-four miles north. It is that part, that eighteen by twenty-four miles, that the bill proposes taking off Prince Albert park.
It has been said, although I do not know whether the minister himself has expressed the same opinion, that that particular area is of little importance or value. Whoever says so, I would say that he is not at all familiar with the river watersheds in that locality. He cannot be if he feels like that. That particular 350 square miles comprise in the area which it is proposed to take out is, in my

judgment, a mighty important part of the watershed of the Montreal river which drains into Lac la Ronge and then into the Churchill river. A few nights ago we passed a bill granting $6,300,000 for the preservation of the watersheds on the east slopes of the Rocky mountains in connection with the Saskatchewan river. This strikes me as being the reversal of that policy, because we are going to throw away-that is all we are doing-an important part of the watershed of the Montreal river in that area.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would point out that it is not proposed to alienate all the property in question from the crown. Part of it is being changed from a national park to an Indian reserve, on the theory that the Indians can make better use of it than the park commission.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I said I wanted to be easy on the minister because I know that he does not know much about the area. He does not administer that department, and unless he travels through the area he cannot be familiar with it. If he had travelled through it I do not think he would make that statement. This 350 miles, comprising between 75 and 150 lakes, is a very important part of that area. Two or three of these lakes are quite extensive. Part of the Montreal lake, which is a fairly large body of water, is also included.
It has been said that it is largely a muskeg area, but I must tell the minister that, next to a lake there is no part of the watershed that is as valuable to the river as muskeg. The other day the statement was made that the area was of little value because it was muskeg. Muskeg is of great importance to the watershed of any river, and I suggest that every possible effort should be made to preserve the watersheds of our rivers instead of throwing them open, I was going to say, to destruction. In fact, I think that term expresses it correctly, because as soon as this 350 square miles is taken out of the national park it will be denuded of forest. I believe there are a million and a half feet of timber on this 350 square miles, and that forest will be denuded if that territory is taken out ruthlessly.
I am not opposed to the taking out of timber that should be removed. The Ontario government is doing it in Algonquin park, but it is doing it under the instructions of engineers who mark the trees that should be taken out. I would not oppose trees being cut in that park by the government. The statement has been made that there are a million and a half board measure feet there. What I am opposed' to, however, since I have taken a

National Parks
great interest in the conservation of our natural resources all my lfe, is the ruthless destruction of any of the watersheds of any part of them. When this park was created in 1927 or 1928, those who undertook the work deserved1 every credit. I suggest, however, that if they had looked ahead they would have carried the line of the park right up the Churchill river and so created in Saskatchewan the largest national park in Canada. That is one province that should have a large park and there is little park area in southern Saskatchewan. There are only the two small ones I referred to earlier. This is a natural national park area and the part it is proposed now to take out should be retained.
I wish the minister could visualize as I do the effects of the proposal now before us. He would draw his pencil through that part of the bill without any hesitation. So far as the rest of it is concerned, it may not involve any great amount of trouble, but certainly that part of the bill is one that I shall oppose as strongly as possible and when we get into committee I intend to move a motion to throw it out. I shall do this because of the great value to Canada of all the head waters of the Churchill river. Up to the present little has been done on the Churchill river. As the minister knows, it flows into Hudson bay at Churchill. There is a large volume of water which, six miles west of Churchill, provides a fairly substantial power site. I have heard various figures mentioned-one million, two million or three million.
Every part of that watershed should be preserved for power purposes. I know that is only a small part of it, but many a mickle makes a muckle, and if this area that I speak of is destroyed, many other parts of that watershed will suffer likewise, and in due time we shall find ourselves faced with exactly the same situation as we have had to face on the Saskatchewan, being under the necessity of voting millions of dollars for restoration. There is no reason why we should have to do any such thing, because the country owns that area now.
This area does not play an important part inside the park itself, but it does possess the attribute of being muskeg, which preserves the moss, as muskeg does, for the feeding of wild animals; and, as the minister knows, that part of Prince Albert park is a breeding ground for wild animals in all that area. Moreover, east of this area, outside Prince Albert park, is one of the best hunting grounds in Canada, and certainly in the province of Saskatchewan. But the breeding grounds would be destroyed if the trees were cut down.
83166-328J
As I view it, it would be a retrograde step to take that 350 miles out of the Prince Albert park and I must protest as strongly as I can against the introduction of what I would call a vicious proposal, a proposal that was pretty well thrown out of the house six years ago. As a matter of fact, the bill was withdrawn at that time. I suggest that it should have been thrown out; it should have been kicked out, and I would like to see this particular part of the measure now before us kicked out at this time. In my opinion it is a vicious proposal to bring it in together with several good things we do not wish to oppose.
Why was not this Prince Albert park part of the bill brought in by itself? Some members may not wish to oppose it in view of the fact that it contains other features that they would like to support. However, as I say, when we are in committee we can move to delete this particular part.
I have travelled the area adjacent to it and I look upon all these areas as very valuable from the standpoint of the watersheds of our rivers. In this particular case, when you consider the Montreal river, the headwaters of one of the branches of the Churchill river, and appraise their importance to the country, I submit that it would be a retrograde step to take this territory out of the park area with the possibility of the timber being ruthlessly taken off and the muskeg being destroyed.
Someone will say that the purpose of the bill is to help the Indians. I am all for that, and if I thought the Indian would get any part of it I would say, yes, let the Indian have a part of it. But he will not get it. There are a good many halfbreeds in that country; indeed there are more halfbreeds than there are Indians. These halfbreeds as well as the Indians and the whites would have their rights there, because once you surrender title to it and it goes back to the province they can do what they like with it. In my opinion that would be very bad business.
The Prime Minister has a special interest in that park and I should think he would like to see it preserved. It was opened in 1927 when he began to represent that part of the country, and the people, out of respect for his great support in creating the park, presented him with an ideal cottage on the shores of Lake Waskesiu. I have heard it said that when you stand on the verandah of that cottage and look over the lake the scene is one of the most picturesque the eye can behold. If this part of the park is taken out it will seriously affect that locality.
If you take away two other small areas on the south side of the park, as is proposed- and it consists, I believe, of thirty acres more
National Parks

or less-and open it up to settlement, are you not going to invite a fire hazard into the park itself? I think we should make every effort to preserve that park. Saskatchewan needs it more than does any other part of Canada, but we all need it. What do we get out of any reduction of the park? We are told that we get a reduction of the cost of perhaps one or two fire rangers. But what is that? When this house cuts things down so small that it is going to throw away good park land for the sake of saving the salaries of one or two fire-rangers, it is getting down pretty small indeed. If we were so careful as that in the expenditure of all our moneys we should have today a surplus of hundreds of millions of dollars instead of what we have.
I would urge the minister not to let anyone convince him that the surrender of this additional thirty odd acres more or less, on the south side of the park, will be of benefit to Canada. It will not be of benefit to Canada. We do not have to surrender it and we get nothing out of it in any event. The same thing applies to the big eastern area. I want to plead with the minister as strongly as I can. He has heard me say many times that I have a warm feeling for him. He has done a big job. I have said that before. That is not flattery. I say to him: Do not let somebody come in here and tell you-and they must know you are not familiar with that area -to jam this bill through. Do not let anybody do that. The minister has done too many good things to be mixed up with a business like this; and I do not mean that he is mixed up in it in any way other than that the country is surrendering land which should be retained for park purposes, muskeg and trees, and for the preservation of the watersheds of the Montreal river. As one who has travelled to the headwaters of most rivers and surveyed their origin, I am intensely interested in their preservation. As far as the Montreal river is concerned, that 350 miles is almost priceless to its preservation. I know it starts in Waskesiu lake in the main park itself. I know it gets some of its water from Kings-mere lake, called after our Prime Minister. But a large source of it comes out of that 350 square miles which contain some 75 to 150 lakes. This is my last word. I know one thing. If the minister just sees the picture as I see it-and I have seen a lot of it-he will have the same opinion as I have, namely, that the watersheds of these rivers are priceless and should not be ruthlessly thrown away. We own them now and we should retain them.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, when I first entered the House of Commons in 1922 I brought to the attention

of parliament the great value a national and provincial parks system could have to the people of this country, from the point of view of preserving the regions named, of the beautification of the country, of health and recreation, and the providing of educational facilities and outdoor sport for all classes of our people. The bill before the house today is a limited one. Its purpose is to adjust the boundaries of four national parks under the general statute and also to close two others. The purpose of the bill is all right as far as it goes, but I desire to call attention to one fact. Part of the bill provides for certain social services, for health, recreation, and so on, which the people outside of the national parks system are given by the provinces. I would call the attention of the minister to one or two things about this policy. The principle of the bill is very largely what I wish to speak about. I remember years ago, when I first entered the House of Commons, I called attention to the deplorable condition of the battlefields and parks in the Niagara district. The house at Queenston Heights which was formerly the printing establishment of the Prime Minister's grandfather, William Lyon Mackenzie, was dilapidated, and the battlefields of the war of 1812 practically in ruins. My calling the attention of the government to that led to a debate in the house and later to a large expenditure by the Niagara Falls park commission and the rebuilding of the forts, parks and driveways.
How does it come about that this particular bill should be left to the hundred and sixth sitting day of the House of Commons? It deals with the important matter of the national parks system and the natural resources of this country, which are unsurpassed by those of any other country in the world. We should have had this up in the early days of the session. It comes up like external affairs estimates, in the dying days of the session. I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I want to say to the government that I am very much dissatisfied. I admit that little or nothing could be done during the war about this national parks system; the war was paramount. But now that the war is over-and it has been over for two years- there has been plenty of time to get on with the work and the programme and have surveys made in all the provinces. I remember taking this matter up, and set out in the explanatory notes, with regard to the two parks named. I have no objection to the policy or the principle of the bill, but I want to call attention to one thing. The province of

National Parks
Ontario, from which the present minister comes, is a forgotten province. I remember ever since I have been a member of the House of Commons that has been so. We see only five or six members from Ontario here today who are interested in a big matter like this. We have great natural resources in our province, in new Ontario, in the Rideau canal built by the British government in 1S44, the Trent canal connecting Muskoka and Temagami, lake Ontario and lake Simcoe, up to Severn bridge and beyond that, connecting with Georgian bay. We have a magnificent system of inland lakes and rivers in Northern Ontario and in the Peterborough district- Georgian bay, Parry Sound, the Nipissing district and right to the head of the lakes which the minister officially represents.
The general principle of the bill deals with the whole policy of a national parks system for the whole country. The act has now been amended three or four times; I think the last time was about 1941. As a result of the criticism I made in the house I was glad to see that the maritimes obtained some national parks in 1941. I have a list of the parks here. I will not refer to them, but they are set out on page 33 of the "Canada Year Book" and in the minister's annual report. The development of our national parks system was held up 'by the war-


James Horace King: Order. I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the general principle of the bill. If he wants to discuss the general policy of the department, or part of it, he should do it when the estimates are before the house.


Thomas Langton Church: You are quite right, Mr. Speaker. In my opening remarks I said I was going to discuss the principle of the bill. The principle of the bill is all that may be discussed at this stage.
As I have said already, nothing has been done about the parks since the war, but I believe an interprovincial conference has been held within the past year or two with a view to coordinating the national and provincial parks. Surveys have been made but-aside from this bill nothing has yet been done. We in Ontario get no help at all, except in the Niagara district, from the province, and I call the attention of the minister to the lack of national parks in our province.
As to this particular bill may I say that I believe we have a great opportunity to make the whole of Canada like Switzerland, not only a huntsman's paradise but a thing of beauty and a joy forever. We have summer sports and winter sports, wild life, fishing and everything that could be desired-a huntsman's and fisherman's paradise. No other country in the world has such great natural resources; and instead of having these matters brought up in parliament in the last days of the session I hope they will be taken up at the coming interprovincial conference so that we shall get real value for the money expended on our park system. We are fifty years behind the times in catering to the tourist trade and developing our great natural resources.


Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: I spoke on a bill similar to this in 1941, in relation to the Alberta national park; and I oppose the transfer of these lands from the dominion to the provincial governments at the present time. When the minister spoke on July 3 he said the land in question was not of much use anytway, that the land we were turning back or giving away wfas all muskeg. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) pointed out, however, that the muskeg was the water supply for the various lakes. From what I have heard and what I have been told by Alberta members I believe the dominion government is extremely foolish in turning back this land to the province of Saskatchewan. The bill states that some of this land will be turned into farms, which means it will gradually be encroached upon until there will not be a stick of timber left standing in the whole district. Even the timber in the portion the government intends to retain will be affected by the remainder of the land being denuded of trees, as will be the case, with the resulting loss of moisture. On June 24 of this year, in the other place, the minister who tried to pilot this bill through this house in 1941 said:
I recall being in the park in 1937, at the height of the drought in Saskatchewan, when everything was parched. I saw a farmer, his wife and three children drive into the park in an old model X Ford car with some provisions. They found a suitable place and pitched a tent to sleep in at night; and I thought what a wonderful thing it was that these people from the parched prairie country could come in and see evergreen trees and water and animals; and that, even if the park conferred no other benefits, what a boon it was to the children. This vacation feature is one of the great advantages of our park systems all across Canada.
In the estimates this year is an item of S650.000 for the tourist bureau. That money is to be used to attract tourists to Canada. If this bill goes through it will mean that on the one hand the government is paying out money to draw tourists to Canada while on the other hand it is getting rid of the attractions for the tourists. The minister knows that when they begin to cut trees eventually the pine, hemlock and spruce all disappear, because they
National Parks

cannot live without water. He also knows that if this land is turned over to the government of Saskatchewan, or any other government, who will allow settlers and Indians to go in there, eventually their holdings will be expanded into the present park so that before too long we shall have toother bill before parliament asking that another 373 square miles or more be removed from our parks. Just think what that means. The 373 square miles mentioned here would be equal to a piece of land a mile wide reaching from here to Kitchener, Ontario, which is a good deal of land. I plead with the minister to amend this bill by deleting that provision. Let this park remain as it is. It is foolish for this government to spend money to attract tourists to Canada and at the same time destroy the attractions that bring them here.


Mr. D. KING HAZEN (St. John-Albert):: I am not familiar with the Prince Albert national park, but the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) made a statement opposing any reduction in its area, which I think deserves some reply. When we have once established a park I think it is a great mistake to cut down its area, unless there are very good reasons for doing so. However, I do not rise this afternoon to discuss that matter because, as I say, I am not personally familiar with the park. 'My purpose in rising is to join with the hon. member for Davenport in expressing appreciation to Doctor J. C. Webster and Mrs. Webster of Shediac, New Brunswick, for their very generous gift to the Dominion of Canada of over twenty acres of land, which will form an important addition to our historic parks. Doctor Webster, who was born in New Brunswick, for many years was a prominent physician in the city of Chicago, where he had an international reputation. When he retired from practice he returned to his native province, and since that time both he and Mrs. Webster have devoted a good part of their time and some of their wealth to its welfare. This gift he and Mrs. Webster are now making to the dominion is just one of many gifts they have made for the benefit of the people of this country.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: I should like to add my word to the discussion of this bill, because I understand a certain portion of Waterton Lakes national park is to be cut out, with the net result that the area of that park will be reduced. I am not altogether satisfied with the reasons that have been given for taking out that portion of the park set out in the bill. Evidently it is not

a large portion; nevertheless there must be some reason for cutting it out. When the minister replies I should like him to give that reason, and the arguments in support of it. As a general principle I think we must take the attitude that we do not want our national parks reduced in size. If anything we want them to be extended or additional national parks acquired.
We have to preserve wild animal life in the mountainous regions. Most of the wild animals of Canada need plenty of grazing lands. Perhaps I could give an illustration. Banff national park is one of the finest virgin national parks in the world. There are a great many bear, mountain sheep, elk, antelope, moose, buffalo and other wild animals in that park, but I understand their number is gradually diminishing. They should be preserved. Banff is a great tourist attraction because the mountain scenery is simply magnificent. If tourists go to Banff hoping to see the wild animals of Canada they find that it is almost like looking for a needle in a haystack. They are there somewhere, but the park is quite large. Going into Banff you notice a sign with an arrow or hand pointing to the animal paddocks, but when the tourists go there expecting to see wild animals all they find are a few small mangy buffalo. The grass all over the paddock is worn and I am sure that tourists must get a wrong impression of the wild life in Canada. I do not believe that any other animals but buffalo are fenced off in the park.
If a tourist in Banff wants to see the bears he must wait until night and go down to the old stinking dump ground where they come in for their evening meal. There is no reason why a considerable portion of the park could not be set aside for bears.
In the southern part of Alberta, particularly around the Waterton lakes, there is wonderful mountainous country, although the scenery may not be quite as magnificent as at Banff, lake Louise or the Columbia ice fields. However, the southern part of Alberta is perhaps more prolific in forest growth and grazing pasture, and I believe plenty of room should be given to these animals. I know the department has spent considerable sums in Waterton lakes park. They have built a number of cottages and more and more people are coming to the park every year to spend their vacations. It is on the direct highway to the United States, and more and more tourists are coming from the United States to the park.
As a matter of broad principle the government should retain these parks and if pos-

National Parks .
sible make them larger instead of reducing their size. More money should be spent to make them real tourist attractions. On these broad principles I am afraid that I shall have to oppose the bill. I noticed from the discussion in the other place in respect to Prince Albert park that it was argued that the part to be taken out is of no use. I do not know whether that would refer also to the Waterton lakes park, but if it is of no use, what are you going to do with it? Someone will say: Give it back to the Indians. That is a nice argument-when it is of no use, give it back to the Indians. Or you may say: Give it back to the province. There is some reason for this government giving anything to the provinces.
If it is costing too much to maintain that portion of the park because of bog lands and the maintenance of highways, then is the government going to saddle the province with that expense? That does not make common sense and I do not think it is fair. As I say, on broad principles we shall have to oppose this bill unless the minister in charge can give a better reason for reducing the areas of these parks.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, in a general way I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansel!) who has just taken his seat. One defect in this bill is that the ordinary member is not in position to know about the whole situation. I hope the minister when he makes his statement will clarify a number of matters which seem obscure to me. Waterton lakes national park is in my constituency. All that the hon. member for Macleod has said and a good deal more is true. I can understand how it might be wise to consider removing a certain portion of that park so that settlers could pasture their stock and so that timbering operations might be carried on, but I should like to know if there has been a demand for this from the settlers who live in that part of the park. Will the minister tell us whether Alberta has asked that this portion be taken out of the park, and whether the settlers nearby have asked for the same thing? Is it deemed advisable, in the light of these two circumstances, that a change be made in the boundaries of Water-ton Lakes national park?
I should like to ask two or three questions with regard to Prince Albert national park. This park is not in my constituency, but coming as I do from the west I am interested in it. Why does the government wish to dispose of an area from this park? The argument
seems to be, first, that it costs too much to maintain, and second, that it is not suitable for park development. What constitutes suitability for park development? How is it that the area which it is proposed to remove from the park does not qualify as suitable for park development?
There seems to be considerable uncertainty as to whether this area is to be added to an Indian reserve. I am not very much impressed by the argument that it is to be added to a reserve. I find in the explanatory note that approximately 373 square miles are to be removed from the park. If I read what is stated aright, only ten of the 373 square miles are supposed to be handed to the Indians to be joined to the Little Indian River reserve. If that is the actual state of affairs, it looks to me as though this argument about adding lands to the Indian reserves is unimpressive.
It is said that the cost of patrolling this parcel of land which it is proposed to remove from the Prince Albert park has been excessive in respect of looking after forest fires and the game. Will the minister tell us when he makes his statement what has been the actual cost of maintaining Prince Albert park during each of the last twenty years-he should have the figures-and what portion of that cost may be properly applied to the area which it is proposed to remove from the park? It seems to me that only by such figures can we form an estimate of the validity of the arguments in respect of the upkeep cost.
This whole bill and everything that has been said about this project up to the present time fills me with a considerable amount of suspicion. I had a good deal of suspicion in 1941 when the measure was brought into the house and I certainly have not had any of my suspicions allayed by reading what the Hon. Mr. Crerar had to say on this subject on June 24. It looks to me as though he was not very well informed about the matter and therefore not a very satisfactory witness.
I should like to read to the minister some of the statements that were made in the other place regarding this transfer of property, and ask him to explain away the statements that are made. I find that the Hon. W. M. Aseltine made the following statement as reported in the Senate Hansard of June 24:
An explanation given in committee was to the effect that there were some 400 Indians in the Montreal lake area, and that it was advisable that they should be given the right to trap in the area of some 350 square miles which it is now proposed to withdraw from the park.
Is it the intention to allow the Indians to trap over the whole 350 square miles? If
National Parks

that is the case I can see that there might be considerable value in making the transfer if the Indians could use all that land. But later on the hon. senator says:
. . . whether or not they would be the only ones allowed to trap in the area in question I learned that half-breeds and white settlers were also given permission.
If that happens, the poor Indians are not going to have very much chance at the game in this area. Further on he says:
It was added to the park originally for the purpose of preserving wild life, including muskrats, mink and all kinds of fur-bearing animals, particularly the beaver, and big game, such as elk, moose, and deer. It is known for a certainty that the animals we were hunting on the eastern boundary of the park were bred in that park and had spread throughout the surrounding country. This is particularly true of Candle lake, the home of the last surviving band of elk running at large in western Canada. That territory is their home ground, and if it is taken out of the park and thrown open to the public it will only be a year or two before all those animals are shot and killed.
If what the hon. senator says is correct, and the fact that he is from Rosetown, Saskatchewan, and states that he has been over the area concerned and has hunted over land contiguous to that area seems to make his words worthy of consideration, would the minister explain that matter to us also when he speaks? The hon. senator went on: The honourable senator has no idea how many hunters there are since the end of the war. During the war years all the young men were away but now they are back and are taking out hunting licences. They are allowed to go into this area. Even if the limit were one deer or one bull moose, it would only be a year or two before all these animals would be shot off.
I find myself strongly impressed by that statement because it is in conformity with what I have seen happen in parts of Alberta. Further on the hon.. senator said:
This land was set aside, not only as a park but as a place in which to preserve for posterity the wild life of that part of Saskatchewan.
If that is the case, certainly the reason for preserving the wild life of Saskatchewan must be just as strong today as it was when this land was set aside, and if the wild life of the dominion is to be preserved the dominion government ought to assume as much responsibility therefore as any province. The hon. senator went on:
The timber will be cut down ... I do not think the area proposed to be taken away is good for anything but park purposes.
That is widely at variance with the statement of Senator Crerar, who asserts definitely that it is not good for park purposes. How can any member be blamed for being com-
pletely confused over this matter when men supposed to know the most about the situation disagree so widely? When we have the hon. Senator Crerar, who was in this house as minister of mines and resources when the bill was introduced in 1941, and the hon. Senator Aseltine from Saskatchewan, who, by reason of his intimate experience with the park and the area in question, ought to know just as much about it as any other man, differing so widely, it seems to me that that is a situation which requires careful explanation on the part of the minister when he makes his reply.
The hon. Senator Kinley makes this statement in the Senate on June 24:
He stated that these Indians were not allowed to hunt in the park area, and that if this section was taken out of the park it would provide a source of livelihood for them. We hear a lot these days about the Indians, and what 'Canada took from them, and I think if they will live up in the north country, under such conditions as must prevail there, they should have the rights to any available hunting. We could very well turn the land over to the Indians.
The important aspect of that statement is that undoubtedly Senator Kinley was influenced to support the measure by the consideration that the whole of the area would be turned over to the Indians, when by the very statement in the bill itself opposite page 2, only ten square miles of this 373 square miles to be taken out of the park are to be turned over to the Indians. Surely there is something seriously wrong there. Senator Kinley went on to say, on the same page:
I said that if any land was available to the Indians we ought to let them have it,
With that I completely agree, and we should be sure before we take the landi out of the park that it will be turned over to the Indians. In the same discussion Senator Crerar said:
As a matter of fact, the greater part of the area is muskeg. A little bit is developed and might be salvaged by some small operations, but it is not suitable for park purposes.
What is the explanation why muskeg is not suitable for park purposes? I fail to see why it would not be. Certainly it is excellent land for the raising of wild animals and it is attractive from the tourist standpoint. There are muskeg areas over which corduroy roads have been built which constitute some of the most interesting scenery to be found in Alberta, and I take it that muskeg in other parts of Canada would be equally interesting. Senator Crerar went on to say:
The Indians will not have the sole right of trapping, but they will be assured of their fair share, and thereby a substantial means of livelihood will be provided for the band of Indians at Montreal lake.

National Parks
There again is uncertainty about this whole thing. It is said by some people that the Indians are not able to go in and hunt there today. As this area is part of a national park owned by the dominion I should like to know why the Indians should not be given access to hunting in that area. I cannot see why they should not be. Why should it be necessary to take this land out of the park in order to give the Indians a chance to hunt in the area? I shall say no more at this time, but when he makes his speech I would like to hear the minister's explanation of these conundrums.
Mr. D. S. HARKXES3 (Calgary East): Mr. Speaker, I agree with the idea which has been put forward by several hon. members that our policy should be to increase rather than decrease the area of our national parks. The decrease which is provided for in this bill personally I should be loath to vote for until we have had a much better explanation than we have had so far as to why it is necessary. That is particularly true of the Prince Albert national park and the Waterton Lakes park. I should like a better explanation than the one given in the explanatory notes as to the abolition of the Nemiskam park which was originally set aside to provide a refuge for antelope. It is stated here that it is no longer necessary to have a refuge for animals because they have increased materially during the last ten or twenty years. That is correct, but there is no guarantee that they will not be practically wiped out again, particularly with the increase in population in the southern part of Alberta and Saskatchewan owing to the development of irrigation schemes. Personally I think there is every possibility of these parks being required for the protection of animals again in the not too distant future. I do not want to hold up the business of the house and therefore will not press the matter now, but when we reach the committee stage we should have a better explanation of the sections than has so far been given.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As hon. members know, I am the acting minister of the department, and in that capacity can only convey the information which is given to me by the officers of the department. The officers of the department believe it is important that these amendments be made to the National Parks Act.
In the case of the Waterton national park it is pointed out that the sixteen square miles to be removed from within the present park boundary and transferred back to the prov-83166-329
ince lie in another watershed from that of the remainder of the park. The area of the Waterton Lakes park is considerable. The sixteen square miles is only a minor section of the .park.
The maintenance of national parks by the federal government is a considerable obligation. There are certain standards to be maintained. We have standards of protection and of development, and we have certain standards of improvements. As I understand the situation from the officers of the department, the purpose of the bill is to reduce the parks to an area which can be kept up to the standard set by the government for these national parks.


John Horne Blackmore: Before the .minister leaves the Waterton park will he answer this question, if the information has been given to him: Has there been a request on the part of Alberta-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am told there has been.


John Horne Blackmore: And a request by
the settlers?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Through the province. I am assured that the province and the federal government are in complete agreement that the boundaries of the park should be altered as proposed in this bill.


John Horne Blackmore: That would carry a great deal of weight with me.


James Horace King: May I suggest to the
hon. member that he wait until we are in committee to put his questions.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The remarks I have just made apply only to the Prince Albert national park. The 350 square miles that are to be either returned to the province or added to a nearby Indian reserve consist of acres that cannot be kept up to the standard required in national parks.
Reference has been made to this being a suitable hunting ground for Indians. Hon. members will appreciate the fact that the government cannot allow hunting in its national parks and still preserve the game in these parks. If an area is to be hunted over it must be outside the park boundaries. Conversely, if the area is to be kept within the national parks it cannot be hunted over. It so happens that a fur conservation plan is in operation, in partnership between the dominion and the Saskatchewan government, in a nearby area. The purpose of the fur conservation plan is to provide a means of livelihood for a band of Indians on a nearby reservation, and for certain other settlers in the area. It

National Parks

is felt by both the province and the officers of the federal department, and by the government, that the well-being of the area will be better served by turning back the 350 square miles to the fur conservation plan, where it will be administered by the province under terms laid down by the federal government for a period of ten years, during which time its fur-bearing potentialities will be increased to the maximum possible. Ten square miles of the area is being transferred to the Indian reserve, and the remainder is being turned back to the province to be included in the fur conservation plan.
My purpose in rising, however, is to discuss section 9 of the bill. Section 9 is entirely new. At the present time the permanent residents in the parks do not receive the advantages of social services provided for other residents in the province in which the park i3 situated.


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but it is against the rules to discuss a section of the bill on second reading. I suggest that he wait until we are in committee.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not my purpose to discuss the section. This is a procedural point arising out of the fact that in the other place they decided that it was not competent to deal with one subsection, since it involved levying a tax. Therefore I find it my duty to ask for the unanimous consent of the house to introduce a resolution after second reading of this bill. After second reading I will move that the house go into committee on a resolution which will restore to the bill one subsection which was deleted in the other place.


James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


John Ritchie MacNicol: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That the house go into committee of the whole this day to consider the following resolution:
Resolved, that the following provision he inserted as paragraph (p) of subsection one of section nine of Bill No. 365 (letter M-9 of the senate), intituled: "An act respecting certain national parks and to amend The National Parks Act," now before the house:
(p) _ levying taxes upon the residents of a park in order to defray the cost of health and welfare services supplied to such residents by a province pursuant to an agreement made under paragraph (o) of this subsection or supplied to such residents by the government of Canada.

He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, may I ask this question. Does the minister assume that the house concurs in the recommendation to add to section 9 something that will mean taxation on the residents of the park?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. The purpose is to bring the section before the house for discussion and thus restore it to the bill. It by no means means an acceptance of the provision.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee on the resolution, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I move, Mr. Speaker, that the house now go into committee on the bill.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Additions to national parks.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not know what the proper procedure is, but I should think there ought to be some motion, or at any rate a letter addressed to Doctor J. C. Webster, C.M.G., acknowledging the splendid gift he is making to the country in connection with this important park. If his wife is associated with him in the gift, I suggest that her name be coupled with any such acknowledgment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That has already been attended to by the minister of the appropriate department. The formal opening of the park was held and I believe that all honours have been bestowed upon Doctor Webster appropriate to the occasion. I cannot think of anything else, short of a vote of parliament, that would be appropriate.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is fitting that the minister should have mentioned the fact in the discussion of the bill.


Ernest George Hansell: The minister assured us on the second reading that as far as Waterton park is concerned the province has agreed to this change. I would like to have an elaboration of that statement. How were the negotiations carried on with the province? Has the minister any correspondence in that regard? Perhaps I might add to the question. Is this parcel of land of approximately sixteen

National Parks
square miles simply to be passed over to the government of Alberta? Will they now be in possession of the land? When it is passed over to them will it be crown land in the right of the province to do with as they desire? I would like to know in what way the negotiations were conducted and whether there is any documentary evidence.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is not discussing section 2 at the moment.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That would come under section 5.


Ernest George Hansell: Then I will wait until we reach that section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Land withdrawn from Prince Albert national park.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I would like to move an amendment to have this clause struck out but I am informed that I cannot do so. I would ask the -minister, however, to take steps to withdraw it, and if he does not care to do that then we shall have to ask for the yeas and nays. Before doing -that, however, I wish to say a few words to the minister. As I said at the beginning, I have a warm feeling for him and it is easy to see that he was not familiar with the areas he described in connection with Prince Albert park. I know he would like to set it right.
Reference w-as made to the muskeg area being the breeding grounds. That muskeg part, which is for the most part the 350 square mile area that is taken out of the park, is undoubtedly the breeding ground. There is no shooting there. No one can shoot in a national park and for that reason it is all protected breeding ground, so far as any government can protect breeding grounds. It is to all intents and purposes a protected breeding ground but the moment i-t is taken out of the national park area it ceases to be. The minister said that the province could see to this aspect of the matter. I do no-t know. Perhaps they would; on the other hand, they might not. The province will run its own show. Everyone with any knowledge of hunting in thiat area knows that i-t is the animals that are bred in that part of Prince Albert national park that move east, and every year there are hundreds of hunters who go out to that district to the east because they know that the animals are bred in that protected area.
The minister said something to the effect that if it were taken outside of the park it would become a potential area. That is what it is now. It is a real breeding area, as 83166-3294
a matter of fact. It is not simply potential, because it is in the park where shooting is not allowed.
Someone spoke about muskegs and it was said that muskegs will never be good agricultural land. If was not intended for that purpose at all. Something was also said about its reverting to the Indians, and I think the minister is under a misapprehension there. There might go to the Indians a small area of 10 square miles out of the 350 square miles in the eastern part of the park. Perhaps ten or eleven miles, I believe the description is, might be given to the Indians in Montreal river and Montreal lake area. But they now have the whole area north of that and to the east of it in which to trap and hunt. I still say .that should remain in the park, no matter what anyone advises the minister. As someone over here said, instead of taking that area out of the park, we should increase it by another 350 miles right up to Lac la Ronge if we can. We cannot have it too large in that country.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should like to make my position quite clear. At the present time the 340 miles at present under discussion is in the park.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In that particular area.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. Animals can breed
there; they cannot be shot.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is where they breed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In other words, it is just
wild land in which animals can breed. Both the provincial and federal government would like to include this land in a joint plan of fur conservation for which they have both provided funds. By arrangements between the two governments a certain area already has been set apart to be developed for fur conservation. It is a long term agreement, I think for twenty-five years. Each government has undertaken to spend a certain sum of money over that period in developing the area for the breeding of fur bearing animals. The purpose is to divert all of this area into the fur conservation plan, und-er this dominion-provincial agreement and to develop it as a fur conservation area rather than to maintain it as a federal park. As I say, all the officials of the federal government believe that constitutes a proper use. The province itself wishes to have the land transferred for the purposes of the other agreement, and I see no reason why parliament should not implement the wishes of those responsible for the development of the area.


John Ritchie MacNicol: A moment ago the
minister said ten years.
National Parks


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am corrected now by my officials. The period is twenty-five years.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister changes all
the time.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister said ten
acres. What the Indians are to get, if they get anything, will be near Montreal lake and will be approximately eleven square miles. I am sorry for the minister in his present position; I have the highest regard for our officials, but I lose my regard when I find officials in the parks department wanting to get rid of this large area of park land.


An hon. MEMBER:: We are not getting rid of it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, you are getting rid of it. Do not take any stock in this idea that there is to be any cooperation with the provincial government. The provincial government has all the land outside of that and can start a park whenever it likes, the same as we have in Ontario. There is nothing in that. It has been going on too long. Six years ago a determined effort was made to detach this area from Prince Albert park. I am going to oppose this to the limit of my power. If the minister is not prepared to withdraw this provision, I shall ask the chairman to call for the yeas and nays on section 3.


Mr. JABNICKE:: The explanatory note to section 3 says that the department has been in communication with the government of Saskatchewan, which government has agreed to accept the return of the lands. If there is an agreement I should like to know it. If it is just a matter of correspondence, perhaps the minister could read to us the letter of the Saskatchewan government agreeing to the cancellation of this 350 square miles and turning it back to the province. If there was an agreement, as the minister intimated, with regard to the conservation of game and fur, what is the date of it? What is the date of the recent correspondence with the government pertaining to the return to the province of this 350 square miles? Does the agreement with regard to fur conservation cover the whole 350 square miles or only part of it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member asked the present status of the fur conservation plan. It has been in operation now for some two years. I am told that it is working satisfactorily. I am told that it is the wish of the province, and of the minister responsible, Hon. Mr. Phelps, that this additional land be added to the fur conservation plan.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: The whole of the 350 square miles?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Three hundred and forty square miles go into the plan and ten square miles go into the Indian reservation itself. All 340 square miles go into the fur conservation plan.
Mr. MaeNICOL: Has the provincial government agreed to maintain that road from Waskesiu to Montreal lake?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am told they are already maintaining that road. The road was built by the federal government and by agreement is being maintained by the provincial government.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What agreement is there as to cutting timber on that piece of land which is being turned over?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The land comes under the management of the province. In future if any arrangements are to be made for cutting, they will be made by the province. It is my understanding, however, that as long as the land is used for fur conservation it will not be cut over.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There is no agreement to that effect, though?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There definitely should be an agreement to that effect.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Has the minister the letter from Saskatchewan agreeing to this proposition?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sorry, but the officials cannot find it in the folio that was given to me. I am assured that there is such a letter.
Mr. MaeNICOL: Is the federal authority agreeing to pay over any money to the province?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. We were contributors to the fur conservation plan, but no money is involved in this present transfer of land.


Douglas King Hazen: By this section, land is being taken out of the park for the purpose of the development of - a fur conservation plan. It seems to me that it would have facilitated matters greatly if the explanatory note had so stated. Now for the first time we learn that there is to be a fur conservation plan and that some agreement has been entered into between the provincial government and the dominion. Had we known this before, it might have facilitated to a considerable extent the passing of this bill. The explanatory note on page 3 says, "Some of the lands have a

National Parks
distinct value for development and settlement." How much of this 340 square miles have a distinct value for development and settlement? Are they to be developed for agricultural or mineral purposes, or what?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The area mentioned as having possibilities for settlement refers to 26 square miles which jut out from the southern boundary of the park, as distinct from the 350 square miles we are discussing. It is an excrescence on the map, you might say, at the southwest corner, and it is believed that it would be more appropriate to return that land to the province than to maintain it as part of the park.
Section agreed to on division.
Section 4 agreed to.
On section	5-Land withdrawn from
Waterton Lakes park.


Ernest George Hansell: I wonder if the minister would care to answer the question I asked some time ago.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The cost of maintaining
Prince Albert park over the last twenty years, including capital expenditures, is $2,502,696.43; a very accurate reply.


Ernest George Hansell: But that is not the question I asked'.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, it is nice to know, anyway.


Ernest George Hansell: I am not concerned with how much it has cost to run the park. I wish it had cost twice that much, because then we would have had a park twice as good. The minister assured the hon. member for Lethbridge that the province of Alberta was agreeable to this change in the boundaries of the Waterton park, and I asked how the negotiations were carried on and whether there was any documentary evidence. Were they carried on by mail? Has the minister the letter with him so that from the record he can assure us that the provincial government is agreeable to this change? Following that question, instead of taking my seat I want to ask another one. Is this parcel of sixteen square miles in Waterton park to be handed over to the Alberta government for that government to use as they wish? Are any strings attached to it? What sort of agreement is there between this government and the government of Alberta? Those are the questions I put to the minister on section 2 in error; I should have waited until section 5.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am told that negotiations for the return of this property have been conducted verbally between Hon. Mr. Tanner of Alberta and the Minister of Mines and Resources; and I am told! also that there is a file of correspondence on the subject confirming the final decision. Unfortunately that correspondence is not at hand at the moment, but it can be produced if the hon. member wishes. As to whether the land is to be delivered to the province without strings, I would remind the hon. member that the Alberta Natural Resources Act provides that any land not required for park purposes automatically reverts to the province, and this land will so revert without strings of any kind.


John Ritchie MacNicol: A few moments ago the minister said this sixteen square miles was in some other watershed than that of the Waterton river and lake. AVhat watershed is it in?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The area in question drains into Lee creek, which in turn drains into some area off this map, whereas the balance of the park drains into the Belly river and into the Waterton river.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The two rivers in that area are the Belly river and the Waterton river; the latter drains into Waterton lake.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But this area does not drain into either the Waterton river or the Belly river. As I say, it drains into Lee creek, which in turn drains into the middle fork of Lee creek, which in turn according to the hon. member for Lethbridge drains into the St. Mary river, which is the river now being dammed, for irrigation purposes.


Mr. HARKNESS:: It seems to me we are going to get all this water behind a dam some place in spite of anything we may do. However, I must say I do not agree with this statement in the explanatory note.
"This land is not suitable nor required for park development." If this is the most easterly portion of the park I do not see that it would be a bit less suitable than the rest of the land in this national park. As a matter of fact I should think that when the number of people in southern Alberta materially increases and the park has a great many more visitors than is the case at present, that land might very well be required for riding and grazing purposes, for people who may be in the business of maintaining horses within the park. The simple statement that the land is not suitable or required for park purposes I think is denied by the statement following, which is:
It is of value specially as grazing and timber land for the benefit of the settlers in the vicinity.
National Parks

I have no doubt it would be of benefit to some of the settlers in the vicinity, but I should think it would be of much greater benefit to the people of Canada as part of one of our national playgrounds than to turn it over to two or three people in the vicinity. As a matter of fact I have been wondering whether one of the reasons behind this move to get rid of these sixteen square miles is the fact that one or two people in that vicinity are extraordinarily anxious to add this area to their present grazing lands. I can also quite understand that the province would not put up any complaint about receiving that land, and in fact might be quite anxious to get it, because when the province gets it the provincial revenues can be increased, either by leasing it as timber and grazing land or by selling it. Naturally the province would not look a gift horse in the mouth. The fact that the province has agreed to take it is not an argument for eliminating it from the park. As a matter of fact it might be an argument in the opposite direction. Before this section carries I think the minister should give us much better reasons than have been given so far, or that failing this the section should be deleted. Personally I think it should be deleted and the land retained as part of the park, because the Waterton park is not very large as it is. As parks go in the Rocky mountain region it is quite a small park, and I am really very much opposed to having it whittled down any further, particularly since no good reasons for doing so have been advanced.


John Horne Blackmore: I think probably it
will be found that an addition to the park can be made at the northern end, where there is a good deal of land which is not of particular value for grazing. As I recall it the area which it is proposed to remove from the park is valuable for grazing purposes and I think that was the reason why the Alberta minister of mines and resources agreed to take back this portion. There was no desire on the part of the province or anyone else to cut down the area of magnificent Waterton park, it was simply that the sixteen square miles would be a little more valuable if it were on the north end of the park where there are trees and mountains.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Do we need the consent of the United States before taking any land out of the Waterton Lakes national park? I remember supporting a bill some years ago called the Waterton lakes boundaries bill, in connection with which both countries were associated in setting apart land on both sides of the boundary for park purposes. Have we

authority to extract any of the land from the park which was created by a bill passed here in conjunction with one passed at Washington?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am advised by the officers that Canada has complete jurisdiction over the area.


John Horne Blackmore: I am familiar with this park and I know it will be found that it is only a little bit on the southeast corner of the park that is being taken away. There will remain plenty of park alongside the international boundary.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Parks abolished.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Is the area now in Nemiskam park to be covered by the St. Mary irrigation project, and has that anything to do with this park being abolished?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The park is near Foremost, Alberta. I am told that this park was originally set aside for the propagation of antelope, but these have increased to the point where the province is actually permitting the hunting of them.
By agreement with the province it has been decided to allow this area to revert to the province under the natural resources act.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is this area in the southwest corner of Alberta, or is it east of the St. Mary river?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is half wray between Lethbridge and Medicine Hat. As the minister probably knows, the land in this area is quite dry. If it is not to be irrigated as a result of the project now going forward I think it would be much better to keep it as a park. If they do not want to use it for antelope at the moment, it could be rented out for grazing. I think that would be better than to turn it back to the province to be put to general use. Some of it would be broken up and a good deal of the land would be blown away. This is in the part of the province which comes under the P.FjR.A. and I think it would be better for the dominion to keep it as a park so that it would be available in the future if it is needed for the protection and preservation of antelope. If it is not needed for that purpose it at least would not be broken up and blown away.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.

National Parks
On section 9-Health and welfare services.
Douglas Charles Abbott: I move:
That the following provision be inserted as paragraph (p) of subsection one of section nine:
"(p) levying taxes upon the residents of a park in order to defray the cost of health and welfare services supplied to such residents by a province pursuant to an agreement made under paragraph (o) of this section or supplied to such residents by the government of Canada."


Mr. KNOWLES:: Upon the adoption of this amendment will these various services come into effect immediately, or is this just permissive legislation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is permissive legislation. The purpose is to allow citizens residing on federal park land to obtain the social services of the province within which the park is situated in return for paying appropriate taxes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it the purpose of the government to see that these citizens get these social services?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Negotiations are going on at the present time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Who is going to levy this taxation? Will it be levied by the Department of Mines and Resources, parks branch, and will it vary from park to park? Will the council, or whatever it is called, at places like Banff have anything to say in regard to the amount of taxation? Is it to be a straight imposition or are the people concerned to have anything to say with regard to the amount they are to be taxed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The parks branch, Department of Mines and Resources, will levy the taxes, and I am sure that the imposition will not be made until representations by the residents of the parks have been heard.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Will the views put forward by the citizens groups-these correspond to municipal councils-in the parks be taken more or less as a guide? In the past one of the complaints by the people living in these national parks was that their representatives received very little attention from the department when making complaints on their behalf. I should like to be assured that they will receive proper consideration from the department.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can assure my hon. friend that the representations of the association to which he refers will be considered. He will hardly expect me to say that their representations will be accepted, as we both know that people do not like to be taxed.


Mr. MATTHEWS (Kootenay East):: I am not sure that the question I want to ask comes under the particular item we are discussing.
For some time there has been dissatisfaction over conditions in our national parks, particularly in the Kootenay park and the Yoho national park. Many persons are operating tourist camps on the banks of fine creeks, and they are anxious to get permission to use the water to generate enough electricity for their own camps. In the past this permission has always been denied. We are spending a lot of money in beautifying our parks and inducing tourists to come here to enjoy them; yet when visitors stop at some of the camps in these parks the only light they have at night is a smelly coal oil lamp belonging to the antediluvian days. There is ample water running by these camps year in and year out which could be harnessed to supply electric light and make things more comfortable for the tourists who come into the park.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Department of Justice has ruled that streams in the national parks can be developed for park purposes only. I am told that it would require an amendment to the National Parks Act to permit the development suggested by my hon. friend. Personally I would be inclined to favour an amendment that would permit that sort of development, but the matter is not before the house at this time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What is meant by "the abatement and prevention of nuisances"?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is only a repetition of what is in the act already. It applies to the taxation clause. It is in section 7 of the act and is being reenacted in section 9 of the bill.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What is the reason for it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is for the prevention and abatement of nuisances.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Bill reported.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 415, to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister going to make a statement?

Civil Service Superannuation Act


Douglas Charles Abbott: I made an>
extended explanation running to about half an hour when the resolution was before the house, and there is nothing I can add at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there are a few words I should like to say about the measure that is before us, land I rise to do' so now because this is the only opportunity I shall have to bring to the attention of the house and of the government certain matters relating to pension and superannuation rights.
The bill before us calling for improvements in the Civil Service Superannuation Act has already received1 considerable acclaim. There may be some details concerning which improvement is desirable, but in the main the principle of the bill is highly commendable. The point I wish to bring to the attention of the government is that the considerations which they have found it desirable to implement in the case of civil servants are considerations which sooner or later must be implemented for all the people of Canada. This bill provides, for example, for mobility of employment without the loss of pension rights. In other words persons who have been working in other lines of employment with which pension rights were associated can now move into the civil service under certain conditions without losing the pension rights they had built up previously. It is also now possible for civil servants under certain conditions to leave the civil service to go into some other line of work and not lose their pension rights.
We also have in this bill a provision for definite recognition of the period spent in military service overseas so far as civil service pension rights are concerned. We have, too, a recognition that those who have been classed as temporary1 civil servants should be given consideration with respect to pension rights.
It is good to note the extent to which the principle of providing for security in old age is being recognized by the government with respect to the civil service and also to an ever larger extent by industry. We must not. however, lose sight of the fact that these various pension plans have to be paid for. That is true of any pension scheme, including old age pensions, which some of us advocate very strongly. The point I wish to make is this, that we are getting into a situation in this country where large numbers of people, rightly, are earning pension benefits portions of which have to be paid by persons who do not enjoy pension rights. When employees of an industry are earning a pension they pay for part of it themselves and part of it is paid for by the public who buy the product of that industry, and that public includes many people who do

not have the opportunity to provide pension benefits for themselves. And. so with civil service superannuation: in part it is paid for by the civil servants themselves out of their own remuneration; in part it is paid for out of the consolidated revenue fund, which means thait the taxpayers of Canada are helping to make it possible.
I want to make it very clear, Mr. Speaker, that I am in favour of all these pension plans, and I am pleased with the extent to which they are growing. But the fact is that they still leave out in the cold a great many other Canadians who do not have the opportunity to provide their own old age security and yet they have to help pay for the security of others. All of this means that the time has come in this country for parliament, and I say that because it seems to me that it ought to be a major plank in the platform of every party, to force whatever government is in power to move in the direction of a universal superannuation plan.
Some industries, for example the Canadian National Railways, already have in effect a plan whereby they give to their employees a certain gratuitous pension, a certain amount as a matter of right apart entirely from the employee's contributions; and then on top of that the employees receive a pension based on their contributions. I feel that the time is long overdue when not only the civil service but Canadians generally should have the benefit of some such plan. We should have an old age pension plan which provides the-basic minimum, but we must have in addition to it for all Canadians some such plan-


James Horace King: Order. The hon. member knows that according to the rules, on second reading the discussion should be confined to-the principle of the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I know that rule, and that is the reason I am making these remarks on second reading. It seems to me that this' is the only place I can make them. I submit to Your Honour that the principle of this bill revolves around the extension of certain principles. These principles relate to making it possible for workers to move from private industry into the civil service or from the civil service into private industry without the loss of pension rights. The whole principle of this bill is to make more secure the old age of Canadian citizens both in and out of the civil service. It is not confined just to those who spend their lifetime as civil servants. The point I am trying to make is that the time has come when the government should bring before parliament a measure to provide'

Civil Service Superannuation Act
such over-all security for all the people. I am not talking about old age pensions as such; that is another matter. I submit that in, addition we should have a universal superannuation plan which should be, as this is, on a contributory basis. As a matter of fact it should go farther than that; it should cover all of the things that happen to people over which they have no control. I urge upon the government and upon this house the realization that there is perhaps no more desirable social objective toward which any party or any parliament or any government should strive.
We have come to the realization in our day and age that one of the things that our people need most is security; one of the things the lack of which causes so much hardship, suffering, frustration and loss of efficiency is insecurity. One of the shortest ways to offset all these evil things and to bring security into the Jives of our Canadian people is to give them the assurance that we are giving by this act to this group of people who having done their turn, having done their share of work in this country, will have at a reasonable retirement age, such as is now suggested in this bill, sixty-five or sixty, ample security.


James Horace King: Order. I think I have already given too much latitude to the hon. member. We are dealing with the second reading of a bill to amend the Civil Service Act, and the hon. member's remarks should be confined to the principle of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Definitions.
George Russell Boucher: Under this section I notice that the civil servant is to a large extent dependent upon designation by the treasury board. I believe that we should have gone a little farther and put into statutory form the various classifications of civil servants, because we can see gradually encroaching upon the civil service many persons who are not in the ordinary sense of the word servants of the government, but who are given equal status to career civil servants or permanent employees of various departments of government. For that reason I think it would be better for the civil service of Canada generally and for the civil servants themselves if the designation of a civil servant were put in statutory form and not subject to the ratification of the treasury board.
I can see situations developing by which persons who might be called secondary or third-class civil servants, members of committees, members of commissions, members of
crown companies, who are not in the same classification as the person who lends to the nation his talents and his abilities as a career or permanent civil servant, will encroach upon the civil service. They may be employed by the officers of a company, or by the heads of committees, on a temporary basis-not hired or fired, strictly speaking, by the government of Canada, but employed and discharged and given rights of salaries, superannuation and remuneration, leave of absence and so on, entirely apart from that set out in the Civil Service Act. I see a move on foot to bring these people into the same status as those who have given their talents, their ability and their education as a career within the civil service of Canada.
Generally speaking we Canadians are proud of the work our civil servants have done for Canada over the years. Their efficiency, their devotion to duty, their loyalty to the service is well known. We are not enhancing that prestige or increasing the efficiency of the career civil servants by adding to their category those who are not in the same status. In other words I believe that nobody should be given the classification of a civil servant unless he is employed under the Civil Service Act, with the rights, privileges, benefits and obligations common to the other ranks. It seems to me that we are going to see three, four or more different classes of civil servants under different terms of employment, with different rights and privileges; the treasury board-which is not known to the public to any great extent, and which varies from time to time, from government to government and from minister to minister-giving different rights, privileges and determinations as to their status. I do not think it is to the interest of Canada as a whole or to the civil service generally that this condition of affairs should prevail. I am disappointed that when the amendment to the Civil Service Act and to the Civil Service Superannuation Act was brought in, that line of demarcation was not put in statutory form instead of being left to the treasury board as at present.
In the employment of the government of Canada we have many people who have been temporary. I believe that by an amendment to the Civil Service Act they are to be made permanent. We do not know in what department, in what board, on what commission or with what crown company these employees are to be found who are to be accepted by the treasury board. Much advantage could be gained and much satisfaction given to the civil service generally if the civil servant were put into the class by statute rather than by- I was going to say the whim or fancy of

Civil Service Superannuation Act
individuals, but I do not like to use these words in a disparaging sense. It depends a good deal upon the representations made to the treasury board and the time at which these representations are made whether they are put in the classification.
Many of the civil servants appointed under the Civil Service Superannuation Act are making contributions to the fund equal to the amount paid by the government. They are now to see other classes come into the fund and draw benefits under conditions different from those under which they draw their benefits when they retire. It is not fair to the career civil servants. I would urge the government when dealing with the Civil Service Superannuation Act and the Civil Service Act to bear in mind that when persons are contributing to a superannuation fund, the fund should be earmarked as held in trust for the contributors and not dispersed in a manner which will be unfair to the career group.
Generally speaking . the people of Canada appreciate the amendments to the Civil Service Superannuation Act which are embodied in this bill. I am sure that there are many improvements in it which the civil servants and the people of Canada welcome. My learned friend the member for Winnipeg North Centre-


Stanley Howard Knowles: 'Honourable", please.


George Russell Boucher: I beg his pardon, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I am glad to note he denies the "learned" part of it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: For reasons this house well understands. I am not a lawyer.


George Russell Boucher: And you know yourself better than anyone else. I was going to say that the people of Canada do help to pay for the superannuation for our civil servants, but they are amply repaid for their contribution by the devotion of the civil service to duty as well as by the service which is rendered. I think the government as an employer of thousands of people should lead the way in providing for superannuation benefits. I do not think that in setting up these superannuation benefits it should continue the policy it has followed in the past of saying to civil servants "We have hired you for so many years. You have contributed to the fund, but if you leave the service you will not get the advantage of the security which you have been helping to build up". In my opinion this bill makes the fund much more flexible and more advantageous to the civil servants.
In providing superannuation for the civil service, we must not merely consider the inducement held out to capable persons to

join the service; we must consider the encouragement which is being given to the man who is doing a good job to remain in-the service, and security to him when he reaches the age of retirement forms a part of that encouragement.
These three points have, I believe, been thoroughly considered in this bill, and I commend these portions of it. I think, however, we could go quite a bit farther than we have in the directions I have indicated.


Mr. REID:: I suppose it is well understood that members from the city of Ottawa or members who live close to Ottawa generally take an active interest in any bill of this kind, but to those of us who are not so close to the capital the picture presented is not quite the same. It is not the same as the picture painted by those who either live in Ottawa or live close to Ottawa and who depend upon the great vote of the civil service. I am not one of those who are against superannuation, but I am one of those who believe that our philosophy of life is all wrong. When you tell a person that he must retire at the age of sixty-five I think you are going directly against human nature itself.
Let me say to those who are advocating compulsory retirement at the age of sixty-five as a means of affording employment that they would do well to look up the figures, because if I were going to advocate anything from that point of view I would retire every one at the age of fifty. That is what I would do if my object were to give employment and a pension.
I say to hon. members who intend to vote for this bill that they had better also seriously consider their own position when they reach the age of sixty-five, because what is good for this group of citizens should apply to members of the House of Commons. I am not advocating it. I do not advocate it. I am one of those who think the best life for any man or woman, provided that he or she is in health and strength, the best life is one in which they can carry on as long as possible and is the life that will enable them perhaps to do their best work. Let us see what we are doing. We are making provision for this great class of citizens in the belief that we are doing it from a humanitarian point of view, whereas we are actually sounding the death-knell of the majority of these citizens. If you look at the figures in regard to those who are compulsorily retired at sixty-five years of age you will generally find that, once they quit, their length of life is, on the average, about five years.

Civil Service Superannuation Act
These people may have worked thirty-five or forty years; they have, during that time, had their sociability in their comings and goings among their fellow men; but one fine day the superintendent comes and says "Jack, it is too bad; next week you will have to retire". Then others go around the office and collect some money, and on Wednesday or Thursday or some suitable day the individual is presented with an umbrella or a fountain pen. Perhaps he has been looking forward to this day, saying to himself "Well, now I will enjoy life". But does he enjoy life to the full when he has nothing to do? If you live on the coast you may find them later sitting on benches along the shore with nothing to do. In this condition it is not long until the individual feels that he is the forgotten man.
I say to hon. members that we had better take more seriously what we are doing. The old country, I see, is now going to encourage its aged citizens to do some work, and so should we. Our philosophy of life is entirely wrong. However, I can understand members living in or near Ottawa extolling this bill. Bear in mind that I am in favour of superannuation, but I am not in favour of compulsorily retiring everyone at the age of sixty-five. Therefore, I would vote against this bill and not have it said of me at the age of sixty-five that as a member of parliament I should retire.
Is the usefulness of a man or woman gone because he or she has reached the age of sixty-five? What about Churchill? If we continue along this line we may soon find the man of thirty-five or forty pointing his finger at every one who has reached or is near the age of sixty-five and saying, "It is high time you quit that job and allowed someone else to step in." We are beginning to think-people are old and finished at sixty-five. I am not saying that those who are ill, those who may have been wounded in the last war and who may wish to retire, should not be allowed to do so. Provision might well be made for them to retire on a decent superannuation. But when you compel every man or woman of sixty-five and say to him or her "We have no more use for you; you must retire", then I warn those who contemplate the glory of this that they had better cultivate some hobby or other because when they are sixty-five and find themselves with nothing to do in life, they will not enjoy it as they may now think. The good Lord never intended it that way.
With things developing in this way, it is a wonder you can find any man or woman willing to work on a farm. They might very
well say, "Why should we put in long hours on a farm and receive no holidays or superannuation? Instead, we will go to the city or maybe get some government job."
Let me now take a minute or two to refer to a class of public servants about whom I have heard no word from any member of the House of Commons. There is a class of public servants around this building without whose work no member of parliament could get along. I know I may not be popular in what I am about to say, and I may receive a lot of black looks. We could perhaps get along without the masseur or the barber and some attendants, but not a member of parliament can do without a stenographer. The correspondence which every member gets must be attended to.
But these indispensable people are not in the bill? Someone will say they are only temporary and they can find another job. Let me refer to another group of public servants. I do not want anyone to think that what I am going to say applies to all who work in the public service, because we have many public servants, here and elsewhere, who are working long hours and giving the best of their ability to their duties. But generally speaking, the civil servants in the government work six and a half hours a day, and then we turn round and say to the trade union men who advocate shorter hours that it cannot be done. I find some around Ottawa almost cursing the House of Commons because we are sitting. They say, "If you fellows were not talking so much we would get off at four o'clock." My heart bleeds for some of them working six and a half hours a day because I know that if we were out of here they would be working a full five and a half hours. They are entitled also to three weeks' holidays with pay, eleven statutory holidays and eighteen days sick leave. But that is not all. They are entitled to six days of special leave if someone dies in the family or if there is sickness; and some of them have the neat system of piling up days until they have accumulated 800 days of sick leave with pay.
They are getting all this with superannuation as well, for which the country pays half. As I say, they are in a special class, and yet we have a group of stenographers and secretaries around this building who have to seek jobs and have none of those advantages. I am not apologizing to anyone for saying a word on their behalf. In fact I would advocate a royal commission to look into all positions around this building.

Civil Service Superannuation Act
It is not always popular for a member of parliament to get up and speak in this way. That opinion has been expressed after the experience of a former member of parliament. Well, I will take a chance on that happening to me, and I want to see who will push me around or who will be rough with me because of what I have just said. I have a duty to perform. Not one member of parliament has risen to his feet today to say one word on behalf of those without whose help they could not get along. I have heard charwomen mentioned, but not stenographers-


Stanley Howard Knowles: With regard to the
representations the hon. member is making, may I say on a point of order-


Thomas Reid: That is not a point of order at all. Sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order.


Thomas Reid: That is not a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is saying he has never heard anyone rise in this house and speak on behalf of the stenographers. I submit that I, for one-and I know others have done so also-have risen on behalf of the stenographers. I submit that the hon. member would strengthen his case if he would admit that others have done so. By refusing to do that, he does not help his case.


Thomas Reid: I am willing to accept that statement. But that was not a point of order. It was just another little speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then it is a point of truth.
Mr, REID: Well, I am truthful, too. I hope the hon. member does not think he is the only one carrying the beacon of truth around with him. At one time he changed his cloth. I have not changed mine. I do not wish to be diverted from what I have to say. I make no apologies to anyone for rising this afternoon and speaking on behalf of that class of people. I should like to see the whole matter looked into. If others on the opposite side have spoken about them, I should like to see them join with me this afternoon on behalf of the stenographers of the House of Commons. The next time they raise the matter, I shall certainly support them, and I hope they will do the same for me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are right with you.


Thomas Reid: Without this class of people
to whom I have referred, no member of parliament could carry on his duties. This is my
[Mr. BeidJ
eighteenth year in parliament. I can remember the time when there was a great deal of competition to get a position in the House of Commons. In those days the civil service, of course, did not receive the few benefits which they today receive. But if you look at the civil service today, they are in a much preferred class to what they were in back in the 1930's. These girls who work here will have to look for a position after the session ends. They have no superannuation. They have no sick leave. Their hours are long. As everyone knows, they work from nine in the morning till six in the evening, with an hour and a half off for lunch. Many, if not all of them, work in the evenings. There is hardly one who does not work one or two nights a week. Many work on Sundays to assist members, when required. When these hours they work are taken into consideration, they are not in any way in a class to compare with civil servants of the same grade. I think most of them would rank as grade three stenographers. If they do not, it is up to the member to say whether or not they are capable. But I think most of them would rank as grade three stenographers, and as such I claim they are not being paid sufficient.
I am going to make this suggestion. I do not believe it would cost the country any more money to put them on a permanent basis by the year, and I shall explain why. When the session is over, many of them have to seek employment. Some do not. Some may find a position in the civil service as temporaries, and some do not. The entire staff could be seconded into the various departments after the session is over. Their services would be valuable to many departments. I ask the minister to consider seriously the request and recommendation that I am making this afternoon.
But again I am coming back to what I stated first of all. We had better review whither this nation is going in the matter of compulsory superannuation. I say there should be voluntary superannuation. I repeat to those who are in favour of retiring people in order to give jobs to younger people: let us do it decently and retire them at fifty and give them a decent pension: then everyone will have work. But I say that by retiring people at sixty-five compulsorily you are practically giving the death sentence to at least sixty or seventy per cent of our splendid citizens.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise, not in any sense to quarrel with the hon. member for 'New Westminster, but to support him in the matter he

Civil Service Superannuation Act
has once again brought to the attention of the minister. I would refer him to Hansard of this year, for March 28, 1947-


Mr. MACKENZIE:: The hon. member cannot do that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -where he will find this matter was dealt with. It so happens that I raised it, and was supported by the hon. member for Fraser Valley-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On a point of order, the hon. member cannot do that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -and the hon. member for Vancouver North as well as the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Order. The hon. member cannot quote from a previous debate in the same session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not quoting from the debate.
An. hon. MEMBER: He is merely referring to it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We were also able to get His Honour, the Speaker/ as a member of the committee, to take part in the discussion. It was a worthwhile discussion except that, as the hon. member for New Westminster might point out, it ended up in the air. I think the hon. member is to be commended for raising it again today, and he need not worry about any black looks so far as the general membership of this house is concerned.


Mr. STIRLING:: They were not meant.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are all with him. It seems to me that the time has come when the government should give consideration to including these people in a number of matters, particularly pension rights, and that is what is now before us. Some of these stenographers have been in the service of this House of Commons for a good many years. As a matter of fact, I have in my possession a document which indicates the number of years some of them have served. To find that some of these women have been here for twenty or thirty years and still have no pension rights seems to me to be a rather black mark against parliament. We realize that there are difficulties in working out a pension scheme for people who do not work the year round, but this bill is recognizing the fact that other temporary employees should be given pension rights, and I submit the time has come when we ought to get the usual answer that this is a matter to see His Honour, the Speaker, about; or that it is a matter to see the
treasury board about. I submit it is time that the government, which is interesting itself in these other people, should pay some heed to these representations from members of parliament. I am sure the hon. member for New Westminster and I are expressing the thoughts of members in all sections of the house when we say that these people who do so much work for parliament and for the country should receive the recognition of security.


George James McIlraith: It seems to me that we have wandered a little bit off the section and into a contest to see who has spoken the most about a particular phase of an item. I am quite sure that hon. members on all sides of the house are interested in the administration of the public service of the country. I do not know that any useful purpose is being served by trying to prove on what date or by which individual member certain representations were made.
One matter I wished to point out was that the effect of the suggested change mentioned by the hon. member for Carleton would be to exclude about one-quarter of the present number of persons under the superannuation act from the benefits of that act. I am quite sure it was not his intention to exclude that large number.


George Russell Boucher: Would the hon. member explain what he means?


George James McIlraith: Yes. The hon. member's suggested definition of the term "persons" to come under the act would exclude, for example, all prevailing rates men in the printing bureau who are hired by the civil service commission, and all public works prevailing rates men hired by the civil service commission. It would exclude practically all the ones who were brought under the act by the 1944 amendment. I am quite sure that was not what was intended by the hon. member. However, that would be the effect of it. I am sure that is not his desire.


George Russell Boucher: I am afraid the hon. member has entirely misconstrued my intention. My intention was that, instead of having treasury board designate who gets superannuation and who comes under the Civil Service Act, it should be done by statute. That is very far from the hon. member's interpretation of my statement.


George James McIlraith: You went farther, however.
Mr. MaeINNIS:	Mr. Speaker, I rise to
support this bill. I imagine it would pass
515S


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.

On section 3-Service in the forces and pensionable employment prior to appointment.
Stanley Howard Knowles: This is the section that makes provision for persons to move out of other pensionable employment into the civil service without losing pension rights previously earned. That seems to appear at two places; it comes in section 5A (1) (a), and also in subsection 4 on page 5 of the bill, and I should like to ask a question particularly in reference to the definition on page 5. The clause reads:
In this section "pensionable employment" means employment designated by the treasury board as employment in respect of which there was an established superannuation or pension fund or plan for service therein . . .
In other words, if I may borrow the language the hon. member for Carleton was using a moment ago, this seems to leave the matter in the hands of the treasury board. Can the minister give any indication as to what rules or principles are to be followed by the treasury board in deciding that in case A an employee coming from a private firm which had a pension plan is eligible, whereas in case B an employee coming from another firm may not have his former pension rights continued?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I discussed this point at some length with the officials of my department. It is difficult to lay down in the statute a definition of what would be an acceptable pension plan. The committee will recall, for instance, that under the Income WJar Tax Act contributions to pension funds were deductible for income tax purposes if the plan had been approved by the Department of National Revenue. This is a somewhat analogous position here, in that the treasury board in this case must approvq the pension plan in the service from which the employee comes. It will be interpreted very broadly and generously, but those who are expert in these matters tell me it really is essential that there should be some body to scrutinize a particular plan and see that it is a genuine pension plan operated on sound actuarial principles.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I should like a little more information on that, because I believe this is a very unusual principle. A pension plan in a private company would be on an actuarial basis, and the civil service pension plan is on an actuarial basis.


Douglas Charles Abbott: In the first case it may not be.


Angus MacInnis: We were discussing that matter in the industrial relations committee this morning, and were told that a certain plan was on an actuarial basis. Will any

Civil Service Superannuation Act
funds be transferred from the one pension plan to the other? If no funds are transferred, then how is the fund, under which the employee comes, to be compensated for that part of the service for which no contribution was made to the pension fund?


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend will appreciate that under the terms of this bill a man who comes to the civil service from pensionable employment can count his service in that employment upon the payment of double contributions plus interest. He contributes toward his pension during the period he serves in the other employment, and the assumption is that on leaving that employment he will receive some cash payment., perhaps with interest, in lieu of his pension contributions. What I think we would rather hope is that employers with pension funds of this kind w7ould do as we propose to do under this act; that is, when an employee severs his employment with them, give him a deferred pepsion annuity payable, say at the age of sixty, for the term of his employment with that private firm. Then he comes to the government service and starts his pensionable service here. At the retirement age he will receive a pension from his first employer and a pension from the government, and the sum of the two will represent his services during the pensionable period. We are hoping that this plan may commend itself to those setting up pension plans in private employment, and that it will encourage this mobility of workers from one pensionable employment to another which will involve no payment by any pension fund and no transfer from one pension fund to another.


George Russell Boucher: Following along this suggestion of giving discretion to the treasury board, may I say it is my feeling that during the last number of years the treasury board has to a great extent been usurping the functions of the civil service commission. I believe that some body should decide whether a pension fund is acceptable within the civil service, but I wonder if the minister has given consideration to having the civil service commission decide what pension fund would be applicable? A great number of civil servants are apprehensive over the tendency by the government to take power away from the civil service commission and give it to the treasury board, even to the extent of a suggestion that a director general be appointed. While there may be some reason for having some body accept the responsibility of deciding what pension fund shall be accepted, I do not think the minister has given us a good enough reason that that body should be the treasury board.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is purely a financial matter, and my hon. friend will appreciate that the civil service commission is not equipped or staffed to handle matters of a purely financial nature. It is not responsible for the administration of the Civil Service Superannuation Act. Under the circumstances it seemed to me that the proper body to exercise such control as is necessary should be a financial body; that is, the treasury board.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The usual practice in connection with pension funds is to have a committee on which both the employer and the employees are represented. An example of this is the pension funds of the two railroad companies which we have been discussing in the industrial relations committee. I feel that the same principle should be carried forward here and I think the hon. member for Garleton is quite right in pressing this point. Our experience with treasury board leads us to accept with a grain of salt the minister's use of the word "generous".


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend is aware that there is a superannuation committee which reports to the treasury board.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The treasury board has the final say as to who are pensionable employees. It seems to me that the minister would have done better if he had gone to national health and welfare, to the annuities branch or to some department or group of people who are interested in pension rights rather than to a body which is interested in keeping down expenditures wherever possible. I confess that there are two sides, but when you leave the final say in the hands of the treasury board I am not satisfied that the other side is adequately represented. To many of us it seems that the commendable principle which is incorporated in this bill has only one logical conclusion, namely, that soon or later we must have a universal superannuation plan to provide for general mobility of employment and security for our Canadian people, regardless of where they spend their life's work.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The superannuation fund is under the direction and control of the Minister of Finance, who is the responsible minister. The Minister of Finance is ex officio the chairman of the treasury board which, as my hon. friend knows, is a committee of ministers. There is a staff of competent officials in the treasury board. While one of the functions of that board is to see that expenditures are kept down and that no money is wasted, at the same time the Minister of Finance-I am speaking for myself, but I know that I speak

Civil Service Superannuation Act
for my other colleagues-and the treasury board are interested in the efficient operation of the public service and seeing that the members of the public service are fairly treated.
The amendments now before the committee were evolved in the Department of Finance by officials of the much maligned treasury board. The deputy minister of finance, as secretary of the treasury board, took an active personal interest in the drafting of these amendments. I am not rising to defend the treasury board as such, but I think the committee can rest assured that this matter will receive sympathetic administration under the aegis of that much maligned body, the treasury board, and under the Minister of Finance, whoever it may be, myself or my successor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about my second question?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is something to which I would have to give careful thought. This is a superannuation provision for those in the public service, and that is as far as we are going today. If my hon. friend wants my views on a general superannuation plan I shall be glad to give them at perhaps some other time.


Mr. SHAW:: It is quite possible that this section provides the information which I desire, but I want to have the matter absolutely clear. A number of veterans of world war I entered the public service after September, 1939, during 1940, 1941 and so on. Those persons were not engaged in pensionable employment, but they are now on a permanent basis and contributing to the superannuation fund. Are they permitted, by paying double or whatever the provision is, to count their two, three or four years of service in world war I?


Douglas Charles Abbott: If they so elect.


Mr. BROOKS:: I understand that they have to pay four per cent interest.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct; that is the standard basis for all who wish to count prior service, whether it is in the armed forces or in what we call pensionable employment.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If it were service in world war I the interest would be quite an amount?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid my hon. friend is right. Service in world war I would be some distance back. This probably would be of more value to veterans of world war II who are now entering the service.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On section 4-Allowance to contributor after ten years service.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister state clearly the position as to superannuation of a civil servant in each of three classes: first, one who retires with less than ten years service; second, one who retires with more than ten years service but less than twenty years service and, third, one who retires with more than twenty years service but prior to the normal retirement age?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The civil servant with less than ten years service who is retired by reason of age or incapacity is given the option of receiving a gratuity of one month's salary for each year of service or an immediate annuity reduced by one per cent for each year of service less than twenty. The latter is a new provision. In the case of abolition of office, there is the same option, a gratuity of one month's salary for each year of service or a deferred annuity reduced by one per cent for each year of service less than twenty. In the case of inefficiency,, he is given the return of contributions without' interest or the option of a deferred annuity reduced by one per cent for each year of service less than twenty. In the case of misconduct, there is no change; he receives a return of contributions without interest. When he is retired for other reasons, such as voluntary retirement, completion of a term appointment and so on he is given the option of the return of contributions without interest or a deferred annuity reduced by one per cent for each year of service less than twenty.
In the case of a civil servant with over ten years of service retired for age or incapacity, he is given an immediate annuity. There is no change from the present act. In the case of abolition of office, he is given an immediate annuity reduced by one-third to age sixty-five. There is no change there. In the case of inefficiency, he is given under the present act an immediate annuity reduced by fifty per cent to age sixty-five and 33J per cent thereafter. That is changed to a deferred annuity reduced by one per cent for each year of service less than twenty or withdrawal of contributions without interest, whichever he prefers.
There is no change with respect to dismissal for misconduct. The employee is given the return of contributions without interest.
For other reasons, such as voluntary retirement, completion of a term appointment, he has under this bill, if he has less than ten

Civil Service Superannuation Act
years service, the option of a deferred annuity reduced by one per cent for each year of service less than twenty, or the return of contributions without interest. If he has over ten years service he gets his full annuity rights, whatever they may be, reduced by one per cent for every year of service which is less than twenty, and at twenty years he gets his full annuity rights at the appropriate rate, deferred to age sixty years.	[DOT]


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the minister for that detailed statement which clears up certain ambiguities. But there is one point I should like to get clear. The minister listed various reasons for the termination of employment but did not refer to a civil servant who leaves voluntarily for reasons of his own.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did give that. I said
that for various reasons, such as voluntary retirement, or.completion of a term appointment, he has the option of a return of contributions without interest or a deferred annuity reduced by one per cent for each year of service less than twenty years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought the minister
said voluntary retirement on completion of a term of appointment.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That was a slip of the
tongue.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
On section 8-Retirement age.
George Russell Boucher: Subsection 2 says,
"Nothing contained in subsection one of this section," and so forth. If that refers to subsection 1 of this new clause 8, I do not know what it means at all. On the other hand, if it refers to the section of the old act it is referring to section 10 and should read, "subsection 2 of section 10" of the old act.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The purpose of this subsection is to provide that the reduced retirement ages of sixty-five and sixty shall not apply until two years have elapsed after the coming into force of this subsection.


George Russell Boucher: Has the minister checked the wording?-because, as it is, there is confusion. It seems to me that it should read "subsection 2 of the old section 10."


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am advised that the
reason for the language used here is that this is not necessarily a permanent section in
the Civil Service Superannuation Act, but is merely an enabling section to carry us through that two-year period.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 9 to 13 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. ABBOTT moved the third reading of the bill.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say just one
word to the Minister of Finance. Will he be ready at some stage, perhaps on his estimates, to discuss the question of a cost of living bonus for the present superannuated civil servants?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will do my best. I will think it over.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am just warning the
minister that that is coming.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved the second reading of Bill No. 412, to provide superannuation benefits for senior appointees of the Department, of External Affairs serving outside Canada.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister indicate how many persons in the service of the department at the present time this bill will cover?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: From the information that has been given me by the officers it will apply to twelve persons, six of whom would not otherwise be entitled to any superannuation allowance, and six of whom would get some increased benefit from the time spent in the service of external affairs.


Mr. GRAYDON:: I was going to direct a similar question to the minister, only I was going to make it a little more definite. Since there are not many involved, perhaps the minister would give the committee the names of those who are affected by this bill as we know them ait present, together with their present salaries and their other allowances.
External Affairs

whatever they may be. It may be that they have some blanket arrangement about expenses. I should like to know their actual remuneration and their basic salary in each case.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think the only one to whom- the bill will apply immediately, if he were to retire from the service as soon as the act comes into force, is the Hon. Mr. Justice Davis who has, I think, been for a sufficiently long period in the occupancy of a public office. But those who are not entitled to any superannuation benefits under any existing legislation of the parliament of Canada and who are now heads of missions for external affairs are Mr. W. F. Warwick Chipman, who is Canadian ambassador to Argentina and who served as Canadian ambassador to Chile before that; Mr. Victor Dore, who is ambassador to Belgium and minister to Luxemburg.


Gordon Graydon: He took Mr. Justice Turgeon's place.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes, he replaced Mr. Justice Turgeon. Mr. K. A. Greene, who has just been appointed high commisisoner to Australia; Hon. T. C. Davis, now' Canadian ambassador to China and formerly high commissioner to Australia; Mr. Vaillancourt, Canadian minister to Cuba; Mr. Laureys, minister to Norway and Denmark, and formerly ambassador to Peru, and Mr. J. D. Kearney,, at first high commissioner to Ireland, then minister to Norway and Denmark and now high commissioner in India.
The others to whom the bill might apply, in meaning additional superannuation benefits to what they would be entitled to under other acts of the Canadian parliament, are Major-General G. P. Vanier, who is ambassador to France, and Major-General Maurice Pope, who is head of the Canadian military mission in Berlin; but with respect to Major-General Pope it would be only if the governor in council decided that the mission to Berlin was a mission comparable with ambassadorship or the office of consul general. Major-General LaFleche, ambassador to Greece; with respect to Major-General LaFleche, I am not in a position to say just what the effect would be. Major-General LaFleche was a member of the civil service for a number of years before he became a member of parliament and a minister of the crown; but he is not one who was in the civil service immediately before his appointment as an officer of external affairs. That is a matter that I asked to be given precise information upon, and have not as yet received information as to whether or not he would be entitled under the superannuation

act to superannuation benefits for the number of years he served in the civil service.


Gordon Graydon: If the gap between the time he was in the civil service and took on the job in Greece disqualified him, this bill would enter in.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: This bill would affect him just as if he had never been in the civil service, but only, of course, upon the conditions prescribed in the bill; that is to say, had the period of service that the bill calls for. When we come to the appropriate section it is my intention to ask that an amendment be moved to make sure that no one, no matter what his service may have been, can get more as a consequence of this bill than the maximum that this bill would provide if he had nothing else. Under this bill no one can get more than thir-ty-five fiftieths or seventy per cent of his salary. If a man was entitled to a superannuation benefit of a certain amount under another act of the parliament of Canada and by application of this bill got another allowance, the additional allowance will have to be cut down so that the two together will not amount to more than if his whole service had been in external affairs.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He will not get two rates.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. He will not be allowed more than if his whole period of public service- had been service with external affairs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the military pension?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I had not quite finished giving the explanation. That would apply whether it was a military pension, pension as a permanent member of the permanent force, of Canada or any other pension. It is drawn in general terms, any pension or annuity for any prior service under any other act of the parliament of Canada.
Mr. MacI-NNIS: What about disability pension?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Of course this would not cut down a pension that might have been earned before coming into external affairs, but this would not grant anything additional to such a pension, but would leave the total pension what would have been the maximum for service under this act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, if the other pension is already providing an amount greater than this bill would provide-
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It will not be interfered with in any way; but if it provides a

External Affairs
lesser amount than the maximum under this bill, then there is the difference between that amount and the maximum which could be made available provided it is earned under this bill.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: A returned soldier's disability pension would not be interfered with.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Under the terms of the amendment as it has been drawn, it would be any pension in respect of prior service. I understand that disability pensions are not pensions in respect of prior service; that they stand on an entirely different footing. That is what happens in the R.C.M.P. or in any other scheme. They are not pensions in respect of prior service; they are compensation for disability.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I was thinking of General Vanier's case.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes. The only other persons I had not mentioned were Mr. Justice Turgeon who is entitled to a pension under the Judges Act, but who has never drawn it because he is in the service of external affairs. Under the Judges Act I understand his pension would be $6,666. Since the total pension here would be presumably $7,000, there would only be the margin between the amount of $6,666 and the $7,000 which could be added to his pension under this bill.


Gordon Graydon: I have counted only eleven; I think the minister said twelve.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Major-General Odium is the next one. I understand that Major-General Odium is not entitle'd to any pension in respect of prior service for any other service in the civil service of Canada, and from the information I have, the only pension he could get would be what would be earned by his service in external affairs under this bill.


Gordon Graydon: Now, the salaries.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The salaries are


Gordon Graydon: Is it $10,000 each?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes; each of these heads of missions receives a salary of $10,000. Then, along the line of the previous question, Warwick Chipman, for instance, gets $10,000.


Gordon Graydon: What has always concerned me is this. These judges are, so to speak, seconded from the bench for the time being into the diplomatic service. Do they not get some special advantage over others, or do they get the same as other people? Actually, under the changes in the Judges Act last year, I should think Mr. Justice Davis would be entitled to more than $10,000. I do
not know about Mr. Justice Turgeon. Does he get more than the others, or are they all on an equal basis?
Mr. 8T. LAURENT: All on an equal basis. Mr. Justice Turgeon had retired from the bench before the Judges Act was amended.


Gordon Graydon: What about allowances?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Allowances are not counted for pension purposes, with just one exception. If a civil servant under the superannuation act is appointed head of a mission in external affairs at a salary that is less than would have been his salary in the civil service, under the superannuation act, the governor in council can, for the purposes of his continuation under the superannuation act, deem as part of his salary enough of his allowance so as not to prejudice him. That was particularly brought to our attention in connection with the case of Mr. Fraser Elliott, who accepted' a position in external affairs at a salary of less than his salary in the civil service, and he was informed that I would ask parliament, in dealing with this bill, to make provision whereby enough of his allowance might be deemed salary so that the change in salary would not affect his pension rights, although he would have to pay the contribution on the portion of the allowance that was for that purpose deemed salary. I think that is the whole scope of the bill.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: I want to take advantage of clause 1 of the bill to make a reference to those honourable gentlemen who are serving us so well so far away from home. They are great citizens, great Canadians. During the war particularly they put enthusiasm, vigour and understanding into their work and it was my privilege to observe them in action.
I do not like to single out any particular name. I have not had an opportunity during the last two years to make the observations which, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I should1 now like to make. I would mention Major-General Vanier, who, exiled to Algiers at the time I had the privilege of being a guest in his temporary domicile, did everything that he could possibly do on behalf of a Canadian, burdened though he was with, war cares.
In other parts "down under" we received similar consideration, and I have no criticism whatsoever to offer with regard to those names that have been mentioned. Most of the persons in question I have had the privilege of meeting, and I pay the highest tribute to them as great Canadians away from home doing a great job on behalf of Canada.
External Affairs

With your permission, sir, I should like to add one further tribute to the families of these gentlemen, to Madame Vanier and Mrs. Davis. These ladies, in their own way, made things pleasant to persons who were strangers to them, yet at the same time Canadians. To their guests they were as Canadians to Canadians. They went out of their way to do things, and I consider it my duty as well as a high privilege to pay tribute to our Canadian ambassadors-call them what you will- and their families away from home for making us feel at home when we ourselves were away from home. In the last two years I have been anxious to make this statement.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I wish to express my sincere appreciation of the words which the hon. member has spoken and which, we all know, are fully deserved by those who are doing their best to serve Canada's interests abroad, and by their families who are assisting them in every way possible and in an efficient manner.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to get some information about these various excellencies because I have objected for years now to the extension of- the ambassador, minister, consul general and high commissioner principle. I have great admiration for the present minister, but I must object to voting money for ambassadors of one sort or another all over the seven seas. They have no knowledge whatever of external affairs. They learn by experience only. Even Solomon in all his glory was never arrayed like one of them; and, to refer still further to that passage in Scripture, "they toil not, neither do they spin." The thing is becoming ridiculous for a small country, and I think we had better get out of it. What have we in this department? We have a large number of these excellencies all over the globe. We have men in China and Japan, and before the war we had Hon. Mr. Bruce and, after it, General Odium. Now we have Judge Davis, who has been in Australia. He has been all over the world, on all the seas.
What have these people been doing except fostering the separatist tendency all over the empire and dividing Britain's representation? We have public officials called ambassadors; we have high commissioners; we have consuls general and all that kind of thing everywhere; to such an extent has this system been developed that their excellencies are beginning to make a laughing stock of the country, by so many of them being sent to great and small countries all over the world. That is the plain truth, if you ask me. For a country of ten and a half million people we have altogether 
too many of these useless representatives abroad. There is nothing but duplication and more duplication all along the line. There are officials under this department who do work overlapping that of the trade commissioners, agents and other officials of Canada. I have a splendid book on the Department of Trade and Commerce giving a list of countries, cities and towns where there are trade agents, commercial agents and so on. Some provinces and many businessmen have associations over there also. All this, in my opinion, is unnecessary duplication. If it were necessary I would not say a word, but are all these people necessary? No. What do they do? Nothing that I know of but get the country into trouble making speeches in foreign countries which they have no right to make. A lot of them are in uniforms. One landed in India the other day. He was formerly in southern Ireland. Now he has gone to India, and there were profuse articles about him and his uniform in the public press. And what about the staffs that assist these gentlemen? You have a first secretary, a second secretary, a third secretary and a fourth secretary; there is a secretary to the fourth secretary, and in addition to that this particular gentleman has a military staff with him to accompany him on land, in the air and on the sea, as he moves from one place to another.
Since I have been in the House of Commons, there has been discovered one great basic industry in Canada, located in the city of Ottawa, known as the ambassador cure for unemployment. I call it the ambassador cure for unemployment, for that is the only object I can see in it. Apart from that, they are doing nothing at all. They are of no value to Canada or to the Empire that I can see. We are talking about our status all the time, our autonomy and our sovereignty. Well, the status we had at the time of the last war, the sovereignty we enjoyed then, saw us through that war and another, in which thousands upon thousands of our young men were killed, and thousands upon thousands of others wounded. If that status was good enough for us then, it ought to be good enough for us today and especially for those of us who stayed at home. We should not be wanting to roam the seven seas.
We are fortunate that the position of the United States is far different. As a great ambassador or a great president of France said

I refer to Clemeneeau-Britain and the dominions were the hardest countries in the world to make a treaty with. Why? Because they did not speak with one voice

External Affairs
as the United States does. Fortunately in the United States there is one federal authority in control and not forty-eight separate states, each with ambassadors all over the seven seas. I do not mind the hon. member for Carleton supporting the measure as he does, because he is no doubt able to get some employment out of it, as are all the members for Ottawa city and Carleton county; although I do not think he has in his constituency any of these gentlemen who are roaming all over the seven seas.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Withdraw.


Thomas Langton Church: I think this has gone far enough. For example, when you look at the large powers such as Britain and France, and the others, how many ambassadors have they? The other day I saw a return, I think it was in British Hansard, which indicated they have only nine ambassadors. We have about twenty, if you ask me. I had a list of them which was in a return to an order of the house, giving their names. One would think we were a first-class power with 100 to 180 million people, having all these people roaming around on Cook's tours, par excellence and de luxe all over the seven seas learning the embassy business by experience. Everyone wants to be an ambassador. The hon. member for Vancouver South would qualify as an ambassador. He would make a very good one, as would many other hon. members. The hon. member for Temiscouata -he is not here today; he is taking a holiday -may be an ambassador some day. Some not only want to send ambassadors to various countries, but want to extend it to religious denominations. Some want to go to Canterbury cathedral and no doubt represent their denominations. Some want to go to Rome. Some want to go to the Church of Scotland where the hon. gentleman opposite-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I beg the hon. member's pardon; I belong to the Free Church of Scotland, not to the Church of Scotland.


Thomas Langton Church: I should like to say to Edinburgh's most distinguished graduate, that he would make a good ambassador of the Free Church of Scotland. I have seen him doing ambassadorial work on many occasions in the house, and he is a competent ambassador.
With all due respect, .Mr. Chairman, for a country with eleven to twelve million people I think we are going much too far with these vast expenditures. No doubt the pension is contributory. A man shall have to serve for five years first. But not one of them stayed five years in Australia; not one stayed more than one year. There have been three of
them down there, and now they are off to South America, and all that kind of thing. We are going too far. There is no public opinion to maintain this. In my opinion we are making a great mistake and causing separatism.


Angus MacInnis: In what I have to say I do not wish to be considered as unappreciative of the services our representatives abroad are rendering to Canada, but I believe we should have some sense of proportion in these matters. Last week or the week before, we were considering pensions for people who have served this country as citizens, people who have given a lifetime in the service of the country. The conclusion this house came to was that our old age pensioners, man and wife, can live on a pension of $360 a year. I do not see how we can harmonize the provisions of this bill with what we did last week or the week before with regard to old age pensioners. For that reason-and I am speaking for myself and myself only-I intend to oppose this measure.
Daily I receive letters from constituents, indeed from people in all parts of Canada, who have to live on the war veterans allowance; and, mind you, they, are not people who have taken a pleasant and easy job at a good salary, but people who risked their lives for Canada. I had two letters today, one from an elderly couple who have to live on $60.83 a month. The man is not able to work. This man risked his life for Canada. Before we pay pensions of the amounts mentioned in this bill to people who have given only a few years' service, I think we should give more consideration to our senior citizens and to those who are now on what we call the burnt-out pension. We are told that we cannot do it, that the country cannot afford it.
Last year in the Judges Act there was provision for a pension for Mr. Justice Davis. It did not go through. Now we find that a completely new bill can be brought into this house for the purpose of providing a pension for one individual; that others come in on it is merely incidental. I jus!t cannot understand people who are fair-if my hon. friend wants to say something, let him get up and say it and stop murmuring while I am talking.


Mr. LENNARD:: I just said I did not want the hon. member to be looking at me and preaching to me.


Angus MacInnis: I am not looking at the hon. member; and if he did not look at me he would not notice that I was looking at him even if I were. But as I said, I cannot
External Affairs

understand how intelligent people, people who believe in equity and equality, can do this kind of thing. How can we explain it to our constituents when we go back home? How can I meet an elderly gentleman and his wife, people who have given their all in building up Canada and who are now told that they must live on $360 a year, when we have pensions of these amounts for others which we approve? Personally, I do not believe that those covered in this bill are any more entitled to the pension than is a member of parliament.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We do not get any, though.


Angus MacInnis: They have not sacrificed nearly as much.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Not half as much.


Angus MacInnis: I doubt if they have given any greater service to the country. I should not like to be personal in this matter, and I hope the hon. gentleman will not mind my saying this, but I believe the Minister of External Affairs himself is just as much entitled to a pension. I may be wrong, but I am of opinion that he undertook his present work as a duty to the country rather than from a desire to engage in politics. I appreciate that and honour him for it. That being the case, he is just as much entitled to a pension as are those who serve our country abroad. If you were to bring it down to that, all members of parliament are entitled to the same consideration. So far as I am concerned, I intend to oppose this and every similar measure until we deal with greater equity with the common, ordinary, citizens of Canada.


George Russell Boucher: Will the minister explain to us what he means in section 2 by "such other persons of comparable status"? In the section he has already named the ambassadors, ministers, high commissioners and consuls general.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I shall be very glad to do that on section 2, if section 1 is carried.


Gordon Graydon: In his remarks as to the advisability of proceeding with such a measure, the hon. member for Vancouver East raised one question in my mind. Did any of these appointees enter the service with any guarantee or assurance or undertaking or promise, direct or indirect, that they would get the advantage which this measure would seem to provide? I think that is an important point, because, after all, if they came in on the understanding that they would get $10,000 a year I am not sure that there is any 
need to give them something further, particularly if it applies only to one man. I do not know whether it applies to more than one, but at the moment the minister would seem to be a little concerned as to whether it does apply to more than one. I should like that point clarified.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: At the moment I am not sure that it even applies to one; I am not sure that Mr. Justice Davis has been five years in the service of external affairs. I do not think he has. He was in the Department of National War Services until nearly the end of the war. The other question must be answered in the negative. These gentlemen who were appointed to external affairs during the war accepted the appointments as a matter of public service to be performed for the country. Some of them were not inclined to continue. They were told that for persons brought in from outside the civil service it was intended to ask parliament to vote pensions which would be somewhat similar to those paid members of the judiciary. No bargain was made with anyone. I would not think it would be proper for me as minister of external affairs to make any promise as to what parliament would do about salaries or pensions. I do remember speaking to two or three and telling them it was my intention to ask parliament to enact a measure of this kind. I did not get the impression that had I not told them this they would have insisted upon retiring, but it came up in the course of conversations as to whether or not they would continue in the service. The only person to my recollection who was much concerned about this was Mr. Fraser Elliott, because he already had superannuation benefits and did not think it would be fair to ask him to abandon those benefits to serve in another capacity. I did tell him that I was going to bring this bill before parliament, that I hoped parliament would adopt it, and that if it were adopted I would ask that there be a provision in the bill which would permit him to continue making contributions based upon an amount equal to the salary he would have been receiving had he remained in another branch of the public service. But as far as my recollection goes, and I think it is pretty clear, that is the most that was done.
I did have some conversation about the matter with Mr. Justice Davis. I told him it would be contributory, and that to have the benefit of the years since he was first appointed to the bench there would be arrears of contributions to be paid. I asked to have a calculation made of what that would be, and it amounts to something close to $5,000. I did tell him that he would be required to pay

External Affairs
that amount if he wanted to get the benefit of the years which have elapsed since his appointment to the bench; but it did not go beyond that. It was something spoken of in the discussions we had about appointments to these offices.
I clearly remember that when Mr. Chipman was first appointed it was understood that he was being asked to serve during the period of the war; and the same was true when Mr. John D. Kearney, Mr. Ralston's former partner, was appointed. Then, when the war was over and it was found that they had performed what we looked upon as valuable service they were requested to remain, and were told that I was going to bring a bill before parliament containing provisions of this kind. But no agreement was made with them that their resignations would be accepted if the bill did not go through.


Gordon Graydon: These twelve cases stand on a little different ground from what would be the case if they had been appointed under normal civil service arrangements. Reading some history of cases that occurred before I was in public life at all-perhaps things have changed since then-I find that sometimes when governments change some of these men are changed. I should not like to hold out either the hope or the threat that such things would happen if the government were to change again, but just suppose a future government was of a similar mind to past governments, shall I say. What would happen in the case of any of these men who might be removed on the same grounds on which other people have been removed? What would happen to the superannuation in that ease; because the bill only calls for retirement or resignation of a public official.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If that happened there would be no pension payable under this bill unless the one who retired came under the conditions set out in section 3: if he had attained the age of sixty-five and had served for not less than five years, or if he had become physically disabled from continuing to serve. Otherwise it would not apply; and that was frankly stated to these gentlemen. I think they all realize that situation.


Gordon Graydon: There is nothing in this bill, as I see it, that would prevent a succeeding government from removing any of these people.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Oh) no; and there is nothing in this legislation that would give them an indemnity if they were removed. That was fully realized by all those with whom I discussed the terms of the proposed bill.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I do not want to delay the passing of section 1. While agreeing that the observations of the hon. member for Vancouver East contain a good deal of merit, personally I cannot feel that opposing this bill would automatically bring justice to these other groups he mentions. I am one of those who believe that anyone performing a service, outside Canada or within Canada, should be adequately compensated for service rendered. However I say that, by virtue of the government bringing in this bill, and by virtue of the party on the other side supporting it, the government is placed under a greater moral obligation to give justice to the other groups referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver East. I shall not oppose the bill, but certainly I shall feel that I have a greater argument to use in fighting, for justice to the recipients of war veterans allowances, to our older persons and others within the country.


The CHAIRMAN:: I would remind the committee that the principle of this bill was accepted by the house on second reading and that discussion should now be directly relative to the section. Most of the discussion that has taken place so far would have been more appropriate on second reading. Could we carry section 1 before six o'clock and then proceed with section 2?
Section agreed to on division.
On section 2-Definition.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I have an amendment which I will ask to have moved to add certain words to section 2, and I want to answer the questions put by the hon. member for Carleton.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at seven o'clock.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: When the committee rose at six o'clock it had just passed clause 1 and we are now on clause 2.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Carleton had asked me. la question on clause 1 to which I promised an answer when we got to clause 2. It was with respect .to the words "and such other- person of comparable status serving in another country in the public service of Canada as the governor in council may designate". The hon. gentleman asked me what that might apply to. The words were inserted so that, in -the event of its becoming necessary for Canada to have a permanent representative at the seat of the
External Affairs

united nations, that permanent representative might, if the work he was doing there was of similar importance to that performed: by an ambassador, be designated as coming under the clause. It was felt that might be necessary because it is not ait all improbable that, in the event of Canada having to have a permanent representative at the seat of the united nations, someone now in the service of external affairs as ambassador might be designated to fill that office.
The question also arose as to whether the office at present occupied by General Pope at Berlin should be included. As a matter of fact, until very recently General Pope was a member of the permanent forces, seconded to the Department of External Affairs, and for that period would not, of course, even if he were included, derive any benefit from the bill. The post was not expressly mentioned because it may very well be that it will be only of quite short duration. It was thought that in bringing the bill before parliament there should be the possibility of including such officers of external affairs as might be heading the kind of mission we have had in Berlin or the kind of establishment we might have to have at New York or Lake Success to represent us in the organizations of the united nations. But thait will not necessarily be so, and if we put in precise language it might extend to more than w'ould be the intention of having it apply to. That was the reason for putting those words in. It was felt that in a case of that kind consideration should be given to the specific circumstances and that there should not be an attempt to cover it by general language which might include other than those it would be felt necessary or proper to include.


Gordon Graydon: Might I ask the minister apropos of his suggestion that, as time goes on, it may become necessary for Canada to have permanent representation at the seat of the united nations, is that an immediate prospect, or does the minister envisage it more particularly if, as and when-and may I emphasize all three words-we become a member of the security council?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: What we had in mind *was that if, as when we become a member of the security council, the charter requires, as the hon. member knows, that every member on the security council shall have-a permanent representative at the seat of the organization.


George Russell Boucher: I appreciate what the minister says, and probably his argument is sound that if we have the head of a military 
mission in some of the occupied countries he would be performing work similar to that of an ambassador, or if we had a representative at the united nations organizations with some permanency about his appointment the holder of that office would similarly merit superannuation as much as a diplomat. But both these cases are problematical, and the wording of the section is "such other person of comparable status serving in another country in the public service of Canada," and the governor in council is given pretty wide scope there to decide what other offices have comparable status to that of a diplomat. Only a five-year tenure of office is required until they become entitled to some pension. I do not want to speak on the next clause, but generous provision is being made, and it is within the realm of possibility that someone might be able to get this generous treatment that is meted out only to our diplomats. I think, therefore, we would be well advised to wait until the occasion arises, when an amendment could be made to the bill, rather than to leave it in fairly general terms as it is now. Would the minister consider restricting it to the position of ambassador, minister, high commissioner or consul general, and then, if the occasion arose within the next five years, an amendment could be made to the bill.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think it is pretty closely restricted already. It says: "such other person of comparable status serving in another country in the public service of Canada". The hon. member says that the tenure may be only five years. But that, of course, applies only when, after five years, one has reached the age of sixty-five or has become physically incapacitated. The possibility to which the hon. member for Peel referred is one which might arise within a very short time. There will be selection of new members for the security council at the September meeting, and if it became necessary to have one appointed we would be apt to be drawing on those who are already in the service. It was felt that it would be convenient if there did not have to be any gap, and in the event of that happening it could be provided at once that, on moving an ambassador from an ambassadorship to the post of representative at the united nations, it could be declared by order in council that that would not affect his rights under the superannuation provisions. That was the reason for inserting that provision. I would hope that the hon. member would not insist upon its being removed. If it is removed there is the probability that one would have to come back soon to have a pro-

External Affairs
vision made, and I should not like to come back. I should like to feel that this matter had been disposed of and that there would not be applications to have it extended beyond what is here provided for.
There is one other matter with which I wish to deal. I said that I would ask my colleague to move an amendment that would add, after the section, the words:
. . . and a person shall be deemed to be serving in a public office during such time as he is entitled to receive the salary annexed to such public office.
That is to avoid a possible technical difficulty which may arise in a case such as that of General Odium who has already served in several posts, but went on leave according to the regulations, and who was replaced as ambassador to China while on leave, without at the same time his posting as ambassador to another country being announced. Under the definition, this applies only to ambassador, minister, high commissioner or consul general to another country. It might be said that while he is on leave, having been replaced in China, he is not ambassador to China, and that, having been officially posted somewhere else, he was not an ambassador in the meantime. These words would be to provide that when one has been made an ambassador and is, under the provisions applicable to his office, entitled to salary even though he may not every day of the period be posted somewhere, the period would not be interrupted.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move that section 2 of the bill be amended as follows:
Delete the period at the end of section 2 and substitute a comma, and add the following words:
". . . and a person shall be deemed to be serving in a public office during such time as he is entitled to receive the salary annexed to such public office."


Gordon Graydon: As , the minister will
recall, the name of General Odium was mentioned in the discussion on Friday. After his name had been mentioned, press reports indicated that he said he was receiving an appointment. He left the matter perhaps not quite as vague as the minister did, but he said that he was to be appointed to a place where most of the trouble lay. I was hoping that he was not referring to the united nations or that he was not to be appointed to Lake Success. The minister spoke about the possibility of a permanent representative there. I was wondering whether he had General Odium in mind for that post, because I should think the general's statement was somewhat inappropriate if that were the post to which he was to be appointed.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am not at all sure that the words quoted from memory by the hon. gentleman are those that were used by General Odium. As I remember the dispatch, he said that he was going to be appointed to a place that was the scene of much interest at the present time.


Gordon Graydon: "Trouble" was the word that I read.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am not sure just what language he used, but I am quite sure that he did not have Lake Success in mind when he made those remarks.


Gordon Graydon: I am greatly relieved on that point.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Did I understand the minister to say that this amendment has been moved particularly to cover General Odium?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	No, but the necessity or the advisability of the amendment was suggested by the fact that General Odium had been replaced as ambassador to China and therefore, could no longer be regarded as Canadian ambassador to China on leave. That is something which occasionally happens. One of our representatives goes on leave that he has earned, there is the intention to post him somewhere else, and the post he has left while going on leave is filled. We discussed the language of the section, and it was felt by the legal officers of the department and, I think, also by those of the Department of Justice that it would be better to have it stated that one would be looked upon as continuing in the post during the whole time that he was entitled to the salary that the post carried, though in the meantime the post occupied by him might have been filled by somebody else.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 3-Pension to public official.
Douglas Scott Harkness: I take a considerable amount of objection to subsection 2 (a) which provides for a pension for a man who has served for five years. It seems to me that the giving of a pension which amounts to 15/50ths or 30 per cent of the average salary of a man who has a salary of $10,000 a year, which is the ordinary salary in these cases, or $3,000 a year, is not justified. Before we pass a bill which will give pensions of that kind to these diplomats serving in senior posts, we should give serious consideration to the matter of providing pensions, at least equal in a percentage way, to the members of the armed services of this country


[Stage Direction]
External Affairs
[Stage Direction]
who served overseas for five years or more. To my way of thinking, the senior officers of the armed services rendered a far greater service to Canada than any of these diplomats did.
In this connection the name of Major General Odium comes particularly to my mind. Along with some twenty thousand other Canadians I had the misfortune to serve under his command in England.
Mr. CROLL:: That is a nasty remark.
It does not do credit to my hon. friend.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I know it is a nasty remark, but I am making it.


David Arnold Croll: It is a shameful thing to
say. I also served under General Odium.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am making the speech. I know that most of the men who served in the second division and received anything but good treatment from General Odium will take it very much amiss that he should be put in that position. I use him only as an example. They will take it amiss that he is put in the position of receiving a pension of $3,000 a year when the people who went abroad and served in the armed forces throughout the war for five years or more are not entitled to any pension unless they were wounded. I should like to be completely fair about this bill.
I would be quite willing to pass provisions which would give pension privileges to diplomats who have served a minimum of ten years. If a man has devoted ten- years of his life to the service of Canada in a diplomatic post he is .probably entitled, to a pension and I would raise no objection to that, but I think this business of paying a pension to a man who has served for only five years, or a day more than five years, or whatever it may be, can hardly be justified by any arguments I have heard advanced in connection with the matter.
Personally, I think we should strike out of the bill subsection 2 (a) which provides for pensions to men who have served for between five and ten years. If that particular, provision were struck out I think most people in Canada would be prepared to accept the rest of the bill; but, as it stands, I think there will be serious objection to it. In fact I know there will be.
I mentioned General Odium as one instance. I am sure that nearly every man who served under his command in the second division, will take that as a serious reflection on his own service, and I would request the minister to delete that section.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I must say at once I most deeply regret the remarks of the hon.

member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness), himself a distinguished soldier. I have known General Odium for thirty years. As a boy he went to the Boer war and. fought, for his country. In the first great war he covered himself with glory as commander of the eleventh infantry brigade, and in the recent war he was largely responsible for the organizational efforts made to prepare for the invasion of Europe on D day. He is one of the most, gentlemanly of men, as Christian a gentleman as ever lived. He is a grand and gallant soldier. He is a splendid fellow. He is a true Canadian through and through, and I resent, with, all the resentment that my Highland emotion can command, the hon. member for Calgary East having the supreme effrontery to attack a bigger and. greater man.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the
Minister of Veterans Affairs is entitled to his opinion and. so am I. As I said before, I know something of the effect that General Odium produced on the unfortunate soldiers of the second division during the time he was in command of it, and I mentioned that only as an example. I am casting no reflection on the service General Odium performed, in the South African war or in the first great war. I know nothing about it except from hearsay. But as far as this particular war was concerned, he certainly produced a great deal of misery for a large number of people of whom I was one; and I stated, and restated that a provision of this kind, which gives him a pension of $3,000 a year as a result of being pushed into a diplomatic post from the command of the second Canadian division, is one which a large number of people in this country are not, I believe, prepared readily to stomach. I protest against it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I say one other word, sir? My hon. friend, mentioned the question of pensions of others who served, in the last great war. I defy him now; I challenge him now on the floor of this house, to show me any country in the whole world that has treated its returned soldiers, in regard to pensions, as well as this Dominion of Canada has done-the ordinary soldier, the plain soldier, the private, the corporal, the lieutenant-and this suggestion that there has been discrimination in regard to senior officers is an unworthy, .mean and dirty insinuation.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I made no implication in regard to pensions of senior officers or anything of that kindi, and the right hon. minister knows it.


William Henry Golding: Order. I would call the attention of the committee to the fact that we are discussing-

External Affairs


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. gentleman mentioned $3,000.


William Henry Golding: -clause 2.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, if I may finish replying to the right hon. gentleman, I made no reference whatever to pensions of senior or junior officers. I am in favour of I,hem. They earned them in most cases. But this is a different matter altogether. This has nothing whatsoever to do with pensions or gratuities or rehabilitation credits provided for members of the Canadian armed forces, and I do not think


William Henry Golding: Order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If I may finish-


William Henry Golding: Order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not think the right hon. gentleman should have introduced that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On a point of order, I did not introduce it. My hon. friend mentioned the sum of $3,000, and he also mentioned discrimination as between senior officers and others who were junior in rank.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I deny that absolutely. I made no mention of discrimination between officers and others.


William Henry Golding: Order. I
would: point out-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You cannot get by with that stuff.


William Henry Golding: I would ask hon. members to confine their remarks to clause 3.


George Russell Boucher: I intend to comply
implicitly with your ruling, Mr. Chairman, because I am not going to enter into a controversy over what this government did or did not do for returned1 soldiers generally. According to this section, any man, who being sixty years of age-
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Sixty-five.


George Russell Boucher: -is appointed to the diplomatic service and serves therein for five years at a salary of $10,000 per annum and pays six per cent of that salary in the five years, which means a total of $3,000, becomes entitled to a total superannuation benefit of $3,000 per annum. In other words, in this section we are providing for benefits by way of superannuation to any man, from the time he is sixty-five years of age, at $3,000 per annum, even though he has not served Canada in the diplomatic service, or anywhere else within the public service, for more than five years 83166-330J
prior to that. My own frank opinion is that we should appoint to the diplomatic service the best men in the country who will be an honour and a credit to Canada, and that these men should have some security when they leave their private vocations to enter that service. I do not believe that any man reaching the age of sixty or thereabouts and desiring to serve for five years, anxious to serve his country well for a short period of five years, would demand a pension for the rest of his life for doing so. I do not think it would be fair to the service generally, to the men in the Department of External Affairs and in the government service at large, who have spent a lifetime in acquiring knowledge, experience and the necessary ability to represent Canada abroad. On retiring on superannuation, they would realize that they could have worked almost their whole lives in their private vocations and could then have spent five years in the public service and obtained superannuation to this extent.
I agree entirely with the hon. member for Calgary East when he says that the minimum length of service for anyone in a diplomatic post, if he is to be entitled to a pension, should be ten years, if not even more. Then he has been away from his country and his: vocation and he does want security when he comes back. But a man who has been in business, commercial or professional life for a great many years, acquiring for himself the necessary qualifications for a diplomatic appointment-, will not accept a job for five-years by any inducement that may be held out in the form of a superannuation of $3,000 a year after that.
Bear in mind that people who have served' ten, fifteen or twenty years are contributing six per cent of their salary, a material amount, towards superannuation, whereas the man who has served for only a few short years pays only a small percentage of his annual salary. There is very little of the merit eii the contribution element in that aspect of it. I believe there are occasions when the superannuation provision may secure the services of men highly qualified for a diplomatic post, if they need it. But bearing in mind the many people in the Dominion of Canada who have not available to them any superannuation scheme, 1 do not believe we would be justified in saying that men getting a salary of $10,000 or more and serving for a short time, should get this benefit. I believe our diplomats should be highly paid, but if they are not paid a sufficiently high salary, we should not try to amplify it by giving them superannuation benefits. I understand that there is provision here that if a man,
External Affairs

even if he is not sixty-five, becomes disabled, he can draw his pension. There are a great many other posts in the public life of Canada where disability does not bring entitlement to any pension. When one realizes that many people within Canada served for years in public office at salaries much less than $10,000 a year, and did not receive any superannuation whatsoever, I think it will be found that what we are doing here will be held against us as being a discriminatory preference to a certain few. A minimum of ten years' service abroad should be required before any superannuation is granted.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	I am surprised to
hear this from the hon. member for Carleton who is, as I am, a lawyer and who may, as I may some day, become a judge. He would then not feel at all scandalized at having applied to himself or to me the provisions of the Judges Act. In that act, with respect to supreme court judges, there is no minimum period prescribed and there is no gradation. If the retirement becomes necessary, the full pension under the Judges Act is awarded immediately, and there have been cases where that has happened, to the knowledge of the hon. member for Carleton and myself. We members of the bar have never felt that any kind of outrage was being perpetrated in
[DOT]	those cases.
Here the hon. gentleman speaks of the pos-[DOT]sibility of a pension being earned by five years' service. The preceding paragraphs provide that no pension can be granted unless
[DOT]	one has attained the age of sixty-five or has become physically disabled. When one has .attained the age of sixty-five in heading one *of these missions, it does not in any way mean that he necessarily retires. One of those who, during the war, served Canada in a most admirable fashion was well over seventy. Our ambassador to Washington served for several years while he was over seventy, and did it in a competent, efficient and beneficial manner for the public affairs of this country. The fact is that there are now in the service among those I mentioned as persons to whom this bill might possibly apply, one who is sixty-seven, one who is sixty-six, one who is seventy and one who is sixty-six; all of them are performing the kind of service which was referred to this afternoon by the hon. member for Davenport, and I think that is something which may be expected to continue. I do not think it is quite true to say that it is unfair to the other men in the service. This applies only to a person appointed from outside the service to head a mission abroad.
I think that requires as high a standing in the community as is required in the case of
/Mr. Boucher.]
a lawyer who is taken from his profession and put on the bench. The difference between these men and those who come under the superannuation act is that those who come under the superannuation act have had quite long years in service acquiring the experience and qualifications which presumably the man taken from the outside has acquired in other fields of endeavour.


Mr. JACKMAN:: He ought to have pension rights where he was.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Perhaps he ought to have pension rights where he was. I heard it suggested that I should have a pension, and that members of parliament should have a pension. Perhaps that is true. But that is not the question which is before the committee at the present time. The fate of this bill will not make any difference as to the time when and if-if ever-the other matter is dealt with, just as the fate of this bill will not make any difference as to what other pensions are paid. This bill should be regarded on its own individual merits. There may be something in what one of the hon. members said this afternoon. He said that he is not objecting to this bill, but intends to hold it as an argument for the purpose of trying to induce this parliament to make better provision for some others. Perhaps it may be all to the good that he should have the additional argument, but I think this bill should be considered on its own merits.
I am sorry that I cannot accept the suggestion made by the hon. member for Calgary East that the first portion of the section be cut out. It is already something which is not as favourable to office holders as the provision for the judges throughout the country. The only reason which occurs to me for there being more surprise about these provisions is that the existence of pensions for members of the judiciary is something which is sanctioned by long years of practice. Those pensions have always been non-contributory, without any other discrimination because of years of service than that which exists with respect to county court judges. It was the provision with respect to county court judges which inspired us in this regard. The county court judge who retires after five years' service gets only half the pension he gets after having served as much as ten years. That was not the basis, but it was the inspiration of the provision which is made here.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I cannot help feeling that the provisions of this section with regard to the pension are unwarrantably high. It is not that I am against what I could consider an adequate pension for those serving our country

External Affairs
in the diplomatic field. The salary of $10,000 which is paid a full-fledged ambassador is by no means out of the way for the position he holds; and I should think that in course of time, the way costs are rising, that salary is likely to be increased. Therefore the whole basis of the pension would be enlarged on a percentage calculation. If I felt that most of these men who were appointed to represent our country abroad had to encroach substantially upon their private means during their term of office so that when they retired they did not have their savings intact, there might be something in the scale the minister is suggesting. But certainly a great many of our ambassadors at the present time are not men who are likely to encroach severely upon their private means. May I just point out to the [DOT] committee what can happen under section 3. Five years is not perhaps an unusual term of office in this field, owing to the fact that many of these appointments will come from one political side or the other, so that five years may be the normal length of service. After five years of service, during which period he will have received $50,000. one of these men can retire on a pension of $3,000 a year for life. Let us say this man is fifty years of age when he retires.
Mr. ST. LAURENT; But he would not get a pension, because it does not apply unless he has reached the age of sixty-five.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: If he is under sixty-five he gets nothing at all?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Read the bill.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: If he retires at the age of fifty does he get anything for his past service, even at the age of sixty-five?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He gets fifteen years
older.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Not unless he retires through disability.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether, since he drafted this bill, consideration has been given to the bill that was passed by this house this afternoon providing for what was called mobility of employment. That bill makes it possible for the treasury board to determine that a person coming into the civil service has come from a pensionable employment. Surely a judge was in pensionable employment if there is such employment in this country. In other words, in view of the fact that we passed the other bill this afternoon, is this bill necessary at all? It seems to me that it is now
possible to cover under the other bill such cases as may have to be covered in this field.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The matter was carefully considered, and it was felt that the provisions of the other bill would not meet these cases, of which there are only a few at the present time and the number of which is not likely to be substantially increased. As the hon. member knows, we have been so fortunate as to recruit quite a large number of brilliant young men in the Department of Externa] Affairs. The hon. member has been in contact with several of them at these international meetings; and I think we are training in the department an efficient staff so that, like other countries, we shall have the personnel required as career men, who will be under the superannuation act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I cannot see that there is any great difference between covering these men under the bill we passed this afternoon and under the bill now before us except the difference in amount. I can see that under this bill the pension would be considerably greater than under the other bill; but, following out the minister's own declaration as to the desirability of building up a career service in this field, I feel that the whole principle of the measure now before us is wrong in that it vitiates that very principle, the building up of a permanent civil service to serve this country.
A suggestion of real merit has already been made by some hon. members to my right. I want to make it Clear that I am not attempting to steal their thunder, but it happened that I had already written out a proposed amendment to this section, which I now wish to move. Our attitude toward this whole bill was expressed this afternoon by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver East. We feel that the bill, as it stands, should be opposed1 and1 these people taken care of under the other measure. However, since the government seems determined to go ahead with the bill, it is our duty to improve it if we can. I think hon. members generally will agree that a pension after five years of service, even though that service does not commence until the age of sixty, is cutting it pretty fine. If I may say so to the hon. member for Rosedale it means that a person can go into the diplomatic service at the age of sixty and get a pension of $3,000 a year at the age of sixty-five. Surely that should be struck out. Therefore I move:
That section 3 he amended by deleting subclause (a), being lines 26. 27 and 28 on page 1, and relettering subclauses (b) and (c) as (a) and (b) respectively, also by deleting all the words after the word "office" in eubcianse (3) in line 14 on page 1.
External Affairs

The reason for the deletion in subsection 3 on page 2 of the bill will be obvious. The first- part of it refers to those covered under present sdbclauses (b) and (c), but if we delete sulbclause (a) the last half of the sentence in subsection 3 will no longer be necessary.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The deletion of the word's in subsection 3 would1 be the natural consequence of the deletion of subsection (a) of section 2 of this clause. It would mean that this would be a very much inferior scheme to that which was put through this afternoon, because under the other bill there is a pension whatever may be the length of service, if there are grounds for retirement. This would mean that, unless we got someone to agree to serve for a period of not less than ten years, there would be no possibility at all of superannuation, which I think would seriously affect the utility of this bill. The hon. gentleman knows that there is a provision in this bill, as there is in the Judges Act, that an option may be exercised to take for oneself two-thirds of the pension the bill would provide, and to attribute one-third to one's spouse. In the event of the death of a public officer who would' have made that option, one-third of the pension would be payable to the public officer's spouse. I think that is a very desirable provision to have in a bill of this kind. There are some of these public offices which are exercised in climates that are not as healthy as our own. and the fact that there is now no provision for the persons appointed to those offices is a serious factor. My submission to the committee is that this section should be accepted, although I did intend to ask one of my colleagues to move that a subsection 'be added to carry out the statement I made when we were on section 1, that provision would be made that no one could, by getting two pensions, have more than the maximum of one. The subsection which I intend to suggest adding reads:
(4) Notwithstanding subsection one, the pension authorized to be granted under this section to a public official shall not exceed an amount which, when added to any superannuation or retirement pension or annuity received by him in respect of any .prior service under some other act of the parliament of Canada, equals the pension that might have been granted to him if the prior service and the annual remuneration upon which such other pension or annuity is calculated were, respectively, additional years of service in a public office and salary as a public official.
When the amendment now before the committee has been disposed of I will ask my colleague to move this as an amendment.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was disappointed to hear the minister say that he was not prepared to withdraw subsection 2 (a). I had prepared an amendment almost identical to that moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North 'Centre, which I intended to move as a result of the minister not withdrawing the subsection. I shall certainly support the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Secretary of State for External Affairs knows the high regard I have for his attitude toward public affairs and the high regard I have for the men who have been recruited in the service of his department. I shall endeavour to remain cool in what I have to say; but as one who has been fighting hard in this parliament since I came here for the pension rights of men who worked for forty or fifty years, true not for the government, but for a corporation in this country, I find it pretty hard to work up much S3unpathy for the minister's contention that we should provide pensions after five years' service in the diplomatic field. Perhaps I should not say any more or I shall get worked up about it; but. when I think of the cases I have in my files of men with forty-five and fifty, one with fifty-two years of service, for which we cannot get consideration or help from this government, I think this bill is going a little too far. If any sympathy is needed for the men in this service w'ho have had less than 10 years service they can get the protection they need under the bill we passed this afternoon, and there is always the old age pension of $30 a month at age seventy.


Mr. FLEMING:: I should like to suggest to the hon. member who has moved this amendment that he bring subsection 2 into harmony with subsection 1. which would necessitate moving an amendment to subsection 1 to change the word "five in line 16, to "ten." Otherwise the two subsections will be contradictory. Subsection 1 would then read:
The governor in council, upon retirement or resignation of a public official who has served as such for not less than 10 years-
Subsection 2 as it would be amended does not make any provision for pension unless the offiicial has served for not less than 10 years. I suggest that subsection 1 should be brought into harmony.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the hon. member for his suggestion. Perhaps he will move that amendment after my amendment carries.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is a little information I should like to have from the Secretary

External Affairs
of State for External Affairs. Apart altogether from the theoretical aspects of the section, I should like to know if the minister can point to any cases where an individual agreed to accept an appointment under the section as it now stands, but would not accept it with the amendment which has just been moved. Can he point to a case where an official has been appointed on an undertaking by the government to introduce legislation of this type, but who would not enter the public service on the basis of the amendment proposed?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, there have been no undertakings given to anyone in respect of what the bill would provide. I did say to some that I would recommend a bill to parliament along these lines, but no undertaking was given and no acceptance of office was made conditional by any appointee.
Amendment, (Mr. Knowles) negatived: yeas, 40; nays, 57.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment which the minister has read.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. BRYCE:: I should like some information from the minister about this superannuation scheme. Last week I had occasion to speak of superannuation for the warders and guards in Stony 'Mountain penitentiary and I pointed out to the house that, after they had paid up all their back debt, they still had to pay for their pensions until the day they died. I want to ask the minister if the people who are being provided for by this bill-I cannot go over their names; it does not make any difference anyway-will have to pay six per cent of their salary until the day they die after they have started to draw their pensions. I want to know if there is a law for the rich and a law for the poor.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Scottie Bryce: I cannot see it any other way. Because you have the warders and the guards in the penitentiaries-


William Henry Golding: Order. I
would ask the hon. member to deal specifically with this clause.


William Scottie Bryce: I am doing the very best I can, Mr. Chairman, to stick to this clause and I am raising this question to get information. I want to know why this difference is made. Why should the poor man have to pay for his pension to the day he dies and the rich man gets his pension right away? There is no fairness there, none whatsoever. I want
the minister to answer me, and I shall not say any more if I get a satisfactory answer.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Under this clause no pensioner would pay after he becomes a pensioner. He pays six per cent of his salary while drawing his salary. When he ceases to draw salary he commences to draw pension and he does not have to pay any more. I do not know if there is any law anywhere else for any other class of pensioner. I would be very much surprised if one would cease to draw salary and continue to pay for the purpose of acquiring superannuation benefits. He has acquired superannuation benefits when he ceases to draw salary.


William Scottie Bryce: I should like to assure the
minister that my facts are correct. You have these custodians and warders and guards and officers in the penitentiaries today, some of whom will retire at sixty-five years of age; they will continue to pay for their pension until they are sixty-eight and sixty-nine years old, and, after that, they are committed to pay until the day they die, after they have paid everything. But in the case of these gentlemen for whom this bill provides, they get their pension right away without paying any more. It is not fair and I will vote against it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	The hon. member
may be confusing the matter. When one counts more years for the purposes of superannuation than he has actually served when he goes on superannuation, he can count those years by paying up the arrears with interest. Instead of paying up the arrears with interest in one lump sum at once he may say:	I will pay them over a period of
years. If they have not all been paid up when he becomes a pensioner they continue to be payable for the remaining years necessary' at the instalment rate chosen to discharge the arrears. That is provided for in this bill too. If anyone goes into external affairs and counts prior service he can count his prior service, provided that he pays up the arrears with interest. Instead of making that payment in a lump sum, he may pay it off at so much a month, and if he has not finished paying it off when he becomes a pensioner he continues to pay it until he does finish paying it off. I think that is true of all superannuation systems.


William Scottie Bryce: I admit that, but the penitentiary guards and warders and custodians, after they have paid it all up, have to continue to pay until the day they die.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
External Affairs

Mj\ BRYCE:	Yes, and that is the
difference. Under this bill a man. serves five years and gets a pension.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 5 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. ST. LAURENT moved the third reading of the bill.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke in committee on this bill the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) followed me and stated that, even if I opposed this bill, it did not automatically follow that there would be an improvement in other pensions. I am not so green as to expect that anything like that would automatically follow; but, unless a protest is made in cases such as this, grievances will never be rectified, and it is for that reason that I now move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the word "now" be deleted and that the words "this day six months" be added at the end of the question.
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs):	Mr. Speaker, I
have listened very quietly to the debates on this question, and I must say now that I deeply resent the assumption of a monopoly of desire to help social security in Canada by any party in this house. I have worked for pensions since I was eighteen years of age. In the old country I fought for them under Lloyd George. I fought for them in Canada under the Liberal government which introduced them in 1927.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Under pressure.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Today you have one of the most generous superannuation measures ever introduced into the Canadian parliament, and what do you find?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Too generous.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: An exhibition of political tactics, cheap and mean political tactics by the socialist group in this house opposing a real fundamental liberal measure of reform in this parliament of Canada. I wonder, if I may, without any suggestion- I am going to appeal-


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Count me with them and I am not socialist. It is too generous.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member is a splendid gentleman. There is no suggestion of a partisan appeal. I am going to appeal to the idealism, to the reforming idealism of this house to resent and repudiate the mean and

indefensible socialist tactics in defying and destroying one of the measures introduced by one of the greatest ministers that Canada has ever known in this house, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent). We challenge you on the vote. We shall meet you and we shall beat you. We shall defeat you on the vote; we shall go to the country and we shall beat you there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the record be kept straight-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You cannot possibly do it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) does not seem to realize that he has stated our case against this bill. He says that it is the most generous pension provision ever brought before the house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I said the superannuation act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is exactly our complaint against it. Among other things, it provides-[DOT]


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We brought in pensions before you ever arrived in this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It provides for generous pensions, for example $3,000 a year, for people who have been in the public service for a period of only five years. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that when the Minister of Veterans Affairs appeals to his followers to support this measure, as he is doing, he is doing something that they in their conscience will have a difficult job to support.
As to his suggestion that no group in this house is claiming a monopoly of interest in social legislation generally, we shall let the facts speak for themselves. I will say to him and to his followers over there that they seem to have a monopoly on this kind of legislation of special concessions and high pensions for a few privileged individuals.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: A short while ago, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned what the cost would be to the country and the value to the annuitants of these various pensions for a man in the service for only five years, who retired at an age which was lower than that contemplated in the bill. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) was good enough to call my attention to the fact that the age I had taken was lower than that contemplated in the bill. Taking the age at sixty-five, which is the earliest retiring age, I find -and this is where I find myself in agreement

External Affairs
with my hon. friends of the C.C.F. party as well as, no doubt, many in my own party- that a man can work for five years as an ambassador or in the diplomatic service, and during that time he gets a salary of $10,000 a year, which is not adequate according to the standards which they must maintain. But he is going to retire after five years' service with a pension of $3,000 a year. If he is sixty-five, then that pension, even under the extremely cheap rates which are charged by the department of annuities of the government, it is worth $30,000 to him. He has received $50,000 for his five years service, and that is where, according to my lights, the pensions are too generous. If a man has worked for ten years or longer he will have received $100,000. Retiring at sixtv-five, he will have a pension which, under the same government annuity calculation, is worth $50,000 to him. I think a man who goes into the service at fifty-five and works for ten years is not entitled to a pension in that amount. We have too many needy oases elsewhere, and I must say it rebels and offends against my social conscience that those people who come into the diplomatic service at an advanced year of their life should receive a more than adequate pension for the services rendered. I do not find myself sufficiently in favour of the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to vote for it, inasmuch as he would give them nothing. I would give them something, but certainly not the amount which the minister has set forth in the bill, namely, after five years and under ten. 15/50ths of $10,000. Perhaps if the minister had been a little more reasonable and had given them 10/50ths I should find myself in a position to support the government. After a man serves in this capacity for more than twenty years, he is entitled to a pension of $7,000, and if he retires at sixty-five years of age that pension is worth $70,100. To my way of thinking, Mr. Speaker, that is altogether too much and too heavy a burden on the taxpayers of this country.


Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: I just wish to say a word before this bill passes. I have never been one of those to begrudge anybody a decent pension. On no occasion have I objected to a man receiving fair remuneration for the work he is performing for his country. I have been one of those who have fought as strenuously as I could to have the condition of the less fortunate people of this country ameliorated and for them to receive a greater amount of pension than they will receive under the bill which was passed a few days ago.
In view of the fact that not so many days ago we could' not find money in this country to pay our old age pensioners more than $30 a month, I cannot bring myself to believe that on this occasion we should vote a pension of $3,000 to those in the diplomatic service for only five years. I cannot bring my conscience to justify that action and, Mr. Speaker, I must vote against it.


Mr. P. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):: I was surprised at the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) getting so hot under the collar about our not giving more credit to his party for social legislation. There are other people in Canada who served overseas besides the men in the diplomatic service. Our men served overseas for six years. I notice that the minister's pension bill with respect to them is not nearly as generous as this is. I should like him to explain that. I think there should be some measure of fairness with regard to pensions that we pay in this country.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask a question. Is there an official system of pensions in the whole world that can be compared with our Canadian ex-service pensions?


Percy Ellis Wright: That is not the question at all. I am not questioning that. I am saying that when we in Canada can afford to pay pensions at the rate we are suggesting in this bill to certain classes in Canada, then I am not so proud of our veterans pensions.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You should be.


Percy Ellis Wright: I do not think the minister should get hot under the collar about the matter.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not think this question should be tied up with the old age pensions that are paid or the pensions that are paid to judges. The thing should stand on its own merits, as to whether it is a reasonable pension to pay to these men or not. As I have already indicated, when we were dealing with the amendment to subsection 2 (a) of section 3, I think that particular section which gives a pension of thirty per cent to a man who has served for five years is an unreasonable provision. Few arguments can be produced to support the pension provided by the government for those who have served over ten years. It may be generous; I think it is generous. I would not say that it is unduly excessive, but it is certainly generous. So long as subsection 2 (a) of section 3 is in I he bill which gives

517h
External Affairs

pensions of thirty per cent to men who have served only five years, I cannot bring my conscience to vote in favour of the bill.
paying of proper pensions to officials in all departments, I agree that we must make a protest against this procedure.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Cariboo):: I wish to say one or two things on this amendment. First, the suggestion has been made that those who are in the diplomatic service abroad are serving Canada. I admit they are, but they are serving Canada no more than the miner is serving Canada, no more than the farmer is serving Canada-


John Ritchie MacNicol: Nor the moulder or the blacksmith.


William Irvine: -and no more than any ordinary working man is serving Canada. These people are all serving Canada. As has been pointed out, many such men have forty, fifty and sixty years of hard work behind them, and yet they now find, themselves without any pension.
There are two points I wish to make. The first is that the type of servant who is being provided for in the present legislation receives a very much higher reward for his services than the great masses of people who are serving Canada and, that being so, they are much more competent to take care of themselves without a pension. I am not arguing that they should not have a pension. In that regard 1 feel as the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) does. I do not wish to put myself in the position of opposing a pension for any servant of Canada. But, as the hon. member who moved the amendment pointed out, we must of necessity, under circumstances such as these, make a protest or there would be no change.
The second point is that the miners, the farmers and the ordinary working people of the country must pay the pensions which these people will receive. Therefore it is not unreasonable that we should challenge the extraordinarily high pensions paid to them, while the great masses of the working people have no pensions at all. I have much, pleasure in supporting the amendment.
Mr. H. W. HERRI'DGE (Kootenay West): I wish to support the opposition that has been expressed to the principle of this bill. I suggest that when we decide to give our old age pensioners something far better than $30 a month we can then entertain more reasonably any suggestion of providing a pension of $3,000 for service of five years, and paying high pensions to those who, in many cases, have drawn substantial salaries for a long term of years. I do not see the logic of this type of legislation and therefore, while I am not opposed to the


Mr. MARTIN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. JEAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Honruth). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. CLAXTON:: I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


James Angus MacKinnon: I was paired with the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. HLYNKA:: I was paired with the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. HAMEL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Brunelle). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
Motion (Mr. St. Laurent) agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT


James Horace King: Mr. Gibson moves that Bill No. 413, to amend the Civil Service Act, be now read the second time. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion? Carried. Mr. Gibson moves that I do now leave the chair-


Gordon Graydon: Before you call the next order of business, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid some hon. members cannot hear what order is being called. Perhaps you would repeat it. 83166-331J


James Horace King: The motion has been put.


Gordon Graydon: What motion? We could not hear a single word.


James Horace King: The item on the order paper has been called and the motion has been put. Mr. Gibson moves that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider the said bill.


Gordon Graydon: Might we know what bill it is? We have to reserve our rights in respect to the principle of this bill.


James Horace King: I repeat: Mr. Gibson moves that bill-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: What bill?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If I may rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is Bill No. 413, to amend the Civil Service Act.
Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 413, to amend the Civil Service Act,


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Definitions.
George Russell Boucher: I am sure the civil service generally will receive with approval most of the amendments contained in this bill, and I do not think I need dwell upon it at any length. Section 1 deals with definitions, and in particular deals with the extension of certain preferences to war veterans. In checking it over, I do not find that the section takes into consideration many who went overseas, not as members of the army, the air force or the navy, but who, I believe, should have the benefit of the veterans preference in the civil service. I speak particularly of such groups as the merchant marine, the fire-fighters and the Victorian Order of Nurses. Provision is made in this bill to extend the preference to those who served with the Y.M.C.A. and other auxiliary services, who really were not in the fighting services but were overseas doing work in hazardous positions. However I suggest that a Y.M.C.A. worker or a member of some other auxiliary service did not do any more exacting work and was not in a more dangerous position than members of the merchant marine or of the Victorian Order of Nurses, or even the fire-fighters. I believe very few of these are in the civil service, and perhaps not many of them would have to be considered, but there are those who have done their duty to their country in a notable way, and who, I believe, should be given considera-
Civil Service Act



COMMON 3

[Stage Direction]
tion when seeking positions in the civil service or when applying for promotions, and so on. Would the minister make a comment on this particular clause and state whether or not the government is willing to give them the status of veterans preference?
Colin William George Gibson: I do not intend to make a long speech on this bill. The veterans preference covered by this bill is the result of a recommendation made by the veterans affairs committee which sat last year. That committee recommended that the preference which had been provided during the war as a temporary measure be continued.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Did the veterans committee not state that it should be continued for the present, and was there not an expectation that a committee on the civil service would be set up this year to give further consideration to the matter of veterans preference? The committee on veterans affairs recommended that the preference remain as it was. I am sure the words "for the present" were in there because I looked them up only yesterday.


Colin William George Gibson: I am not sure of the wording, but I know that was the recommendation of the committee. I was gratified to receive today two letters from civil service organizations, one of which came to me only this evening from the acting president of the civil service federation, who states:
I thought you should know that the Civil Service Federation of Canada, at ah executive meeting held yesterday (Sunday) approved of the proposed amendments to the Civil Service Act and is anxious that they be adopted at the current session of parliament.
Then I have another letter from the national joint council of the public service of Canada. I do not want to pat myself on the back because I do not deserve it, but I want to read this letter, which is as follows:
The national joint council of the public service, having examined the provisions of the bill to amend the Civil Service Act,
(il) endorses the provisions of the bill;
(2)	expresses its appreciation of the action of the Secretary of State in facilitating its consideration of the bill;
(3)	expresses its appreciation of the work of the civil service commission, the Secretary of State and the government in connection with the bill; and
(4)	expresses the hope that the bill will be passed at the present session of parliament.
I read those letters so that they may be on the record. I appreciate the support of the bill that we have introduced which is given by these members of the civil service.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not think the minister answered the hon. member for Carleton who asked1 if it were possible to have the term "veteran" include a merchant seaman and members of the other services that were mentioned.


Colin William George Gibson: The matter was discussed by the veterans committee, and I would not take it upon myself to put it into the bill unless it came as a direct recommendation of the veterans committee. The Minister of Veterans Affairs suggested that next session the veterans committee might be reconvened and. of course, if that happened the matter would receive consideration.


René Hamel: I want to deal with the functioning of the civil service commission and I d'o not know whether I can do this on section 1 or section 2.


Colin William George Gibson: I think section 2 would be more appropriate.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to appeal particularly to the members of the house who served on the special committee on veterans affairs which sat during 1945 and 1946. The minister was a member of that committee, out he was not able to attend very frequently. I am sure that from the beginning to the end of those sessions there was not one member of that committee who did not want to see merchant seamen treated as members of the fourth arm of the services. I do not think there was any sentiment against their being so treated. The minister has just suggested that he is not prepared to include them in this bill because there was no recommendation from that committee, but I think I can assure him that- no member of that committee is against the merchant seamen being given the civil service preference. If we delay until next year, the government will not want to open up the Civil Service Act, and that is easily understood. This is the time to set that matter right.
The merchant seamen are not getting the benefits given to the members of the other forces. Many who were disabled cannot get a pension under the present law and here is a case where they can be helped. I suggest that this preference be extended to cover them. It is merely a matter of extending the definition. Time and again, leaders across the country have taken the position that the merchant navy were the fourth arm of the services. I happen to have before me the speech from the throne, delivered on September 6, 1945, in which we find these words:
Our country will ever remember with pride the heroic exploits of Canada's fighting men and merchant seamen.

Civil Service Act
Here is a chance to do something for these men. I do not think there is one argument that can be advanced against extending preference to the men of the merchant navy. I ask the minister not to close the section without giving further consideration to amending it to include the men of the merchant navy. I appeal to those members who served on the veterans affairs committee to support us in in this respect. I am quite sure that there is not one of them who would have .the law other than including preference for the men of the merchant navy. Now is the time to come to their aid.


Mr. BENTLEY:: I want to support wholeheartedly what has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver South. During the sittings of the veterans committee I, along with many others, believed that the merchant seamen were going to get much more consideration than they have. Frequently benefits for merchant seamen have been requested by members on this side of the house, and I believe they had at least moral support from members on the other side. I could understand. though I could not justify, the government's reluctance to change this legislation if it meant that a great many more men were to come under pension and other benefits, but in this case it costs the government no more to hire a merchant seaman for a civil service job than it does to hire anybody else. I do not believe that the veterans organizations across Canada would oppose the inclusion of merchant seamen in the definition of those eligible for civil service positions. The government has no excuse whatsoever on the ground of costs for refusing to include them. The government might be afraid that this might be the opening wedge, which it will not be because I can assure them we shall persist in our attempts to get even further justifiable benefits for the merchant seamen of Canada. This question will be raised as long as there are veterans in this house and merchant seamen still alive, and the least the government can do is to give the merchant seamen partial recognition at least by including them in the definitions.
(Translation):


René Hamel: I would like to say a few words on this section, but I will be brief. I have begun my remarks on the resolution which preceded the first reading of the bill.
(Text):


William Ross Macdonald: I understand that the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche wishes to have a little more latitude allowed in discussing this bill than is permitted under
the rules. He states that he rose on the second reading but did not have an opportunity to speak. Is it the unanimous desire of the committee that he should speak at this time?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.
(Translation):


René Hamel: When speaking on the resolution, I showed, Mr. Chairman, that the French-speaking element makes up 30 per cent of our population and I mentioned that its representation in the oivil service was considerably below that percentage. I proved that in the civil service as a whole that percentage was very low. I wished to give certain details, but I was not permitted to do so.
I believe that it would be appropriate to give them now.
If we examine the various departments, from the first to the last, we find a shocking injustice in all ranks of civil servants. For example, out of twenty-two deputy ministers, not one is a French Canadian. The Montreal chamber of commerce made a complete investigation of the matter and drew up a very interesting table showing the proportion of French Canadians in the civil service, according to certain classifications. For example in the $8,000 yearly salary bracket and over, they note that the percentage of French Canadians is only 12-3 per cent, while the percentage of the French-speaking element makes up 30 per cent of the total population. Among employees earning $6,000 and over per annum, 8-12 represents the percentage of French Canadians, while among civil servants whose yearly salary is fixed at 54,000 and over, the proportion of Frenchspeaking citizens is estimated at 9'52 per cent. In the class earning a yearly salary of $3,000' and over, the percentage comes to 11-39 per cent while at the level of $2,400 and over per annum, which includes the largest number of ordinary employees, the proportion is found! to be 12-25 per cent.
Obviously, Mr. Chairman, French-speaking Canadians are not given their fair share of employment in the civil service. Why? It is claimed at times that they are not sufficiently qualified and that the reason why French Canadians do not have as much opportunity for promotion in the civil service is that they lack the required ability. Such an argument is not only extremely humiliating, but it is also ridiculous. First, what is meant by ability should be determined. How are qualifications decided upon? I find, for instance, that an ambassador was appointed deputy minister of mines. In what manner does an ambassador's post lead to that of deputy
Civil Service Act

minister of mines? On the other hand, the deputy minister of national revenue, a tax collector, has been elevated to the rank of ambassador. On what basis does the civil service commission or the government, judge ability?
Now, that argument may be open to question. It would be another matter if this unfairness towards French Canadians affected only a small number of employees from whom specialized scientific knowledge would be required; but that is not so, Mr. Speaker. Discrimination, as I have shown earlier, is found all along the line, in every department and in every branch. Now, it must further be assumed that in selecting Frenchspeaking candidates, the Civil Sendee Commission eagerly seeks those who offer the very least in the way of future possibilities. Further, it is ridiculous to claim that among three and one half million French Canadians, sufficiently qualified personnel required to fill even the $2,400 posts cannot, be found. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the ability factor does not come into play.
What does all this bring about? I have shown that because of this discrimination towards French Canadians, my Frenchspeaking fellow-citizens lose $30 to $40 million per annum. If you add to that, Mr. Chairman, the fact that about 40 million dollars .are now being lost every year as a result of tax agreements between the dominion and the provinces, you will see that French-speaking Canadians will lose about 70 million dollars .each year.
Some are wondering why disunion exists in this country. Good will pilgrimages are *organized across Canada. Other provinces are told, for instance, that the reason why there is not understanding is that our schools are teaching that the deportation of Acadians occurred in 1755. I say that if there is disunion in this country it is not because our schools are teaching that the Acadians were deported in 1755, but rather because in 1947, and especially since 1919, the deportation of French Canadians from the civil service is going on systematically. That is the true cause of misunderstanding in this country.


Mr. CAOUETTE:: Hear, hear.


René Hamel: Who are those responsible for that situation, Mr. Chairman? I notice the French representation in the civil service has sharply decreased especially since the creation of the civil service commisison. The chamlbre de commerce of Montreal, which gives us most interesting facta, shows for instance that in 1918 before the civil service commission as it now exists came into being,

our proportion was much greater than it is now. As regards the total number of positions in the country, our proportion was then 21-58 per cent, while it is now 12-25 per cent.
The downward trend has been particularly noticeable since the establishment of the civil service commission. Is that body responsible for such a state of affairs? I believe, Mr. Chairman, that it is not the only one to blame. However, it has its share of responsibility for the following reasons: first, it has given its approval to the so-called "made-to-measure requisitions" which have been so much ridiculed. A deputy minister or the head of a department wishes to have Mr. So-and-So appointed; he sets out himself the required qualifications and does so in such a way that only one person can meet the requirements, namely the one who has been chosen in advance and who quite often is already filling the position. Secondly, the responsibility of the civil service commission comes from the obligations it has under the act. The Civil Service Act places upon the commission, among others, the following duty:
Of its own motion to investigate and report upon the operation of this act and upon the violation of any of the provisions hereof or of any regulation made hereunder; and, upon the request of the head of a department, to investigate and report upon any matter relative to the department, its officers, clerks and other employees.
And besides:
To report upon the organization or proposed organization of the departments or any portion of any department or of the civil service, and upon any proposed change in such organization;
I respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, that this clause of the Civil Service Act entrusts the commission with the duty to see that, in the civil service, the fundamental principle of our democracy "representation by population" is adhered to. The civil service commission has failed to do that and therefore bears full responsibility in the matter.
Now, Mr. Chairman, what reforms are indicated? I wonder whether the civil service commission is capable of making them. The first reform is to demand of every federal employee whose jurisdiction extends to the whole country that he be perfectly bilingual. What would be the result, I ask all hon. members of this house, if at a certain time one of them wishing to speak to the timber controller, for example, were to get the following answer; "I am sorry but I cannnot speak English." What could be the result of such a situation. If it is preposterous in the eyes of the English-speaking members, I respectfully submit that it is just as preposterous for French-speaking members.

Civil Service Act
Mr. Chairman, we are being told at times that, according to a school of thought now taking shape in the province of Quebec, the federal government is considered somewhat as a foreign government. It may be true. But who is to blame?
Take for instance the case of some constituent of mine who, coming to Ottawa and calling at various departments, finds that officials are exclusively English-speaking.
Here are a few instances: Veterans Affairs, out of four officials paid $8,000 or more, none are French-speaking. At the Department of Agriculture, out of five officials getting $8,000 or more, none are French-speaking. At the Department of Insurance, none. At the Auditor General's, none. At the Department of Commerce, none; at the Mutual Aid Board, none; at the Civil Service Commission, among those paid $8,000 or more yearly, none. I know there is a French-speaking commissioner, but he does get less than $8,000. At the National Research Council, none; at the Privy Council, none; at National Defence, out of four officials who get $8,000 or more, none are French-speaking. At the Department of Finance, out of four officials receiving a yearly salary of $8,000 or more, none are French speaking. At the Governor General's, none; at the Department of Justice, where three officials get $8,000 or more-those figures apply to 1946 and there may be one now, but of those three none are Frenchspeaking. At the National Film Board, none; Fisheries, nil; Reconstruction, not a single French-speaking official out of seven. At National Revenue, no French speaking official. And so it runs in almost every department.
Mr. Chairman, how do you expect and how can members of this house expect that our French-speaking compatriots will feel perfectly at home in Ottawa when, for the discussion of their problems they cannot contact officials who understand their language and appreciate their outlook?
Mr. Chairman, to achieve fairness, the indispensable programme I now submit to the hon. members opposite is as follows: the appointment of six French-speaking deputy ministers; 18 officials paid $8,000 a year or more; 88 officials getting $6,000 or more; 352 officials with a salary of $4,000 or more, and 1,185 other French-speaking civil servants paid at least $3,000.
Those, Mr. Chairman, were the few comments I wished to make in this connection, and I hope they will be taken into consideration.


Mr. HACKETT:: I wish to add a few words to what has just been said by my learned
colleague, the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Hamel).


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear!


John Thomas Hackett: Unfortunately, I am the only member of my party in Quebec and since the majority of my electors are French Canadians, I believe it is my duty to support the remarks of my colleague the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche.


Mr. FERGUSON:: Hear, hear!


John Thomas Hackett: I have already stated in this house that it is unfortunate that a whole ethnical group should surrender to one party. That is unfortunate for the group, it is unfortunate for the party which takes in its fold; it is unfortunate also for the opponent which is deprived of its support. I think it is unfortunate that my party should have no French-speaking representatives.
As a result, we do not know exactly what they think and we do not have the benefit of their philosophy of life and of their point of view.
I say it is unfortunate for the party in power because they take the liberty of doing injustices as were described by the hon. member who has just spoken. Injustice is prejudicial to everyone, especially to those who render themselves guilty of it. It is also unfortunate for the group which surrenders entirely to one political party because they will be treated inequitously and, like poor relatives, that is like penniless relatives, who we accept somewhat scornfully and against our will.
I know that those problems are difficult to solve, but I hope that the situation will be remedied. I know the matter is being dealt with and I hope that the commission which is looking into the problem will shortly be in a position to report to the house that Frenchspeaking Canadians are equitably represented in the public service and that there will be a sufficient number of French-Canadian senior officials suitably to represent that element of the population.
Mr. MICHAUD, Hear, hear!


John Thomas Hackett: Let us put aside that question of ability. It is non-existent and none of those who are aware of the situation would even suggest that there is lack of talent, training or experience among French Canadians.
I therefore hope and wish that a fair solution will soon be found to that problem.
(Text):


René Hamel: I wish to ask certain questions. Will the minister tell the committee: (1) whether a resolution voted unanimously
Civil Service Act

by the legislature of Quebec, in connection with the situation of the French-speaking Canadian in the civil service, has been received by the federal government? (2) Whether a delegation of the chamber of commerce of Montreal has met the federal government and presented a brief on the same matter? (3) If so, what steps have been taken following such resolution and representations?


Colin William George Gibson: I assure the hon. member that representations from Quebec were received sympathetically. I was present when the delegation came from Montreal, and I can assure him that the representations made have been taken into consideration and that every effort will be made to put into effect some of them, if not all, at the earliest possible date.


René Hamel: Have any official steps been taken by the government? If so, what steps?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 
Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Is that four out of four hundred or what?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Major, I said.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: In what proportion have they been made?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In the rightful proportion, according to the population of Canada. There is not, and there should not be, any preference of any province over another in our confederation. It is only a matter of fair play.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Actually, has fair play been carried out according to population?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I regret to say, in my opinion, it has not been carried out.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: That is your fault apparently.


René Hamel: Will the Secretary of State tell the committee whether an answer has been given to the legislature of Quebec.


Colin William George Gibson: I cannot say that an answer has been given. The answer would not be sent from the civil service commission. I do not know whether or not the Prime Minister has sent one.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was present at the interview, and the delegation was assured by the Prime Minister that the representations would receive the utmost consideration of the government in its different aspects.
[Mr. Ihiilif i 1


John Thomas Hackett: I fear there is a slight misunderstanding. My hon. friend the member for St. Maurice-Lafleche is speaking about the resolution that was passed in the legislature and he is asking, if it was received, what action has been taken on it.


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: I thought the hon. member was talking about the chambre de commerce resolution.


John Thomas Hackett: That is where the error has crept in. He was asking first, about a resolution passed in the legislature of Quebec and, second, about a delegation from the chambre de commerce. The second question has been answered, and he is now asking what has been done about the resolution from the Quebec legislature.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Speaking purely in a personal capacity, I must say that the resolution from the province of Quebec as such, never came to my attention, as one of the ministers of the crown. The only representations that we received as a committee of the government were from the chambre de commerce.


René Hamel: The government has received nothing from the legislature of Quebec? The government has received no resolution from the government of Quebec?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I only said I was not aware of any.


John Horne Blackmore: In response to a
question asked :by an hon. member, the minister said he regretted to say that fair play had not 'been carried out. I gather he meant that care had1 not been exercised to see that there was the correct number of appointments of persons speaking each language in relation to the population of the nation. Did he mean that there were too many Englishspeaking civil servants for the number of English-speaking people, or too many Frenchspeaking civil servants for the number of French-speaking people?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am sorry indeed if my hon. friend got that interpretation from my remarks. There have been great difficulties in securing personnel, but I say, that in the result, in ithe final analysis, there has been a degree of unfairness, in my judgment, and I am speaking only for myself and not for the government.


John Horne Blackmore: And is that unfairness against the French-speaking people?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I would not say it is against the French-speaking people. There must be an equal adjustment of appoint-

Civil Service Act
51S5
meats, having regard to all the diversified peoples who make up our united Canadian country.


John Horne Blackmore: While on that subject, I think it is a matter of deep interest to all members of the house and to all Canadians for the minister to give us an idea who has been supervising the whole matter. Who has been watching appointments in an overall capacity, acting as a board of referees, so as to enable the government to find out whether there has been a correct appoints ment?


Colin William George Gibson: The civil service commission is an agency set up by parliament and is responsible for appointments. It is independent of any department of government and it makes appointments. It holds examinations and fills vacancies.


John Horne Blackmore: What I am concerned about is, what agency in the civil service commission is responsible for seeing to it that a correct proportion is maintained, that there are not too many English-speaking appointees for the number of English-speaking people and not too many French-speaking appointees in relation to the French-speaking population. Is there a definite committee whose business it is to see to that, in order to ensure that justice is maintained?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There are examining boards under the civil service commission, and they generally assess the applicants upon technical qualifications for the various positions that are vacant in the government service. Unfortunately, in some cases the necessary personnel were not available according to what one might call regional justice across Canada. That has been the result; there is no question about it, but it has not been deliberate in any sense. It is something that has developed and something that should be corrected.


John Horne Blackmore: I was surprised that any question should be raised at all as to whether there were not enough French in the civil service; and I wondered how that came about, whether it was a condition that actually existed, and how the person who raised the question knew it existed. What evidence did he have access to which was not available to the ordinary member of parliament? That is what I am concerned about. If someone raised the question that there were too few Frenchspeaking people in the service I want to know where he got his information, and if the Secretary of State can give that information it will help us. I am not asking the question in any spirit of unfairness, because I want to make sure that there is fairness, just as everyone else does. All I want to know is. have we an objective way of determining this matter? If we have not, I think it is time the house and the government took steps to see that a committee is appointed to see that justice prevails. Can the Secretary of State set at rest these anxieties which are in the minds especially of English-speaking members of the house?


Colin William George Gibson: If anybody asks a question on the order paper as to the relative numbers, that question is answered. I am not sure, but I rather think that earlier in the session some questions were asked, and the answers were given. There is no secrecy about the matter. But as my colleague mentioned, the situation did gradually develop with the result that the civil service commission was holding competitions and making appointments according to the marks obtained on the examination; and it was found that the service had become somewhat out of balance. I know that many representations have been made recently on the same subject by members of parliament.


John Horne Blackmore: The minister used the expression "out of balance". Does that mean that there are more English speaking civil servants than there ought to be, considering the English-speaking element of Canada, or that there are more French-speaking civil servants than there ought to be?


Colin William George Gibson: I cannot say what there ought to be, but I can say that there are fewer French-speaking civil servants than representation by population would entitle them to.


Thomas Reid: Is there any intention to change the ' regulations? Is there any intention to change the examination of the civil servants with a view to adjusting that, because that to me would be important? I do not know how it can be adjusted if the regulations call for certain qualifications and the papers are marked accordingly. The nation is watching what is going to happen and the people are wondering-and I am wondering, too-if the examination will be made a little different because one speaks French and another speaks English.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The civil service commission is a separate body and is not supposed to be dictated to by members of the government, as I understand it. Civil servants are admitted to the civil service by examination. Surely that rule has been followed. If not, why not? This government has been in power for some time now. It is supposed to be supervising these things to some degree. We now find a considerable amount of turmoil
Civil Service Act

across this country over the contention that there are too few French-speaking Canadians in the civil service. I understand that the rule is that the man who obtains the highest marks in the examination is the one who is appointed. If we are following the correct course, irrespective of whether he is a Freneh-Canadian or not, the man who attains the highest standard is the one who should have the job. Where does this trouble creep in which the Minister of Veterans Affairs says he is sorry to say exists? I believe we are entitled to an explanation for a statement like that. He must be firmly convinced that this condition exists because civil servants did not pass the examinations correctly or did not obtain the high standard necessary to obtain the position. What has it to do with whether a man is a French-Canadian or not? If the civil service is being run properly, the condition cannot exist which the Minister of Veterans Affairs would have us believe he is sorry to say does exist. If it does, then this thing is not being run properly. I think the committee is entitled to an explanation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I never said that, and I resent the suggestion.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Words to that effect.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I never said anything of that kind.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Then repeat it so that members can understand it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There	are two
principles to be observed: first of all, there is the efficiency of the civil service; second, there is the promotion of national unity in Canada. Those are the two principles which we are endeavouring to observe and which we shall continue to observe.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I am just as much in favour of national unity in this country as the minister is: and I do not take second place to anybody in this committee in that regardi. Divide and rule is the principle followed by the government.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member does not help unity very much.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The minister will do anything to be elected.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was elected long before the hon. member was born, I think.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Oh, you are not that old.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The minister must have been a child then and still talks like one.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2. 3 and 4 agreed to.
tMr. Ferguson.]
On section 5-Appointments of veterans who were permanent civil servants.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: This section deals with the appointment of veterans who were permanent civil servants and who served overseas. The other day, on the resolution stage, I mentioned the fact that in crown companies the preference was not recognized. I asked the minister at that time if in this bill something could not be done to see that the veteran was given the preference in these crown companies, as well as in other departments of the government.
I should also like to ask the minister with reference to the permanently employed. We know that in the civil service there are a great many temporary employees, as well as permanent ones, who went overseas. There were a good many young men who left this country, who went overseas and came back, who were not permanent employees in the civil service, but were temporary employees. Why does this bill not include the temporary employee as well as the permanent one? If the minister checks up, I think he will find there were a great many of these young men in temporary employment. I also understood that temporary employment was the first step towards permanent employment in the civil service. I think that is correct, in a great many cases.


Colin William George Gibson: That is not necessarily so, but usually it is the case that a man is first appointed temporarily.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: A case in point would be as follows: A young man had just entered the civil service as a temporary employee. He was looking forward to being permanently employed later on. He goes overseas and comes back. Being a temporary employee of the civil service, under this measure the government department would not be compelled to take him back and give him the same preference he would receive had he been employed by a civilian company. Under the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, the company would have to take this man back and give him the same position he had before. Under this bill, if he were employed as a temporary employee and came back from overseas, the government has no responsibility at all with regard to taking him on. I would suggest to the minister that the word "permanently" should be struck out, so that the section would read, "a person who was employed in the civil service and who had resigned", and so on. I should like the minister to comment on that and give his opinion.

Civil Service Act


Colin William George Gibson: This
section deals with extending the privilege which was granted after the first world war to veterans of the second war. During the first war. permanent employees who had resigned and joined the forces were not automatically taken back into the service and they were not granted the privilege of coming back to their employment. But after the war was over, they were reinstated. Early in this war, in order to prevent the permanents from resigning and going overseas, they were told they would not be reinstated at the end of the war. However I think better judgment was displayed later. Those who had permanent positions before the war now have the right of being brought back to the service, but in many cases the positions for them are not available. For example, a man does not come back and resume the permanent position he had before the war.' As will be understood, it being a permanent position, when the man resigned the position was filled. The result is that the man who resigned applies to the commission to be reinstated in the civil service and the commission places his name on the list of eligible persons. Then, when there is a vacancy he is entitled to be taken back to a position of the same kind as that from which he had resigned. I quite agree with my hon. friend that this does not specifically provide for temporary employees. A man who resigned from his temporary position is entitled, when he comes back, to take a position for which he is qualified, but I admit that this forces the commission to place his name on the eligible list.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Could the word "permanently" be taken out? Do you think that would injure the clause at all? I believe it would make it stronger. I should like to hear the opinion of the Minister of Veterans Affairs on that point. Section 5 says "a person who was permanently employed," and I suggest that the temporary employee who went overseas should also have the opportunity of resuming his position. If the word "permanent" were taken out this clause would cover both temporary and permanent employees.


Colin William George Gibson: Perhaps
this section could be left over for a moment, so I can discuss that suggestion with the chairman of the commission. It is possible that could be done.


Thomas John Bentley: I should like to follow
up what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver South and myself on the first section. At that time we were endeavouring to have merchant seamen included in the definition of "veteran."


William Henry Golding: Order.


Thomas John Bentley: I am right on this
section, which has the word "veteran" in it. At that time the minister did not even comment, indicating that he was not remotely interested in the welfare of merchant seamen, and the committee gaily passed the section without further comment. I should like to find out from the minister whether any men, either temporary or permanent employees, resigned from the civil service to join the merchant marine and, if so, whether on their return they will be included as veterans under this section and reinstated. Or does the word "veteran" in line twenty-six simply apply to those who are described as veterans in section one?


Colin William George Gibson: The
word "veteran" means a veteran as defined in section one of this bill.


Thomas John Bentley: Has the minister nothing further to say in regard to the attitude of the government toward the suggestion that the interpretation be widened to include members of the merchant marine previously employed in the civil service, who resigned to join the merchant marine, and who gave the sort of service we have heard so much about from all sides of this house? Has the minister anything to say on the suggestion that they be included within this section so that they will have the same opportunities they had before?


Colin William George Gibson: No, I
have nothing to add. This section simply extends the same preference to veterans of the second war that was given veterans of the first war, and I am not prepared to widen the definition in section one.


Thomas John Bentley: And the minister is not
prepared to include the merchant seamen under any section of this bill? Is that the situation?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes, that is the situation.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: According to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the veterans affairs committee is being set up again next year.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We hope so.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Would the minister entertain a recommendation in this regard coming from the veterans affairs committee next year?


Colin William George Gibson: The
government gives careful consideration to the recommendations of the veterans affairs committee; that is why the committee is set up,
Civil Service Act

in order to get the advice of those who were veterans of the two wars. My hon. friend brought up the possibility of removing the word "permanently". I have spoken to the chairman of the civil service commission, who tells me they now have a regulation under which any temporary employee who saw service overseas may be reinstated upon his return to this country.


Howard Charles Green: In regard to the setting up of the committee next year, am I to understand that the only reason the merchant seamen are not included in the amendments this year is that there was no recommendation to that effect from the veterans affairs committee?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If I may reply to my hon. friend, that is not the reason at all. Last year in the veterans affairs committee there was a certain amount of confusion of thought, if I may use the expression, as to whether my good friend and colleague the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Veterans Affairs should accept direct responsibility for either the initiation or approbation of legislation in regard to merchant seamen. I am sorry I have not my files with me tonight, but I should like very much to have the privilege of informing this committee how much has been done for the merchant seamen of Canada. We have done more than any other country in the world, more than England has done. I must bring the list down some day and read it to the committee on my own estimates, because I think I owe it to myself as one who had something to do with the matter before my hon. friend took over active direction. And I had the cooperation of my hon. friends apposite. Today, under veterans' legislation there are fourteen distinct and specific benefits given merchant seamen in Canada.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs this question? Is he against giving this preference to merchant seamen who served in a theatre of war?


William Henry Golding: Order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend knows I have been prominent now in these endeavours for nearly thirty years-


William Henry Golding: Order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: -and I am not going to be caught in any trap that may be set by my hon. friends.


William Henry Golding: Order. I would ask hon. gentlemen to take their seats when the Chairman or the Speaker rises. There is not room for two on the floor at one time. I should like to call attention to the

fact that the minister has repeatedly said this section does not apply at all to merchant seamen. He has explained that several times already, and no good purpose is to be served by discussing a matter which has no relation to this clause.


Howard Charles Green: Well, Mr. Chairman, but-
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN; Order. I would ask my hon. friend to tell me how merchant seamen can be discussed under this clause.


Howard Charles Green: We are asking that the merchant seamen be put under the clause.


William Henry Golding: But the minister has said repeatedly that he is not putting them under this clause, and. no good purpose can be served by repeating the same question.


Howard Charles Green: But because the minister says he is not going to do it does not prevent us from speaking about it.


William Henry Golding: Any speech in committee must, be strictly relevant to the clause under discussion. How can my hon. friend discuss the merchant marine under this clause and abide by the rules?


Howard Charles Green: We are entitled to ask that merchant seamen be included.


William Henry Golding: But my hon. friend, has asked and the minister has answered.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Veterans Affairs has made a statement, and I have a right to ask him a question on it. I asked him a question which was perfectly straightforward, which was not a trick in any sense of the word. I asked whether or not he thought the merchant seamen should get- this veterans preference. He should be able to answer either yes or no to that.


Mr. MUTCH:: He is not a witness.


Howard Charles Green: My hon. friend, should have got up a few moments ago and said what he had to say.


William Henry Golding: I must ask the hon. member not to discuss the point further.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: The matter has been referred to by the minister himself, as I understand it. As can be verified by the records, I was one of those in the committee who definitely asked that this particular problem should be considered. We were requested to delay the matter, because it would be dealt with by the Minister of Transport. The reconls

Civil Service Act
will show that this matter was discussed in. the committee on veterans affairs. I disagree with your ruling, Mr. Chairman; I say we have every right to ask whether this is or is not going to be considered.


William Henry Golding: Order. I want to tell the hon. member for Fraser Valley again that this question has been asked and the minister has answered definitely that it is not going to be included in this bill. Furthermore, the other night the Minister of Transport gave a summary-this is on the record-of what has been done for the merchant seamen. Apart from all that, there is no place in this clause for a discussion of merchant seamen.


George Alexander Cruickshank: With all deference to your ruling-and I shall abide by it-may I say that we were given to understand in the veterans affairs committee that the Minister of Transport would bring forth a section which would cover the members of the merchant marine in the way asked for by the hon. member.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: You were given to understand no such thing by the minister.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The minister did not give us to understand that because he was not privileged to be a member of the veterans affairs committee, but we were definitely given that understanding.


Thomas John Bentley: Do I understand that you have ruled that no hon. member has the right to argue with the minister that merchant seamen should be included in this?


William Henry Golding: That is right.


George Russell Boucher: May I ask your reconsideration of the statement you made a moment ago? If your ruling is that nothing that is not in the bill can be discussed it will mean that wre cannot discuss an amendment.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member knows very well that speeches in committee must be strictly relevant to the clause, and there is no provision in this clause for the merchant seamen. The question has been asked several times, and the minister has repeatedly said that he had no intention of including that in this clause. I cannot see what good purpose can be served by repeating this discussion which is out of order.


George Russell Boucher: As you have asked that question, I will answer it. I do not think there is any necessity to hammer at the same question, but I do not think the rules of this house are that you must stick to the positive enactment of any piece of legislation. When legislation is put before the House of Commons it is for hon. members to speak on what is in it and as to what improvements should be made. That being the case, they must go beyond the wording of the bill. I think your ruling to restrict discussion on the bill goes altogether too far.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I want to take exception to that ruling. I may be corrected and called to order, but my definite understanding in the veterans affairs committee was that the Minister of Transport would bring in legislation which would bring forth what we are now asking for. It was given to us as a distinct understanding and now members of the merchant marine are left out in the cold.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I deny that.


David Arnold Croll: Then they were left out in the
heat.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The Minister of Veterans Affairs comes from a good province and he is generally in good humour, but the members of the veterans affairs committee had that distinct understanding. If we cannot discuss it now, when can we discuss it?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6-List of competitors eligible for appointment.
René Hamel: In order to find out how this section would work, I should like to place a case before the minister. Suppose five candidates have sat for an examination. One receives the minimum marks, and he is a veteran. Another receives higher marks and he is not a veteran. Another is still more qualified, and he has no veterans preference. Who will be chosen?


Colin William George Gibson: As long as the man with veterans preference gets the minimum requirements he will get the position over a man who may have got full marks but who is not a veteran.


René Hamel: The veteran will get the position, provided that the minimum marks are obtained?


Colin William George Gibson: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 to 9 agreed to.
Schedule A agreed to.
Bill reported.
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Supply-Transport
Mr. ZAPLITNY:: Mr. Speaker-
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker-



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker-


William Henry Golding: Item 583.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, before you proceed. I think we should have more respect in this house. I think the Speaker should look to see if anyone wants to speak to the motion. If the leader of the house was as keen about his duties as he is to criticize this side of the house he would see that there was a better deal for us in this house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am sorry if my hon. friend feels that there has been any injustice to any of his group. If I had been aware that anyone intended to speak before the Speaker left the chair I would have seen that my hon. friends were completely protected.


Angus MacInnis: They are not fully protected. The hon. member rose to his feet before the motion was put.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am sorry; I did not see him.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I was on my feet before the Speaker put the motion and I said, "Mr. Speaker" several times and members of the house heard me.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is quite probable that we shall have supply tomorrow, and my hon. friends will have every opportunity if they so desire to debate any question they wTish.


George Alexander Cruickshank: On a point of order, I do not often disagree with my own party, but the hon. member was definitely on his feet and asked for a hearing before the Speaker had left the chair. Surely if parliamentary procedure is followed and if we represent the people, as I think we are supposed to represent them, the hon. member is entitled to be heard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member will certainly have an opportunity tomorrow to say whatever he wishes to say. I can assure him that if I had seen him on his feet I would have protected his right.


John Thomas Hackett: If the right hon. gentleman were to move that the committee rise and report progress that might be a way out.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is it necessary to do that?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: On a question of privilege, it will involve no more time tonight than it will take tomorrow, if expediting the business of the house is to be considered. We have no guarantee that the same thing will not be repeated tomorrow. I would therefore ask the leader of the house to move that we report progress and ask leave to sit again, so that I may say what I want to say, because it is a matter of urgency.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think my hon. friend and the committee will admit that my attitude has been very reasonable. I am sorry that I did not see my hon. friend on his feet.
I assure him that he will have an opportunity to speak tomorrow and that postponing what he has to say until then will not infringe his rights in the slightest. I can assure him definitely that there was not the slightest intention, so far as the government is concerned, of depriving him of his rights.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think the house appreciates the attitude which the leader of the house has taken, and I am sure the hon. member for Dauphin shares in that appreciation. I would just point out, however, that there have been occasions before when the Speaker has left the chair and a minister has got him back. In fact, a few days ago he came back and we put through another piece of legislation. So it can be understood how the hon. member for Dauphin feels.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: His rights will be amply protected tomorrow.


John Horne Blackmore: I have been bewildered in the last few weeks at this new way we have of conducting business in this house. A number of precedents are being set, amounting to a serious thing for parliament. The ordinary rules of procedure have been broken and the order of business interfered with. It is not a question of whether the minister will protect the rights of the hon. member tomorrow. We all saw the hon. member standing on his feet and calling to Mr. Speaker, but Mr. Speaker deliberately ignored him, walked from the chair and left the chamber. That is a serious matter. It is something that should be righted now if there is any way in which it can be done.


Angus MacInnis: We have drawn the attention of the house to the matter, and1 I would be very much pleased and think it would be better if we now let the matter drop.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I can assure the hon. member for Dauphin that we will accom-

Supply-T ransport
modate him in every possible way in regard to any grievance he wishes to present to the house.


Thomas John Bentley: With that assurance, will the minister also couple the assurance that this will never happen again in the house?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I had no responsibility in the matter. As a matter of fact I was speaking to one of my hon. friends behind me when the motion was put and I did not see the hon. member for Dauphin on his feet at all. If I had seen him on his feet-I think I have as much respect for the rules of this house as anyone, though I sometimes 'break them-I certainly would have drawn attention to the fact that the hon. member had risen. But I think now, as the hon. member for Vancouver East has suggested, we had better let the matter rest until tomorrow.


Thomas John Bentley: His Honour the Speaker is surely not unapproachable. Someone can draw to his attention what happened tonight so that he will look to right and left before he leaves the chair.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As leader of the house, I cannot for one second permit any reflection on the Speaker. I have the greatest personal admiration for him, for his conduct of business in this house and for his fairness to all parties. If something happened tonight, things sometimes happen quickly without anyone being responsible for it, and' I am sure it was not the fault of the Speaker. I, as leader of the house, at once accept full responsibility that the hon. member for Dauphin was not seen on his feet, and I assure my hon. friend that he will have ample opportunity to speak tomorrow.
Demobilization and reconversion-
583. Departmental administration, $7-2,740.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain this item? It comes under demobilization and reconversion. I should like to know for what purpose the money is being voted.


Lionel Chevrier: It has to do with the administration arising out of demobilization. During the war we had certain administrative services in the Department of Transport having exclusively to do with war. The vote is gradually go-ing down. It has to do with demobilizing these services.


Howard Charles Green: There is an increase this year over last. What are the services performed in this connection?


Lionel Chevrier: There is transport control, for instance, which is being wound up;
nautical services; compensation for loss of effects; joint Canada-United States defence.


Howard Charles Green: What is that?


Lionel Chevrier: That is a service we shall discuss in a moment. It was set up during the war to purchase property on behalf of the United States government. That is now being wound1 up. It also operated and disposed: of property. This service was established in the Department of Transport for other departments.


Mr. McLURE:: I wish to draw to the minister's attention that vote 583 for $72,740 comprises an item of $66,700 for temporary assistance. All through the estimates of the Department of Transport there are items for temporary assistance, totalling eight or nine million dollars. It is very hard to get a satisfactory answer from any minister to the question, what is temporary assistance?


Lionel Chevrier: So far as this item is
concerned, there cannot be much difficulty because this was a non-continuing service and. of necessity had to be -temporary. That is why it is so described in the details.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-
585. Director of merchant seamen, $425,340.
Howard Charles Green: This is a vote of nearly
half a million dollars. Is any provision being made for the training of merchant seamen for the future?


Lionel Chevrier: Provision is made for
vocational training within the seamen's calling.


Howard Charles Green: I do not mean that. The
Minister of Reconstruction explained very fully a few weeks ago that Canada proposed to maintain a merchant navy of considerable size. Is any plan in effect for training the personnel for that merchant marine? We had such a plan during the war and quite a few thousand men were trained for the merchant navy. Has such policy been dropped, or are we going to have any facilities for training these men for our merchant marine?


Lionel Chevrier: During the war we
had two schools, one at Prescott for engineering and one at St. Margarets, Nova Scotia. Both were set up specifically for the training of merchant seamen during the war. These two schools have been discontinued. There are, however, a number of schools such as existed prior to the war, as for instance, the marine technical training school at Prescott; school of navigation, Vancouver;
Supply-Transport

the Hopkins School of Engineering, Vancouver; government navigation school, Halifax; dominion navigation school, Yarmouth; and vocational training such as I mentioned a moment ago. At the schools men receive training for engineering and seamanship generally.


Howard Charles Green: These facilities could train only a few men.


Lionel Chevrier: A limited number.


Howard Charles Green: Is the government accepting any responsibility for training the personnel that will be required to man the Canadian merchant navy? In the United Kingdom I believe they have regular training schools for the merchant navy, and probably the same thing is true of the United' States. It does . seem reasonable that Canada should have some provisions of the same kind. We cannot continue to keep an efficient merchant marine without efficient personnel. New men will be coming in all the time. What facilities are there, if any, for giving that training?


Lionel Chevrier: I can only repeat what I said a moment ago. During the war we had the two schools mentioned, and we have closed them down. There are no facilities for training merchant seamen now. I know that at the I.L.O. convention in Seattle a recommendation was made to the effect that certain groups of the navy should1 be certified. If that recommendation is approved-


Howard Charles Green: Certain groups of what?


Lionel Chevrier: Certain groups of the merchant seamen should be certified as cooks, able-bodied seamen and other groups such as boatswains and so forth. If that convention is ratified, then we shall have to set up schools here.


Howard Charles Green: Will the dominion accept the full responsibility for providing facilities for training?


Lionel Chevrier: If the convention is approved I presume that- will follow.


Angus MacInnis: The minister referred1 to a number of schools. Are these schools carried on under the auspices of the Department of Transport?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Angus MacInnis: Are they private schools?


Lionel Chevrier: They are not carried on under our auspices, but we subsidize them.


Angus MacInnis: They are private schools subsidized by the Department of Transport?


Lionel Chevrier: They are provincial
schools assisted and subsidized by the Department of Transport.


Angus MacInnis: What is meant by "provincial schools"? Does that mean schools under the provincial government?


Lionel Chevrier: Not necessarily; it means schools within the province such as the one I referred to at Prescott, a marine technical school. I think I spoke of a school of navigation at Vancouver.


Angus MacInnis: Can the minister give us any idea of the number of students in these schools at the present time?


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot give the
information now. I shall have to get. it by communicating with the directors of these schools. I can get it for my hon. friend.


Angus MacInnis: Has the minister any
information as to the number of seamen in Canada now unemployed, if any? I am not suggesting that there are any.


Lionel Chevrier: From the position as I know it, I would think there are very few because there is a great demand for seamen.
Mr. HERRIIX3E: What are the duties of the director of merchant seamen?


Lionel Chevrier: May I be allowed to answer the previous question? I am informed that at the moment we are paying out-of-work benefits to fifty unemployed seamen.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Can the minister explain briefly the duties of the director of merchant
seamen?


Lionel Chevrier: The director of merchant seamen had important duties during the war. He was responsible for the manning of merchant ships; he was responsible for the manning pools, the schools that were set up, the various bonuses that were paid and so on. Now that the war has come to an end, there are a number of benefits to which merchant seamen are entitled and which must be adman,istered by the department. They are administered by the department through the director of merchant, seamen. For instance, there is a war service bonus of ten per cent paid1 to certain groups of merchant seamen who served in dangerous waters. That bonus is paid through the office of the director. Likewise there is a special war service bonus which is also paid through him. Vocational training for merchant seamen is under his direction, and the claims for detention allowances, claims by merchant seamen who lost their effects, or by dependents of merchant seamen who lost

Supply-Transport
their effects, some of which are still coming in, are under the direction of the director of merchant seamen. His duties are, I must say, diminishing considerably.
Mr. MacIX.MS: Do the out-of-work benefits which the minister referred to a moment ago come under the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act?


Lionel Chevrier: No, it is a different thing altogether. This comes under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Mr. MacI X XI,S: For persons who had war service ?


Lionel Chevrier: That is correct. They are put in the same category in so far as unemployment insurance is concerned as the members of the armed forces.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Do the provinces have a director of merchant seamen?


Lionel Chevrier: Xo.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Who is in charge of the manning pools?


Lionel Chevrier: They were under the direction of the director of merchant seamen during the war, but they have now been closed.


George Alexander Cruickshank: They are not active now?


Lionel Chevrier: Xo.


Howard Charles Green: How many men are there in the merchant navy at the present time?


Lionel Chevrier: About fifteen thousand.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Who looks after the merchant seamen in the province of British Columbia? Apparently veterans affairs have disowned them.


Lionel Chevrier: In so far as their employment and discharge are concerned, the shipping master at the port of Vancouver looks after them. In so far as their benefits under these various orders in council are concerned, it is the director of merchant seamen.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Apparently veterans affairs have disowned, them. If they have a complaint in British Columbia, do they have to bring it to Ottawa? Is there nobody in that Pacific coast port to whom they can take their complaint?


Lionel Chevrier: They are referred by the various seamen's organizations across Canada to the director of merchant seamen.


George Alexander Cruickshank: In other words, they have to go to their unions and the union has to take it up by indirect control with Ottawa; is that correct?


Lionel Chevrier: Not necessarily the unions. There are many groups looking after merchant seamen who are not unionized or organized.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The federal government has no representative in the main coast port of British Columbia?


Lionel Chevrier: My department has many representatives on the Pacific coast, but not all of them deal with merchant seamen. They deal with various matters. A moment ago I referred to the shipping master who has to do with engaging and discharge of merchant seamen, the registration of seamen and so on. The supervisor of nautical services has these responsibilities under his control.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What I am trying to get at is this. If a merchant seaman on the Pacific coast has a complaint, veterans affairs have told me tonight that they disown him entirely; has that merchant seaman any recourse ?


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid I have to disagree with the hon. member. The Minister of Veterans Affairs did not. say that the department had disowned merchant seamen.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I do not agree
with the minister and he does not agree with me. What recourse has a merchant seaman on the Pacific coast? Who does he approach with his complaint? Does he have to come to Ottawa?


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to know
to what my hon. friend is referring. If he will give me an example of the complaint he has in mind, perhaps I cart give him a more definite answer.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Suppose a merchant seaman considers that he was unjustly treated in the merchant marine.


Lionel Chevrier: If he considers that
he has not received a bonus or has not received the benefits to which he was entitled, what I suppose he would do would be to complain to the minister. I have received some such complaints and the Minister of Veterans Affairs has received a number of such complaint*. If he is referring to matters dealing with nautical service or with registration, then I presume he would make his complaint to the shipping master in the port where he is stationed.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The minister has
surmised correctly what I meant, but what I wish to know is this. Is there no means on the Pacific coast cf dealing with his
8 upply-Transport,

application? Is it necessary that he should have to go through all the red tape at Ottawa in order to present his case?


Lionel Chevrier: He makes his complaint through his organization in the. port where he resides, whether it be the west coast seamen's union or the Canadian seamen's union or the seamen's welfare society if he is in Montreal. There are various organizations in all parts of Canada, and if he has a complaint to make he can complain directly to the minister or through one of these organizations.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Montreal is a long way from Vancouver. My question is this: Have you no representative in your department in Vancouver?


Lionel Chevrier: I have already told the hon. gentleman that there are several representatives of my department in the port of Vancouver.


Howard Charles Green: Are we clear as to who is
responsible for the merchant seamen? We have had a good illustration tonight of the difficulties of getting fair treatment for merchant seamen. They are involved in the two departments of transport and veterans affairs, and I do not believe they will get justice until it is decided which department is responsible for them. The minister said on July 2, at page 5001 of Hansard:
I wish someone would clear up in my mind and to my satisfaction whose responsibility this is.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: I feel exactly like the
minister. I should like to know whose responsibility this is, because the Minister of Veterans Affairs promised the other day that next year a special committee on veterans affairs would be set up again. This injustice will be brought up in that committee, certainly if I am a member of it, and I am sure that the hon. member for Fraser Valley would take the same view. There are certain injustices to be considered, such as failure to give these men pensions for disabilities, failure to provide vocational training, and failure to give the benefits of the Veterans Land Act and many other benefits. Who is to be responsible for them-transport or veterans affairs? We should like to know, because wrhen we sit on that committee next year the whole question will be gone into thoroughly and someone will have to answer all the questions that are asked. We are not going to fall between two stools as we did last year.
[Mr. Cruickahank.l


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid I shall not be the one to answer those questions. However I will answer the first part of the question my hon. friend asks, when he wishes to know what the responsibility of this department is. In so far as the engagement and discharge of seamen, the amount of payment due, and so forth are concerned, that has been the responsibility of the Department of Transport through the shipping master in the various ports. In so far as benefits approved by the government under various orders in council are concerned., they have thus far ben under the administration of the director of merchant seamen. That far I can go, but beyond that I cannot.


Howard Charles Green: There is one item of 197,040 for vocational training, but that means only vocational training for merchant seamen who want to go to sea.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Those who do not want to go back to sea do not get such training?


Lionel Chevrier: They are not covered by the order in council.


Howard Charles Green: Then I am correct in putting it that way.


Lionel Chevrier: You are correct.


Howard Charles Green: If a recommendation is made next year by the veterans affairs committee that these men should get vocational training apart from training to fit them to go to sea, or that they should get the benefit of university grants, such recommendations would have to be carried out by the Department of Transport?


Lionel Chevrier: Not necessarily. The government would then have to decide whether the recommendations should be carried out by the veterans affairs department or the director of merchant seamen. It may be that next year the latter may not exist. I do not know.


Angus MacInnis: I do not know whether this discussion is in order, but I have listened to the hon. member for Vancouver South on several occasions making a plea for merchant seamen who were in the merchant navy during the war. I too have said a little on the subject, but I felt that, as the matter was being discussed, we could not get anywhere in a debate of this kind. My feelinig is that the government must decide where the responsibility rests. They should refer it to the veterans affairs committee if they think these men have service comparable with that of men in the armed service as I believe they

Supply-Transport
have. I suggest that the question, should be referred to the committee on veterans affairs and have it decided once and for all, so that we can get away from this discussion.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have the greatest appreciation of the hon. member for Vancouver East, but I would point out that the hon. member for Vancouver South and I were vocal on this point last year when we tried as members of the veterans affairs committee to have it decided. Every member of that committee will bear me out when I say that we were two members who were vocal on the point. We fought this matter and we are not now satisfied as to who is responsible.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is about the sixth debate I have heard on the question of injustice to merchant seamen. Let us analyse the question of the merchant seamen. He was a civilian doing a hard and dangerous job. He had always been a civilian free to work or to stop work. He got special bonuses for going into dangerous situations. But there were other dangerous jobs in the country. I could mention one where the percentage of loss in a civilian job was higher than it was among merchant seamen, and that is among men in commercial transport service, the operators who ferried new planes across the Atlantic.


Howard Charles Green: That is another complaint we have. Those men are not protected either.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They were not as numerous as the merchant seamen.


Howard Charles Green: And they are not protected.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Now here were men doing a civilian job. It is true that some of them went into dangerous waters, while others did not. I know about the work of the merchant seamen because I have suffered with them, and I know how tough it is, but I am not prepared to say that a man who did not put on a uniform, who did not sign up for a term of duty, who did not place himself in the position where he would have to go into a dangerous stiuation when he was so ordered, is in the same position as the veteran who wore the uniform. My hon. friend contends that he is. I am not even prepared to agree that the terms of reference to the veterans affairs committee extend to men who did not serve in uniform. The position of the merchant seaman has been well taken care of. He is not a man who was put out of his job when the war ended. There are more jobs for Canadian merchant seamen today than at any time during the war, and there will be more jobs five years hence, or at any rate three years hence, than there are today.
Seamanship is a trade like any other. My hon. friend might as well ask who was responsible for carpenters. The man responsible for carpenters, as far as the government is concerned, is the Minister of Labour, and the Minister of Labour is responsible for merchant seamen. The merchant seaman has a union which is well able to protect his interests, and he has the Minister of Labour to arbitrate in any differences he may have with the government.
It seems to me that we are wasting a great deal of sympathy to men well able to take care of themselves. The wages of merchant seamen have increased more as a result of the war than the wages in any other line that I know of. These men have kept all their wartime gains and bonuses and have had two or three substantial increases since the war ended. I would say that the merchant seamen of Canada are in an excellent position today and they have a future which few other tradesmen in this country can look forward to.


Howard Charles Green: I am amazed that a responsible minister of the crown would take an attitude like that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What is the other attitude? The poor downtrodden merchant seamen!


Howard Charles Green: Just sit still and listen.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have been listening for
weeks.


Howard Charles Green: Right from His Majesty down, responsible leaders of the democratic nations have taken the position that the men in the merchant navy were the fourth arm of the service, and quite properly so. The minister's own leader, the Prime Minister of this country, just two or three days ago, on Dominion day, praised them and treated them as though they were members of the armed service. Now the Minister of Reconstruction stands up in this house and says they were just the same as a carpenter working on land.


Lionel Chevrier: He did not say any such thing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not say anything of the kind. May I ask the hon. member not to carry his prejudices so far as to put words into my mouth?


Howard Charles Green: He said that they are not entitled to any special consideration. I would point out to him the fact that there were thousands of young men, and older men too, who went into the merchant navy to do their bit in the war.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.
Supply-Tra nspo rt


Howard Charles Green: They were not regular merchant seamen. They do not want to go back to sea now that the war is over. They went in there to do their bit. Perhaps they were not eligible physically to go into the army. They did a grand job. They suffered many casualties. 1 think the casualties in the Canadian merchant marine were heavier in proportion than those of all the other three arms of the service. If the minister talks for ten years, he cannot tell me that a merchant navy man who was crippled for life by falling on a ship in the blackout, say in Liverpool, is not entitled to any pension.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not trying to say that.


Howard Charles Green: That is the position the Canadian merchant seaman finds himself in today. He is not covered for that. He gets pension only where he suffered by reason of direct enemy action. In the same way a young lad from Vancouver not even waiting until he is eighteen-even at sixteen and seventeen they went into the merchant navy- gets a tropical disease. His health is ruined for life, and he can get no compensation under our present law. Nobody can tell me that is fair. Nobody can tell me it is fair that a young man who served in dangerous waters with the merchant navy has to pay his way through a Canadian university when a boy who served only in Canada in the army gets his way paid. Having listened to the minister, we have probably now got the reason that it is so hard to get justice for these men. The Canadian Legion welcomes them to membership on the same basis as a' member of the navy, the army or the air force. Without exception, the members of the veterans affairs committee treated them as though they were in the same category as men who served in any of the other forces.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Almost.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Fraser Valley will bear me out in that. There is not a member of the veterans affairs committee who will get up and deny that statement. We are trying to see that they get a fair deal. Apparently they fell between the two departments. the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Transport; and they are still falling between those two departments. We believe they have had a raw deal and we want to see that they get a fair deal. It does not matter what the Minister of Reconstruction says. In my opinion, he is wrong again, just as he has been wrong on many other occasions in the past few years.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Will my hon. friend tell me what country gives the type of treatment which he proposes? Does Britain or the United States give it?


Howard Charles Green: What is that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: What country gives to merchant seamen the same benefits as they give to their troops?


Howard Charles Green: I am not interested in what other countries do.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, evidently not


Howard Charles Green: We hear the Minister of Veterans Affairs-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Everybody is wrong but the hon. member for Vancouver South.


Howard Charles Green: Well, sometimes.


Lionel Chevrier: Quite often.


Howard Charles Green: This is one time when we are all right except the minister of reconstruction. We hear so much in this house about the benefits for the veterans being so fine in Canada, and their being better here than they are anywhere else in the world.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: They are still not good enough. There are many things still to be remedied with regard to benefits for Veterans. We cannot see why the merchant seamen should not be put in the same position. I warn the government that sooner or later it will have to be done; because if it is not forced on them by the opposition it will be forced on them from their own back benches. Sooner or later this thing must be faced. I would suggest that some thought be given to it in the interval between this session and the next one.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to say one word in reply to what the minister said. Apparently everyone except the merchant seamen got the O.B.E. or the M.B.E. All you had to do was to serve as a dollar-a-year man in Sore] or somewhere else, making a fortune, and you got the O.B.E. or something. I want to tell the minister that it is all poppycock to tell me that the salary we pay to merchant seamen is adequate compensation, and nobody knows it better than the minister; he himself was sunk in the middle of the Atlantic. The fact that we have done so much does not answer the question raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South. I am surprised, and I think some of the legionnaires will be surprised, that the membsrs of the veterans

Supply-T ransport
affairs committee from the various parts of Canada have not risen in this debate and mentioned what was said in that committee. We were deliberately side-tracked.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The committee was not deliberately side-tracked because I was there every day.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, no, the minister was not.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I shall not dispute my own minister.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member had
better not.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We could not get anywhere because we were told the matter was going to be raised under another branch. That is what we were told, and no member of the veterans affairs committee sitting in this house will dispute that. We were told it would be brought up under another department when we insisted that equal treatment be accorded members of the merchant marine. To tell me that they got extra pay is no answer. I want to tell the minister something [DOT] in connection with a man from my own battalion. I served with a good battalion in the first great war. In that battalion there was a man named Conley. I hope he does not mind my mentioning his name. He was an Irishman who served in the 29th battalion in the first great war. was wounded and contracted tuberculosis in this war while he served in the merchant marine. He is suffering now in IVanquille and can get no proper benefits.
I am told that he was getting extra pay for working down in the stokehole where he might get sunk any day. I want to tell the minister and my other military friends-and I have many of them-that it is all poppycock to talk about extra pay being paid these men for serving down in the stokehole, when they might be sunk at any moment, and to say that they are not entitled to all the benefits enjoyed by members of the force.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will the hon. member be kind enough to give me the name of that case privately because it cannot be true, and it is not true?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have given it publicly. I do not know why I should hesitate to give it privately. The name is Patrick Conley of the 29th battalion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If he has overseas service, he is getting treatment.


Howard Charles Green: There is no law to cover a case like that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, there is.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I want this to be borne in mind. I should not like to see this man suffer one iota from my mentioning his name.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask my hon. friend if I can get the name from him privately ? If so, I will give a public answer in the house tomorrow in regard to that case to prove that what he says is not true.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He gave the name publicly.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He did not.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He did.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If this man suffers one iota as a result of my mentioning his name, his condition, and the way he has been treated, I shall be very sorry. And the minister tells me that they get extra pay-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I never told you that.


George Alexander Cruickshank: *-in the merchant marine. I feel bitter about that merchant marine. I think they got a dirty deal.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I absolutely resent that remark. It is not true. It is a falsification of the facts. They did not get a dirty deal. They got a very generous deal in Canada.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Vancouver South or the hon. member for Vancouver East made me retract one time. I think that is hardly parliamentary.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I should not like this debate to conclude without saying a word; and if my intrusion is resented by the last speaker, perhaps he will realize that more than anyone else he invited it, in spite of the fact that the other day in the committee he told me I talked too much. There can be no doubt that in the veterans affairs committee of last year consideration of the claims of the merchant seamen were set aside from our deliberations because the committee understood that the whole question of merchant seamen, excluding the civil service preference which was within a different department, was being considered by the Department of Transport. We were not told that the transport department was going to provide benefits paralleling the veterans benefits, but our understanding clearly was that certain benefits were being considered for merchant seamen and that our committee, which was to deal strictly with veterans' matters, should await the decision on that legislation before entering into the discussion.
Supply-Transport

I have forgotten the date, but I believe it was about February 12 when a sub-committee of the veterans affairs committee was set up, of which I had the honour to be chairman, and we were asked to consider such benefits accruing to Canadian veterans of the last war as might be applied to those who had served in a civilian capacity during the war, and the extent to which our committee would be prepared to recommend that these veterans benefits be extended. At that time the terms of reference to the sub-committee expressly excluded from our consideration the large question of the merchant seamen, and that sub-committee did not report on merchant seamen except with respect to those benefits, limited in number and chiefly with respect to pensions and other benefits which would accrue to merchant seamen who had become pensionable through being injured in action or in evasive action, which had already been announced.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Fourteen in all.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I do not remember the
number, but subsequently they were extended and I am told they now number fourteen. It is not correct to say, as was said in the house some time ago, that the veterans affairs committee expected that transport would deal with the question, for instance, which was up a little while ago; that is, the matter of the veterans preference. It was realized then that this would have to be part of the larger picture, on which the committee did not make a recommendation last year; and I presume, in fact I know, it will be a part of that larger picture when these things come up again. But in my view it is not fair to say, as was said here tonight, that the committee was misled, that the committee was told the merchant seamen were being taken care of and, by implication, that we in the veterans affairs committee did not need to make a recommendation. Quite frankly, I do not think a suggestion of that kind would have been swallowed by that committee or by any member of it.
The record is clear. The statement in that regard, if I remember rightly, was made by the chairman of that committee, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who told us quite frankly that the matter was under consideration by the Department of Transport as to what benefits were to be given, and by implication I think we all understood that, should our committee feel the recommendations of the Department of Transport did not adequately meet the case-and certainly many members of the committee now feel that they do not meet the case-we would have an opportunity of

considering them specifically. That, I think, is an honest and fair picture of what took place then. When the committee Tose after some fifty-one sittings, and I do not know how many sub-committee meetings, there was still no definite programme before the committee from the transport department with respect to merchant seamen; and I think in the mind of every member of the committee the situation with respect to merchant seamen and such war benefits as should accrue to them was and is unfinished business.


Lionel Chevrier: I feel I should say just one word, and I would not do so but for what was stated a moment ago. I do not want to repeat, but this matter has been gone over frequently this session; I think this is the third debate we have had thus far on merchant seamen. I am sorry it has to take place, but I feel that I should place the position of the Department of Transport clearly before the committee once more, for the third time. I, as minister, certainly had no understanding as to what was being done by the committee on veterans affairs, nor did I or my officers have any such understanding as was stated here. I have to repeat that statement in fairness to the officers of my department. I did have in mind bringing down a bill, which I brought down later, concerning compensation to merchant seamen. That was in the nature of workmen's compensation, for injuries arising out of the nature of the occupation.


Howard Charles Green: And only post-war.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, beginning in 1945.
That was the only thing I had in mind. Over and above that was the question of unemployment insurance to merchant seamen. There was the matter of vocational training for merchant seamen in their own calling, and there was one other matter which slips my mind at the moment. Those were the things for which I was responsible, which I brought before this house and which received the approval of the house. Beyond that I know nothing of what took place in the veterans affairs committee. So I wonder if we could not get along with these estimates and particularly with this item. We have had three or four debates on it this session.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The Minister of Veterans Affairs has said that he attended the meetings of the committee quite regularly. In order to end this debate, since we are now discussing the Department of Transport, if ini his opinion the merchant seamen are not receiving fair treatment, why does he not, as Minister of Veterans Affairs, get up in the house and

Supply-Transport
briefly express his opinion, and say he will try to work on his colleague the Minister of Transport to see that the merchant seamen are looked after as in his opinion, speaking as a veteran, they should be looked after.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to accept an undeserved rebuke from an hon. member who is sadly misinformed about this whole situation. I have been working on this problem for thirty long years; I have given my whole life to it. I know the problem of the merchant seamen; I know what England has done for them; I know what Canada has done for them; and if my hon. friend knew the facts he would be proud of what Canada has done for them in comparison with any other country in the world. If he is trying to dragoon or bludgeon me into any admission of failure he is talking to the wrong man, I can tell him. I will have the policy outlined as the government may determine that policy. That is the Liberal doctrine. The Tories might have one minister declare a policy for himself, but not the Liberal government; because we are a collective agency of democratic independence. Our policy is prepared by our spokesmen for the party, and by those policies we stand always.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Did I understand the minister to say this is the Liberal doctrine and the Liberal way of carrying out these matters? He has not yet stated his personal opinion as a veteran, as to whether he thinks this is fair treatment. That is a precise question, which should receive a precise answer.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What did the Tory government do for them after the first war?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They sent them to slave camps.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I can speak as one who had over four years of service-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I tell my hon. friend that our record in regard to the veterans will far outshine anything the Tories ever did for them.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: As a veteran of four and a half years of service in the first war, I can say I believe I received everything I was entitled to. I did not fight in the hope of getting a pension. I considered it a privilege to fight for my country. I tried to do it again in this war, even going so far as to dye my hair.


Mr. WARREN:: Answer the question.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I will answer it. I think the Tory party gave the veterans all they were entitled to. We did not try to buy votes one way or the other.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You did not get them, anyway.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Is the past going to run the country? You say the Tory party never did anything. Is that any reason why you should do nothing?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You never did anything for the merchant seamen in all your existence.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You say we did nothing, and neither will you. Is that your answer?


Thomas Langton Church: We had a large number of members of the air force, the army and navy in our city during the war. This item 585 covers the director of merchant seamen. There is an item of $70,000 a year to extend for eight years, or a total of $560,000 for lifesaving. Why should the city of Toronto go all over the great lakes to do the work of the Department of Transport? There are no lifesaving stations on the great lakes on the Canadian side. I asked the minister on his main estimates what they proposed to do about setting up a national life-saving system on the great lakes. All the money for this purpose is spent on the gulf and on the oceans. Will the minister make a reply before the transport items are finished?


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. gentleman's question is not within the scope of this item, but I shall give him the information he wants. On the main estimates he asked what lifesaving equipment and appliances we had on the great lakes. There are on the great lakes between Kingston and the Canadian-United States border near Fort William, 426 light stations, fog-alarm plants and light and signal buoys and, in addition thereto, there are approximately 1,100 unlighted buoys, beacons, et cetera. Also, there are seven ship to shore radio telegraph and telephone stations to provide constant 24-hour communication with ships on all the great lakes. These stations regularly broadcast weather forecasts, storm warnings and notices of dangers to navigation. There are also fifteen automatic radio beacons from which ships take their bearings by radio. Over and above that, a number of ships are equipped with special appliances such as radar equipment, which is of great assistance in combating weather conditions.
Supply-Transport


Thomas Langton Church: When a ship on the Canadian side is in trouble it must sound its siren and wait for the United States life-saving station to send out help.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-
Marine service-
587. Nautical service, $106,450.
Howard Charles Green: Part of this vote is to cover the repatriation of Canadian merchant seamen prisoners of war. Some of these merchant seamen who were prisoners have been brought back by the Canadian government and charged their fares.


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed by the director who is here that there are none. If my hon. friend has any cases I wish he would give them to me.


Howard Charles Green: I have a case right here which I will place before the minister privately, in which a man was charged $423.38 repatriation expenses.


Lionel Chevrier: If the hon. member will give me the particulars I will look into the matter. I am sure there must be some error.


Howard Charles Green: All these men were brought back by the government?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: And they are not supposed to be charged for their repatriation?


Lionel Chevrier: Not if they come under the description of a merchant seaman prisoner of war.


Howard Charles Green: How wide is that description?


Lionel Chevrier: It covers the personnel of Canadian ships and Canadian seamen on other ships as well.


Howard Charles Green: Would it apply to a Canadian who served on an allied ship?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. If the hon. member will send over the case I shall be glad to look into it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-
Railway and steamship service-
590. Steep Rock mines-construction, $50,060.
Angus MacInnis: How much has been paid under this item altogether?


Lionel Chevrier: 


Angus MacInnis: Can the minister give the same information for the next item?


Lionel Chevrier: 

,|Mr. Chevrier.]


John Ritchie MacNicol: On my return from Steep Rock, I was informed that they were held up because of a lack of cars, and I should like to know if this company is now able to get all the cars it requires to send out its ore?


Lionel Chevrier: They are not able to get all the cars they require, but they are in a better position than they have been at any time because of the cars they have on lease and1 the new cars that are being purchased by the Canadian National Railways.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-
Government employees' compensation-
592. Administration, $24,000.
Mr. JAQUES:: I want to bring to the minister's notice the unsatisfactory train service on the Canadian National Railways between Calgary and Edmonton. 1 had occasion to bring this to his notice last session and I believe it was referred to the railway board. At that time I compared the service on the Canadian National with that on the Canadian Pacific. On the Canadian Pacific they have three trains each way each day and, besides, there is a paved highway and a good bus service. On the Canadian National there is one train south one day and then the train goes north the next, so that they get a train every other day. There is no paved highway and no bus service. My constituents feel that they are entitled to at least one train a day in each direction, which is what they used to have before the war. This was discontinued, and they feel there should be at least one train a day each way. I might give an instance. If a person wanted to go to Edlmonton for some function on Saturday evening he would have to start on Thursday afternoon and he could not get back to Mirror until Monday afternoon. I trust that the minister will take that into consideration.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. If I might take one moment to reply to my hon. friend, it is true, as he says, that the service on the Canadian Pacific is excellent and that there is a difference between their service and that on the Canadian National, the reason being that the Canadian National railway between Edmonton and Calgary has a mileage of 232, as opposed to 194 for the Canadian Pacific, and the population along the Canadian National line is much smaller than along the Canadian Pacific and the traffic much lighter. Those are the reasons for the difference in service. I drew the situation to which the hon. member refers to the attention of the management of the Canadian National rail-

Private Bills
ways. I wrote him at some length on it, but in view of my hon. friend's added representations I shall be glad to take the matter up with them again.


Norman Jaques: We do not expect a service similar to that on the Canadian Pacific railway because they have three trains each way each day. All we ask is one train each way each day.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, July 8, 1947