OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
EDMOND CLOUTIER, C.M.G., B.A., L.Ph., PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJES'IY CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY 1948
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 15, 1948


[Stage Direction]
"evening telegram"
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. Yesterday in the house I asked the following question about 'the embargo on Canadian cattle to the United States-and I may say that the question has been on the order paper since Tuesday, June 8:
1.	Has any action been taken as announced by the Minister of Agriculture last week in south Ontario that the cattle embargo is soon to be removed to allow Canadian cattle to enter the United States?
2.	If so, will such action increase the cost of meat to citizens for home consumption in Canada?
3.	Has any action been taken by order in council?
The answer I received yesterday was as follows:
Mr. McCubbin:
1. No action yet taken.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.
I wish to call the attention of the house to a garbled report of this question and answer on a serious problem which appeared in the Toronto Evening Telegram of yesterday, June 14. Several members of the house asked a similar question on the orders of the day yesterday. I should like a correction to be made in the record accordingly.



DIPLOMATIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannuation Act, to provide for the return to a public official or his widow, under certain circumstances, contributions made under such act; to give a right to a public official to elect not to become a contributor under the act and to 5849-332
provide that withdrawal allowances and gratuities shall be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund.
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.
Motion agreed .to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. LENNARD (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when question No. 14 on yesterday's order paper, standing in the name of the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Hatfield), was called, I requested in his absence that the question stand, but it has been dropped. I ask that it be reinstated.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have noted the remarks made by the hon. gentleman.



COST OF LIVING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the government whether it would welcome a report from the prices committee, and if so, and the committee brought in a report, whether the government would set aside ample time for its discussion. The Minister of Finance in reply said that he would draw the question to the attention of the leader of the house. Is the Prime Minister in a position to make a statement now?
Right Hon.  W. L. MACKENZIE ICING@Prime Minister: I would say to my hon. friend that as to the time to be allotted to particular measures I think we should seek to accommodate each other, but I do not wish to make too many commitments in advance. A good deal will depend upon the progress we make in expediting the business of the house. I do not wish to make any commitments without regard to all sides of the situation, so far as these can be ascertained.
5222	COMMONS
Birthday Congratulations to Dr. Beauchesne



THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the house that today is the birthday of our Clerk, Doctor Beauchesne, who has been in office for a longer term than any other clerk in any .parliament in the British empire. He is modest and unassuming. He is the light that shines behind the Chair. He is popular with all the members, and I am sure that my colleagues will join with me in wishing him a happy birthday and all sorts of good things on this day when he became seventy-two years young.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Clerk of the House will appreciate, from the applause which greeted the remarks of my hon. friend, that, we are all pleased to have this opportunity of extending best wishes to him on his birthday anniversary and wishing him very many happy returns of the day.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition) :: Mr. Speaker, this is one time when I think all sides of the house can follow the lead of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot); I am sorry that we cannot do it more often. May I, on behalf of my colleagues, join with those who have spoken in extending to the Clerk of the House our congratulations, our best wishes, and our hope that he may continue in his present office for many years to come.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I am very glad to be able to associate the members of this group with other hon. members in congratulations to the Clerk of the House and in the good wishes which have been extended to him.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, there has developed among men in our time a sort of notion that men lose their efficiency after they get to be about forty years of age. I rejoice that our Clerk, Doctor Beauchesne, has proved by a splendid example that this notion is completely fallacious. My impression is that Doctor Beauchesne has grown more efficient with the years. I am happy to be able to associate the Social Credit group with the good wishes that have been extended to him. I feel disposed to put into his mouth certain words of Browning in this connection. They are:
Grow old along with me!
The best is yet to be,
The last of life, for which the first was made.



TRANSPORT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Railway Act, the Exchequer Court Act and the Judges Act, 1946, to authorize a judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada to hold the office of chief commissioner of the Board of Transport iCommissioners for Canada at a salary of fifteen thousand dollars per annum less any salary received by him as a judge of the exchequer court; and to provide further that the exchequer court shall consist of the president and four puisne judges (in lieu of three), the salary of the puisne judges being twelve thousand dollars per annum.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Thomas Langton Church: I should like to ask the minister a few questions on this amendment to the Judges Act, the Railway Act and the Exchequer Court Act. Does it interfere with the sittings of board of transport commissioners to be held in the Toronto city hall a week from today, at ten o'clock, to hear the application in connection with the Jones avenue crossing, described b3' a former commissioner as one of the most dangerous in Canada, the accident which took place on Sunday, and many other matters?
I notice that the exchequer court is to be increased to five judges, one of whom is to preside over the board of transport commissioners in the place of the present chief commissioner. I want to find out if the cases before this court are to be conducted from the exchequer court point of view. For example, some men with no experience have been appointed to this court. I understand that drastic changes are being proposed in the present Railway Act and in the Judges Act. The Judges Act should have been revised by a legal committee long ago. It is very largely obsolete.
With regard to the exchequer court, I am surprised at some of its recent decisions, and I do not see how the country is going to stand some of them. We have had several matters in our city concerning level crossings, serious accidents, and so on. People have been killed but we cannot get a hearing. The Railway Act sets out the powers, the functions hnd the duties of the board of railway commissioners, now called the board of transport commissioners. A valuable report and survey on railways was made in 1917 setting out what the functions of the transport board should be. There should be

Board oj Transport Commissioners
no more political rate structures in this country. The report of the royal commission of 1917 said that any such proposals should be submitted to the board of transport commissioners. Yesterday we had a discussion on the Canadian National Railways. If you ask me, this is another measure bringing closer the time when there will be no regulation whatever of the steam railways in this country. If this is the only measure of the kind that we are to have during the present session, we shall have no regulation of the steam roads in this country, particularly if we permit a political rate structure to be made by changes in three statutes. If that comes about we shall have one province against another. If that is done you might just as well abolish the board of transport commissioners.
I only hope that the action being taken now will not prevent the present board from presiding over the cases to be heard a week from today in Toronto. In the accident which took place last Sunday, four freight cars might have fallen on top of streetcars, and might have produced pain and suffering and loss. If we create a board of four judges for this exchequer court I do not see how they are going to carry out their duties. Here we are at the 106th day of the session. The rate structure has been before the country for over a year. We are now changing the whole set-up of the board at this late date in the session. All we are doing now is to provide that, in the future, railway rates shall be left very largely to political influence. We shall have a political rate structure. Under the present Railway Act the onus is on the government of the day so long as they are the government of the day, because if the rate structure proposed by the transport board two or three months ago was wrong, there is the right of appeal by the seven provinces to the governor in council.
I fail to see the necessity for the appointment of a judge of the exchequer court as head of the board of transport commissioners. If that is done he will not have any time to attend to his duties on the exchequer court. If you ask me, the present exchequer court, with its travelling expenses around the country, is just spending money like water.
These are my objections to the measure. [DOT] In my opinion the present minister, who is the attorney general, has done a great deal of good work since he has been Minister of Justice and Attorney General. I exempt him from any criticism when I deal with this proposed measure. I am sorry to see that at this 5849-332J
late date changes are being made in all these acts. 'It is not in the public interest that it should be done, either now or in the future.


Mr. FLEMING:: There are some views I should like to express on this resolution. Is it the intention of the minister to make an explanatory statement now? If so, I shall be glad to wait until he has done so.
Mr. ILSiLEY: Yes, I will make a statement. I hoped that the resolution would pass and that the discussion would take place on the bill, but I am quite prepared to make a brief statement on the resolution.
As the Prime Minister announced to the house a few days ago, a change is being made, in the acts referred to in the resolution, as the result of the prospective early retirement of the present chairman of the board of transport commissioners. The work of the board of transport commissioners will be extremely important for some time to come. A reference of large dimensions has been made to the board with respect to equalization of freight rates in 'Canada and possible changes in the freight rate structure. The position of chief commissioner of the board of transport commissioners will be of very great importance.
In surveying the scene, we thought that Mr. Justice Archibald, who is a judge of the supreme court of Nova Scotia, had in large measure the qualifications for chief commissioner. He was chairman of the national war labour board for some years during the war, and discharged his duties there with great acceptability to the public. He has a capacity for hard work, and he has the judicial temperament. It is unreasonable to ask a judge of one of the superior courts to resign his position and become the head of the board of transport commissioners, forfeiting as he would, in the absence of some change in the legislation, important pension privileges as well as life tenure of office. To overcome these difficulties we thought it would be appropriate to provide for the appointment of Mr. Justice Archibald to the Exchequer Court of Canada. His tenure of office is shortened somewhat. The limit there is seventy-five years of age, as against life tenure in the superior courts. That, however, is perhaps not a serious feature from the standpoint of the judge who is appointed, but his appointment to the Exchequer Court of Canada enables him to retain his present pension privileges, which I think he should be allowed to retain if he is to assume the arduous duties of this important position.
The salary of $15,000 for the position is not excessive when the salaries of comparable positions, indeed of some less important positions,

Board of Transport Commissioners
are considered. We think that the salary is completely justified.
The effect of this legislation is that the ten-year tenure of office on the board of transport commissioners remains unchanged. Mr. Justice Archibald will become chief commissioner of the board, but only for a ten-year period. He will be eligible for reappointment at the end of that ten-year period, but whether or not he is reappointed is a matter for the future to disclose. If he ceases to be chief commissioner at the end of this period, he takes up his duties as a judge of the exchequer court.
The position he is taking as chief commissioner of the board of transport commissioners is almost wholly a judicial one, and I cannot imagine anything in the duties of the position that would unfit- him for the discharge of his duties as an exchequer court judge at the end of his tenure of office as chief commissioner. Indeed, there is much in the experience which a commissioner gains on the transport board that would be of benefit to him in the Exchequer Court of Canada. Of necessity he must travel all over the country; he is dealing judicially with a large number of transactions which affect the financial or economic interests of people in all parts of Canada, and the work seems to be to some extent along the line of the work of a judge of the exchequer court.
The more the idea was explored, the more unobjectionable this solution seemed to be. It seemed to answer the question. It means that there will be one more exchequer court judge. If the work of the exchequer court continues to increase, it may very well be that in any event there ought to be another exchequer court judge. A great,many cases are in arrears in the exchequer court at the present time. That situation, however, is not being met by this appointment, because Mr. Justice Archibald will devote his whole time to his duties as chief commissioner during his occupancy of that office.
iMr. KNOWLES: And if he goes back to the exchequer court, another judge will come to this position.


Mr. ILSLEY:: If he goes back to the exchequer court we have to obtain the services of another exchequer court judge as head of the transport board. We keep the office of head of the transport board on the level of an exchequer court judge instead of, as now, on a somewhat different level. The qualifications are high. At the present time no one can be appointed chief commissioner unless he has had ten years' experience at the bar of Canada. He may, at the moment, be a judge, but he cannot continue in that capacity. This legislation enables him to continue to be a judge.

What this legislation does is to make it possible to get a competent judge to assume these duties, and this would be practically impossible under the existing legislation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The proposal made by this resolution has all the earmarks of legislation intended to meet a particular case, to make it possible to induce Mr. Justice Archibald to accept the appointment of chief commissioner. That, according to the proposal of the Minister of Justice, will involve the amendment of no fewer than three statutes. When we start amending general statutes to meet particular cases I submit we are short-sighted. Situations may arise that we may later regret.
It is a matter of regret that the government saw fit to announce the intended appointment before parliament has even opened up the way by enactment of legislation to make the appointment possible. Announcements of that kind may prejudice discussion. Under such circumstances no one wishes to say anything that might seem to suggest lack of confidence in the proposed appointment. So far as Mr. Justice Archibald is concerned, what I have to say about this measure is said without the slightest reflection upon him or upon his fitness for the important position of chief commissioner. But there are several aspects of the matter that make me feel that the expedient proposed by the Minister of Justice is not a sound one. It will involve the creation of a number of anomalies. Within the board itself, it means that appointment to the office of chief commissioner is to be restricted to selection from the panel of judges in the exchequer court. To that extent it represents a considerable narrowing of the field from which future chief commissioners may be selected, and I think it is unwise to confine the field within such proportions. The time may come when there will not be on the panel of the exchequer court a judge who has the qualifications required to discharge the functions of chief commissioner, and I think it is a mistake for us now to enact legislation that will have the effect of narrowing so greatly the field of choice.
Another anomaly which will be created has to do with the relative status of members of the transport board. At the present time the terms are uniform, ten years. The Minister of Justice has indicated that the appointment of chief commissioner will continue to be for a ten-year period. Nevertheless this legislation will result in discrimination among the different members of the board. It proposes that the chief commissioner shall have life tenure as a judge. As a judge he has security to which he can always return at the conclusion of his ten-year term as chief commissioner

Board of Transport Commissioners
This procedure is not open to the other commissioners. I do not see why that discrimination should be practised within the board of transport commissioners. The ten-year term, on the whole, has worked satisfactorily now for forty years and more.
In the office of the chief commissioner of the railway board, or the transport board as it is now called, this country has enjoyed the benefit of the services of some very distinguished men. Some of the jurisprudence of the board has been laid down in the past by chief commissioners who were giants in stature. Not so many years ago a distinguished statesman of this country said that the position of chief commissioner of the board of railway commissioners, as it was then, was the most important and most powerful position in Canada outside the government itself.
A third anomaly is to be created by this legislation. It is an anomaly within the exchequer court itself. There is to be on the panel of judges of the exchequer court a member who is in the court but not of the court. He is to be on a different salary from that received by the judges of the court. Under this measure he is being appointed not for the purpose of taking his place on the exchequer court, but simply to qualify under the new legislation for appointment as chief commissioner. With all respect, I do not think that is the proper way to treat the exchequer court. If there is need of more judges to carry on the business of that court, they should be appointed for that purpose. But why should we resort to this device of appointing an additional member of the court who is never expected to sit in the court? There is no suggestion that he should sit in the court. As a matter of fact his duties as chief commissioner will occupy his time fully and will keep him extremely busy. We have this curious situation, in which the chief commissioner will be a member of the exchequer court, will never sit in the court, and yet will draw a higher salary than is received by the other members of the exchequer court who are discharging exclusively their duties as exchequer court judges.
I do not think that the device proposed by the Minister of Justice to take care of the present situation in order to open the way for the appointment of Mr. Justice Archibald as chief commissioner is a sound one. The minister ought to find some other way of inducing Mr. Justice Archibald, if he is to be the new commissioner, to accept this appointment. I submit that he certainly should not now bring in amendments to no fewer than three statutes, which amendments will introduce anomalies into each of them. That is a short-sighted method of accomplishing the end that the government has in mind.
I recall that we had a comparable situation not long ago when a member of the supreme court of Saskatchewan was appointed to the diplomatic service and, although not discharging his judicial functions, for some years held a diplomatic office. An amendment was proposed to the Judges Act to effect this result. If the present situation is unique and so unusual that it is proposed to amend no fewer than three statutes, the case certainly should be reviewed and some other method devised. If we are to treat the statutes of parliament in this way; if we are to assume that they are open to frequent amendments to meet the exigencies of particular cases, I suggest that we are embarking on an entirely wrong course.
I repeat that in what I have said there is no intention to make the slightest reflection upon the suitability of Mr. Justice Archibald for appointment as chief commissioner. What I am criticizing is the method to which the government is resorting for the purpose of offering Mr. Justice Archibald sufficient inducement to accept this important office. I suggest to the minister that some other method be found in order to provide that inducement; and I suggest that the method adopted should not be one which seeks to introduce amendments to three general statutes in order to meet the exigencies of a particular case.


Mr. HANSELL:: I rise, Mr. Chairman, not particularly to discuss the legal aspects of the resolution, because I see in it something for the constitutional lawyers to fight about, and I am not a constitutional lawyer. At the moment I wish to discuss what I believe to be a vital principle involved in the manner in which the resolution has been introduced. I refer to the fact that when the Prime Minister the other day made his announcement that certain changes were to be made, he announced as well the resignation of the present chairman of the board of transport commissioners and the acceptance of the position by Mr. Justice Archibald. This procedure appears to me to be a direct flouting of the principles of parliamentary government. I do not know whether hon. members will see the principle in the same light as I do. But when the Prime Minister stated that it was the intention of the government to bring down this legislation, he announced that Colonel Cross, the chairman of the board, had resigned, and that Mr. Justice Archibald had been approached and asked if he would accept the office of chairman of the newly-constituted transport board.
5226	COMMONS
Board of Transport Commissioners
Why is it that the Prime Minister announced the legislation, the resignation, and the appointment before he knew whether or not the legislation would be acceptable to this parliament? I know, of course, the answer may be that that is the way of constitutional government works. Well, if that is the way our constitutional government works, it does not work properly. It is a negation of parliamentary democracy. The Prime Minister over and over again has been an exponent of what he has termed our free institutions, the institution of a free parliament. But his actions seem to belie his words. The Good Book says, "Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth"; the Prime Minister, however, must be reading from some modern version that I have not yet read. He believes in not letting what you say know what you have already done.
I have watched this trend over the years, particularly since I have been sitting in this house. It seems to me that there has been a steady move to push parliament into the position of a rubber stamp. We do not like that. I had not been sitting here more than a couple of years when one of my colleagues said to me, "What is the use? We cannot do anything here". It would appear that we cannot, that everything is cut and dried. The Prime Minister comes along and says, "Now boys, this is what we have done; legislation will be introduced so that you can verify it". So we meet down here and our machine politics are of such a nature that men vote as yes men. That is about the situation.
I rise simpliy to object on principle. I am not objecting to the reconstitution of the board. I think the government has thought the matter pretty well through, and I am not objecting on those grounds. But the Prime Minister did not even have, shall I say, the courtesy to introduce the measure without saying anything about resignations or appointments. What he should have done was to let parliament approve this and then seek to fill the appointments. He may have had in the back of his mind the person he wanted to do the job; he may have had everything arranged, but the way this has been done was simply a negation of democracy and the flouting of our free parliamentary institutions.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Mr. Chairman, no doubt when the Minister of Justice replies to the hon. member for Macleod he will point out that when the Prime Minister made his statement on June 8 he merely said that the government intended to accept Colonel Cross' resignation after this legislation had been passed, and that it was merely the intention,

subsequent to the enactment of this legislation, to appoint Mr. Justice Archibald to the exchequer court and then as chief commissioner of the board of transport commissioners.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Is that mind reading, or is the hon. member the minister's parliamentary assistant?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think my hon. friend realizes that that is precisely the sort of reply the Minister of Justice would make. He might also point out that if the Prime Minister had not made this announcement in advance, hon. members on this side would probably be questioning the government now as to what their intentions were.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Hear, hear; that is certainly true.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is probably true. I might be one of those who would be asking what those intentions were. But even with the best face that can be put on the course the government has taken, which is what I have tried to give, I think there is merit in the objections which have been put by the hon. member for Macleod. If this happened only once, the objection might seem technical, but the hon. member for Macleod is right; we go through session after session feeling that we are called upon just to rubber-stamp decisions made in advance and announced in advance by the government.
I shall not rehash the other instance we had this session, or the instances in previous sessions, because they are vivid in the memories of hon. members. But I do think that the Minister of Justice and the other ministers should not simply be offended by the remarks that have been made by the hon. member for Macleod. Rather, out of the interest which I am sure they have in parliamentary democracy they should think these matters over a little more carefully.
The Minister of Justice said "hear, hear," to a remark I made a moment ago. I suggest that what I referred to at that moment would have been a better course than the course that has been followed. At least the announcement of the government's intentions might have waited until we had the bill before us, until private members were asking the government how it intended to implement the proposed legislation.
This may seem of small importance to ministers who have been in power for a long time, but it looms large in the experience of those of us who are private members and also in the thinking of Canadian people generally. I am trying to keep my voice moderate about this.
I have tried to indicate, to such an extent .that

Board oj Transport Commissioners
the hon. member for Lake Centre thought I was on the other side of the question, that there is some argument on the other side. I ask the government to recognize that we still have parliamentary democracy, and that more attention should be paid to the rights, and the courtesies, if you will, due to private members in this house.
I should like to make a comment on the substance of the legislation. I do not share the objection that is sometimes made to the use of judges for functions other than those restricted to the court room. I believe there is something to be said for the use of men holding the objective position that judges hold in handling matters which are outside of our courts and quasi-judicial. Organized labour is most grateful for the contribution that has been made to the building up of labour jurisprudence through the use of judges in that field. I believe there is merit in the government's suggestion that the matter of freight rates is so close to being judicial that it would be a good idea to have a judge as chairman of that board.
I felt that the best that could be said for the minister's presentation of the case this morning was to note his frankness in admitting that this legislation is an arrangement to make it possible to get a judge for this position.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the minister is trying to steal the thunder of some of the opposition. Perhaps the minister was afraid that somebody would call it a device, but at any rate he stated frankly that the purpose of this legislation was to make it possible to induce a judge to leave the bench and take on this job, which is limited to a period of ten years. The device is ingenious and novel, but there is one suggestion I should like to make to the minister. Having admitted, first of all, that is was a special arrangement, the minister then said that it seemed to the government that there was a relationship between the duties of the exchequer court and the duties of the board of transport commissioners. I gathered the minister felt that a judge who had had exchequer court experience would be better qualified for this work than judges of other courts. It may be that under present circumstances Mr. Justice Archibald strikes the government as the man best suited for the position. But in future-and I should hope this might be incorporated in the legislation-if the basis of this legislation is that there is some relationship between exchequer court work and the work of the board of transport commissioners, should it not be arranged that the chairman of that board be chosen from among the judges
of the exchequer court who have had some experience in that court?
As the legislation now stands the door is left open for the hon. member for Eglinton to make the kind of remarks he did make this morning, that the proposed bill permits the appointment of a judge from some other court to the exchequer court for the express purpose of going immediately to the chairmanship of the board of transport commissioners. I wonder if the minister gave any thought to the suggestion that the choice be made from among those who have first served two, three or five years, if you will, in the exchequer court. That, I believe, would remove some of the element of this being a device, and would carry out the suggestion the minister made, namely, that there is ,a relationship between the kind of work dealt with in the exchequer court and the work done here. I say the idea itself seems to have merit but, the minister himself having admitted that it is an arrangement, perhaps he would consider this latter point a little further.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: I rise not for the purpose of making a speech on behalf of the Minister of Justice, but to make one or two comments as to what was said by the hon. member for Macleod, as well as one or two on my own behalf.
It seems to me that however good an answer there may be, in the actual words used by the Prime Minister, to the criticism made by the hon. member for Macleod, in substance it is sound and just. It seems to me that we are choosing the very worst time to lessen the dignity and authority of parliamentary institutions, and by that I mean a time when people, from our point of view wicked people, are trying in almost every way to undermine them.
I shall not labour the point. But I repeat what has been said so often, that it seems inevitable that when people have held power many years, certain things happen to them. Apparently they find it impossible to act in the way they would have acted when power was not so important to them. In some ways they become above themselves.
The other thing I wish to say is this. It seems to me there is an incidental disadvantage in what has been done in that we have the name of a certain gentleman announced as the person who is to be appointed if this legislation is passed. Therefore we cannot discuss the matter in as detached a manner, on its merits, as we should be able to do; because we already have the name of that man injected into the situation.

Board oj Transport Commissioners
I am not going to say anything more about the principle of the use of judges. In my view there is much to be said against it; obviously there is much to be said for it; therefore I shall not take the time of the committee in a discussion of that point. I would say however that I believe in substance what the hon. member for Macleod said is true; and the Minister of Justice, who in this House of Commons has acquired a reputation for sincerity and a readiness to speak his own mind, should state his position clearly. I shall be interested to hear what he has to say.


Mr. FULTON:: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that in acting this way we are setting what may turn out to be an unfortunate precedent from which we can escape only by another amendment to the act at a later time. If the chairman of the board of transport commissioners is appointed in this manner, as a judge of the exchequer court, then in ten years time, when his term of office as chairman is completed, we shall have to add another judge to the exchequer court in order to find a new chairman for the board; and so we shall have to go on adding to the number of judges on the court. The deaths of judges already serving may not coincide with the expiration of terms of office of chairmen of the board. In my view it is undesirable to narrow the choice of persons to fill the office by requiring that they must be suitable for and in fact appointed to the Exchequer Court of Canada before they can be chairman of the board.
It seems to me this is too much like writing legislation to suit the personality or qualifications of one individual the government may have in mind to appoint to a certain position. It is a dangerous trend to follow, and a dangerous principle to introduce. In addition we are narrowing too much the freedom of choosing suitable persons to be chairmen of the board in the future.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know how long the committee would like to carry on this discussion, but I should like to say something about the charge that this method of procedure undermines parliamentary institutions.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out, the Prime Minister was correct in the position he took at the time of his announcement to the house. Colonel Cross' resignation is not to take effect unless this measure passes. Mr. Justice Archibald is still a judge of the supreme court of Nova Scotia, and will not resign from that court until this measure passes. He will not be appointed as chief commissioner of the board, or to the Exchequer Court of Canada, unless this measure passes. This was all made clear.

The house has the matter in its own hands. I think it would be a pity if this proposed legislation were defeated. I do not think it will be; but parliament has it in its power to defeat it.
No action has been taken by the government except to make the necessary arrangements with Colonel Cross and Mr. Justice Archibald. If we had brought this legislation before the house without any reference to what are called personalities, without any reference to names or persons, the air would have been filled with rumours, and the newspapers would have been full of guesses as to what we were trying to do. The present chairman of the board would have been placed in an invidious position, as would also the appointee. We would have heard many appeals in the house asking the government to be frank, and to tell the House of Commons what its intentions were and what it- was trying to do. We would have been obliged to do it. This was one arrangement which had to be announced clearly, fully and frankly in advance. I could not come before the house and suggest this legislation without showing what we were attempting to do.
My justification for the proposal I can put on narrow and clear ground. The present Railway Act provides that a judge may be appointed as a member of the board of transport commissioners. This legislation makes it possible for us to get a judge. Without some legislation of the kind it would be impossible for us to do so. At a time when salary ranges were altogether different and the relationship between them was different, this was not so. But today it is unreasonable to expect a superior court judge to abandon a position in which he has life tenure, to abandon all his pension privileges for himself and his wife, to accept a position with only a ten-year tenure of office, with not so much difference in salary, and with pension privileges which are negligible as compared with those enjoyed by a judge. If therefore we were to get a judge we had to make some change in the legislation.
Hon. members say:	"Take some other
method; do it in some other way". What other way? I considered first changing the tenure of the board chairman to a life tenure. But that would have serious disadvantages. The hon. member for Eglinton himself said that he thought the ten-year tenure was one which should be adhered to, instead of making the appointment of the chief commissioner a lifetime job. You may not want him for life. It is a little different from an ordinary judicial appointment. So we think we should stick to

Board of Transport Commissioners
ten years for the chairman, as for the other members of the board. It might be said that we could put this salary away up so that a judge would consent to take a ten-year appointment because he could afford to do it, since he was being paid so much money while he was there. I do not think that plan would work, nor do I think it would be acceptable to the house.
It might be said that we should amend the superannuation act to make special provision for this particular class of official. That would involve special legislation. All things considered we thought that this plan had fewer disadvantages than any practicable alternative. It may be possible for us to get a judge. The Railway Act contemplated the obtaining of judges for these eminently judicial positions. The board of transport commissioners is a court of record. Its work is not the same as that of the exchequer court, but it is along the same line. I do not mean that only persons with experience as exchequer court judges should be appointed, but rather persons who are qualified to be exchequer court judges.
Another thing we considered was whether we should say that only an exchequer court judge may be chief commissioner, or that the chief commissioner may be an exchequer court judge.


Mr. HACKETT:: If the minister will permit a question, when was the legislation passed making it possible for a judge to be appointed to the board?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think it is in the section dealing with the chief commissioner. I take it for granted that it was there from the beginning. The act was passed, if I remember correctly, in 1903.


John Thomas Hackett: I believe that judges in the past have always resigned their judicial positions upon accepting appointment to the board.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right. There is a provision in the Judges Act, and I think also in the Exchequer Court Act, The point I am making is perhaps a, little obscure, but the act contemplated the possibility of appointing judges, not those who would continue to be judges, but judges who were qualified for an appointment of this kind. This legislation makes it possible for us to get a judge. Otherwise it would not be possible.


Jean-François Pouliot: Why not as an alternative appoint a retired judge who is physically and mentally fit?


John Thomas Hackett: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a word on one aspect of this question. I have spoken to this point on many occasions, and with increasing conviction and evergrowing sadness as I have contemplated the inroads upon the reputation of the 'bench and the undermining of the judiciary by calling upon its members to perform duties and functions which are not inherent to the high office which is theirs. If it be desired to appoint a judge to the board of transport commissioners, let him cease to be a judge. That is what has happened in the past. I can see no objection to taking for this office a man with judicial experience but I can see every objection of his continuing to be a judge when occupying an office which is subject to all the influence and all the machinations and all the goings and comings to which the board of transport commissioners is subject. If anybody doubts my word, let him cast his mind backward just a few weeks and think of the things that were said in this house and the things that were done with regard to the freight rates decision, and think of the influences that were brought to bear upon the board and upon the government, and upon the government with regard to the board.
The government is seeking to bring to the solution of this particular difficulty the high office of the judiciary, and by so doing it is exposing that institution to great damage and disrespect. It is not necessary that a judge continue to hold judicial office to preside over the board of transport commissioners. If it is sought to appoint a judge to that position, it is solely for the purpose of bringing to the solution of the difficult political issues which arise out of rate-making the dignity of the judiciary and the great respect which the Canadian people have for that institution. The high and well-deserved reputation of the Canadian judiciary is being exploited to solve a political difficulty. I do not like to use harsh language. Mr. Chairman; I do not like to make statements that are unnecessarily blunt. But I can mention several instances, and give details of time and names, within the life of this parliament which have brought no honour to the judiciary, and in which members of the judiciary have been used and exploited for political purposes. It is time that that practice cease.
I think I know the right hon. gentleman who presides over the destinies of the Department of Justice, and I believe that these practices must be as repugnant to him as they are to me. There comes a time when other considerations should outweigh political advantage. Everybody knows of the problems

Board of Transport Commissioners
that have arisen out of the rates question. It is a difficult question; it is one which should rest exclusively with the board of transport commissioners. Unfortunately it has got beyond the bounds of that jurisdiction and has invaded the realm of politics, and we are now asked to countenance the appointment. of a judge to find a solution to this political problem. I make bold to suggest that the price to be paid for such a solution is too high. The position of the judiciary is too important to be impaired by the exigencies of any political situation. There is no other reason for the present proposal than that of bringing to a political difficulty the appointment of a judge as presiding officer over the tribunal which would have to deal with that difficulty.
In the past, judges have been appointed to the board of transport commissioners and to the bodies which preceded it. I think that the first and one of the most famous of its presiding officers was Judge Mabee; but the moment he accepted that office he ceased to be a judge. If anybody will tell me why a member of the board of transport commissioners should continue to be a judge when he has become a member of the board of transport commissioners-unless it be to carry into his new calling the benefit of his high judicial reputation; unless it be to bring to that, office the respect and ascendency of the bench-I fail to see it. Solely out of respect for the bench, and solely for the purpose of maintaining and preserving one of Canada's rarest treasures which she has inherited from the old land-where judges do not accept offices of this kind; where it would not be tolerated that they accept such offices-I ask that no judge, however able, be made a member of this board. There is no question about the ability and the integrity of the gentleman whose name is mentioned here. He is a man of highest ability, a man for whom everybody has the greatest respect, and there is no reason why he should not enter upon a new field of activity on his own merits without carrying into it the judicial ermine in the hope that it will cover up some of the partisan difficulties that arise out of the very nature of the questions which go before the board of transport commissioners.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to my hon. friend immediately, because I disagree with him. He imputed views to me which I do not hold. The hon. member for Stanstead is greatly attached to the view that he has expressed today, that judges should rarely, if ever, be appointed as heads of royal commissions, or discharge extra-

judicial duties. I have said repeatedly in the house that I think there are times when the appointment of a judge to discharge these extra-judicial duties is quite appropriate.


John Thomas Hackett: Will the hon. member permit me? I agree with that. There is work that they can do and do it with advantage, such as the recodification of the criminal code, for instance. But what I object to-and I do not want there to be any misunderstanding -is the appointment of judges to decide questions which are highly tinged with politics.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Let us examine this argument. I cannot deal with it conclusively because the issue arises from a difference in point of view. But my hon. friend said repeatedly that these judges who are appointed from time to time are appointed for political purposes, to solve political problems of the government. That sounds like a very damaging accusation; but after all, what are political purposes? When you use the word "political" I know that the first reaction of the public is that there is something discreditable about purposes if they are political purposes. But that is not the meaning of the word "political". The word "political" has a very high significance. Often judges have been appointed in the past because the state of the public mind was such, the worry in the public mind was such, the fear of wrongdoing was such, that there must be, and there ought to be, in the interests of the functioning of a democratic state, a finding by a person for whom the public had respect. That has been the reason for the appointment of judges.
My hon. friend may say that that is meeting a political need of the government; that is a political purpose that the government is carrying out. Well, if so, it is a high purpose; it is a worthy purpose that the government is carrying out when it appoints judges under conditions of that kind.
My hon. friend says that the government is trying to avail itself of, or benefit by, the high reputation of the judge. He should have added one other word. The quality of the judge that is so important in these things is the quality of independence. Take this very case, the appointment of an exchequer court judge to be chairman of the board of transport commissioners. He has what is virtually a life tenure 

tenure until he is seventy-five years of age. He can do what he thinks and believes to be right without any dictation from the government. That is a strong reason for appointing him.
My hon. friend did not point out any deleterious or injurious effects which would flow.

Board of Transport Commissioners
Does my hon. friend think that a judgment of the board of transport commissioners, because there is wide interest in it, will drag down the Exchequer Court of Canada if at any time Mr. Justice Archibald functions as an exchequer court judge? I do not believe it for one moment. There are judgments of the courts which are most unpopular; judgments holding that the provisions of certain statutes are unconstitutional; judgments affecting the economic interests of thousands, and perhaps hundreds of thousands, of Canadians. That does not drag down the courts. It may be an unpopular thing, but so long as the public is satisfied that the man is an honest man, that he is acting independently, that he is not under the domination or dictation of the government, it does not discredit the courts; it does not hurt the courts in any way.
I think my hon. friend's views are-I used the word once before-extreme. I think they are extreme in this regard. He may think my views are extreme. But surely there are great advantages in appointing to a court such as this one who remains independent and whose judgment creates confidence in the minds of the public. If the public give the government credit for appointing that kind of man, perhaps that furthers the political purpose of the government, but only because the government did the right thing-that is all. We cannot refrain from doing the right thing because the purpose is sometimes political,


Stanley Howard Knowles: You do the other thing.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not intend to join in this discussion, although what has been said from this side of the house represents the opinion held not only on this side but in many parts of the country as well. I realize that the minister has been so long allergic to this kind of thing that any criticism of his actions in this regard, or any criticism of the government, is regarded as extreme.
I would point out, and I follow the hon. member for Stanstead in this regard, that too often the judiciary has been used by the government in setting up commissions on political matters, the result of which has been detrimental to the certainty with which the people of this country should regard the independence of the bench.
If the minister would like to read his own statements in that regard, I remind him that in 1932 or 1933-they are not before me at the moment-he was one of those who, from this side of the house, spoke with that directness which he can use on occasion against the findings of a judge, and he pointed out then that a judge who takes the position of a commissioner ceases to be sacrosanct so far as his conclusions are concerned.
5849-333J	'[DOT]-?
Mr. 1LSLEY: His recommendations.


John George Diefenbaker: Whether it is recommendations or not, when these recommendations are subject to attack, the result is that the judge himself is placed in a position that denies that independence of the bench which is so necessary to the even administration of justice. Administration of justice consists not only in justice being administered but in the fact that the people as a whole believe that justice is being administered.
We have discussed this subject before, and the minister rouses himself when any question is raised that parliament on occasion is treated with contempt by this government. He becomes quite angry. He wraps himself in the cloak of an assumed wrath. He smiles now; that fits him better. I say this to him. What we have here is a strange procedure. Parliament decides that ten years is the proper period. If independence is what is asked for, why is not the position made for life? Why place members of the exchequer court in the position that they or some of them will be picked out ten years from now? You maintain the independence of the exchequer court by holding before its judges the opportunity to become chairman of this board!
In the past few years we in this country have suffered from the erosion of parliamentary rights., The other day the Prime Minister gave a statement to the press on the outcome of certain recent by-elections, and he indicated that the course of action of the government is not rightly understood; but he also indicated that ultimately, in the unfolding of events, the rightness of the administration will be established. I say to you, sir, that they do not do this in Great Britain.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Do not do what?


John George Diefenbaker: Place judges in
the position of being translated from one office to another.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is the hon. gentleman sure of his facts?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: He is quoting the hon.
member for Stanstead, but my understanding is that judges are appointed as heads of royal commissions in Great Britain.


John George Diefenbaker: They are appointed from time to time as heads of royal commissions.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: Absolutely; there have been occasions, but not when it is a question of political implication or as a

Board of Transport Commissioners
result of aroused opinion whereby political passions may be stirred. I agree with the hon. member for Stanstead, and I agree with the right hon. gentleman, that in certain matters judges have a place, but I say that nothing did more to bring down the bench of this country, as far as our people are concerned, than to take an estimable man like the Chief Justice of Canada, Sir Lyman Duff, and place him on a political commission, the Hong Kong investigation. These things undermine-


Mr. DECHENE:: Leave the dead alone; talk about the living.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend
speaks of the dead. Sir Lyman still lives. Get up to date. It is these things, sir, that we object to.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Sir Lyman Duff has n,ot
been brought down from anywhere. He is still up there.


John George Diefenbaker: I remember when, very recently, the Minister of Justice strongly objected to any suggestion of criticism of that commission and of the findings of the judge. Once he did that, once there were criticisms outside the house, the position of the Chief Justice of Canada was placed where it ought not to be.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It was the position of his critics that suffered there.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, sir, I wish I could be as certain of that fact as is my right hon. friend, because he says we want to maintain the independence of the bench. But independence is not maintained by taking a judge and by subterfuge placing him-no, I will not call it subterfuge; by means suitable to the government, translating him-to the exchequer court, and then again, by indirect means, shunting him into the position of head of this board.
Look at the position. It is all arranged in advance. As reported at page 4888 o-f Hansard, Colonel Cross is consulted, and he admits that his term of office does not end until February 1950. What is all the rush? Colonel Cross has either done a good job or he has not. Colonel Cross is fully able to carry on his position. But he is consulted, and it is pointed out that some changes are to be made. Then he undertakes to resign if the changes take place. In fact he has given his resignation to take effect under these circumstances.
Surely the minister does not contend that that maintains the independence of the chairman of the board of transport commissioners.

Then a judge on the bench is consulted, before any change is made-a judge totally removed from any suggestion of political considerations. He is asked whether he, as a judge of the supreme court of Nova Scotia, will be willing to accept another position provided that the incumbent resigns and legislation goes through parliament. The independence of the bench, of which the minister spoke a few minutes ago, cannot be maintained by playing ducks and drakes with it in that manner. I have no objection to a judge's occupying that position. But surely the whole thing could have been done simply by an amendment to the superannuation act or to the retirement provisions in the Judges Act. That was done in order to preserve the rights of a judge in Saskatchewan; at least it had that effect.
Imagine what will be our position from now on. I point this out to the minister, although he had nothing to do with it; he was a member of the government, but he wras not Minister of Justice. In 1938 we appointed a judge to the court of appeal in the province of Saskatchewan because the court needed a judge. For one and a half years before the war he occupied a position under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. Then the war came along and he took a war job; I do not intend to argue that matter. He did his job and he did a job that I will commend. Though he had never sat on the bench, he remained a judge of the court of appeal of Saskatchewan, and had the advantages of a judge with regard to pension on retirement and the like. Then he decided that the diplomatic service was the place for him, and he went to Australia. That was in the latter days of the war. He returned from Australia, and was still a judge. Then something was said about his being appointed ambassador to China. But he could not be appointed to that position, otherwise he would lose his nine years' seniority on the bench and his pension qualifications. A bill was introduced which provided that a person who transferred himself from the bench to any other position should remain entitled to his pension qualifications. That procedure does not maintain the independence of the bench.
I suggest that in this matter the minister should not adopt the indirect method suggested by the various amendments he is bringing before the committee. I suggest that the end be achieved by the simple expedient of an amendment to the Superannuation Act, if you will. Why use the exchequer court as a medium through which a result may be effected that in the years to come cannot but constitute a dangerous precedent? Limitless possibilities are opened up here. If we want

Board of Transport Commissioners
a judge in Saskatchewan for some position, all we have to do now is to increase the size of the court of appeal. By increasing the numbers, you have a judge available; then you put him into circulation in some other position. It is too dangerous a precedent, and I join with the hon. member for Stanstead in the stand he has taken. He is president of the Canadian Bar Association, and his views merit the consideration of the members of the house and the people of the country as a whole. All of us have a responsibility to preserve the integrity and the independence of the judiciary. Things like this cannot but have a deleterious effect on public opinion and its regard for that integrity.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have seldom heard the hon. member for Lake Centre speak with such eloquence about the judiciary of this countiy. He spoke in moving accents when he referred to justice and the administration of justice. As one who was admitted to the bar a long time before the hon. member was, and one who will cease to practise a long time before he will, I was deeply interested. For me in my seat here it is refreshing to hear the hon. gentleman. He had the accents of d'Agues-seau, the great French jurist, in addressing the opening of the courts in France. Addresses such as these show great culture, and cannot do otherwise than create a profound impression on those who have the privilege of listening to them. I would not start a competition of the kind, because I admit at once that I would be beaten. Eloquence is not a gift that I possess; I have none.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member is too modest.


Jean-François Pouliot: But when I think of the matter that is now before the committee, I wonder if it is the bench, or the freight rates, or both together, that are the cause of this concern. I have here a list of the judges who are superannuated. The first of them is a man who has acquired a great reputation as a jurist. I refer to Sir Lyman Duff. Would my hon. friend accept Sir Lyman Duff as head of the transport board if he agreed to go there? He would protest with regard to him just the same as he did before with regard to an investigation that was carried on by Sir Lyman Duff. Then there is Mr. Justice Hyndman, for whom I have profound respect and admiration. He is a superannuated judge. When I spoke to the Minister of Justice about retiring judges who were mentally and physically fit, he shrugged his shoulders. But on the list there is someone else who is able, and whose defence I will take at once. I refer to Colonel Cross, the chairman of the
board of transport commissioners. Because the ruling of the board has not been satisfactory to some members, shall we change the whole board? Shall we bring in a judge? That matter gave to the hon. member for Lake Centre an opportunity to cast some mild aspersions on Mr. Justice Davis, the ambassador to China. He is a man I know well, and he does a very good service. I wonder how many eminent Canadians would agree to leave their country for China in the present circumstances, and to carry a prefabricated house with them. It is worse than the bed the paralytic carried on his back. Would any hon. member carry a prefabricated house to China?


Stanley Howard Knowles: And a load of coal as well.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes. The ambassador to China is a man who has imposed great sacrifices upon himself in order to serve his country.


John Thomas Hackett: Is the hon. member quite sure that the hon. member for Lake Centre said anything detrimental to Mr. Justice Davis? I listened with great care, and I do not recall that he said anything critical of Mr. Justice Davis.


Jean-François Pouliot: I did not say detrimental;
I did not use that expression. I said "mild aspersions". I know what I say, and the hon. member for Stanstead will be better off if he listens to me as closely as he listens to his colleague. He will learn much more by listening to me than he will by listening to the hon. member for Lake Centre.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I ask the hon. member whether he does not-regard the words "mild aspersions" as being in some sense critical?


Jean-François Pouliot: I am sure the hon. member for Lake Centre had nothing critical in his mind when he cast the mild aspersions. To the pure all is pure.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that a personal testimonial by my hon. friend?


Jean-François Pouliot: It is a testimonial to my hon. friend; it is a tribute to him. I tell the hon. member for Stanstead, who is a likeable gentleman and a great Canadian; I tell the hon. member for Lake Centre, who is a well-gifted Canadian for whom I have great personal admiration, although I do not agree with one iota of his policy-I ask them what they would like to have done by the transport board with regard to freight rates. Are they satisfied with the ruling that has been given

Board of Transport Commissioners
by the board? Probably not. No one has been satisfied. Why? Because the board has not done the work that it should have done

that is, to compare freight rates throughout the country and iron out all discriminations.
I said to the house before that these gentlemen have some leisure. Is it necessary to cut their meat and put it in their mouths in a spoon so that they can eat? They must be older than babies; they must know what to do without being instructed all the time by the Minister of Transport, As soon as the ruling was given it was declared to be unsatisfactory, and we as members said, "We will call for a judge; a judge is supreme; we will have a judge". But very often a judge is used as a screen to cover political sins.
Why should we have a judge come into this business? Why should we change the whole board because a ruling is not satisfactory? Are we going to change the board every time a ruling is unsatisfactory to the Liberals, to the Tories, to the C.C.F., or to the Social Credit party? Will each party in turn ask for a change in the board, to have a judge replace the chairman? I know Colonel Cross quite well, and he does not deserve the criticism that has been made on so many occasions. He is a good man and he does well.
I do not think I can pay the same compliment to the other commissioners. One of the former commissioners was Colonel Vien. He was acting chief commissioner of the old railway board, where he did exceptionally good work. Why do we not have the same results now from the transport board, the new name for the former railway board?
I do not see why we should have a change now. I do not see why we should have to discuss this with the judiciary. We might ask the present chairman of the transport board to make in another sphere the same sacrifices that Mr. Justice Davis has made by going to China. The board should start to reconsider the mass of evidence it has before them. These men must know something of the transportation problem, because they are supposed to have studied it for a long time. They must have acquired some knowledge. They should be told that with the mass of evidence they have before them they should try to iron out all the discrimination with regard to freight rates. They have the personnel, they have the evidence, they have the personal information; they are the right body to do this work. They are paid for their knowledge. Why should that all be put aside because the C.C.F. have suggested a royal commission?
Would the work of a royal commission be more satisfactory than the work of the transport board? I do not believe it would. I ask 
you, and I ask my colleagues to consider this matter and not ask for a change in personnel when it is not absolutely necessary. It is the duty of this board to do this work. They have been assigned to do it. Suppose a stenographer or a messenger happens to make a mistake. Is it necessary to fire that, person and replace him with another? If that were done we would have a perpetual migration from every office. Many times a thing is done wrongly without any wilful intent, but the person can be shown the proper way to do it. That is the way we should deal with the transport board.
Perhaps there was a misunderstanding. I am ready to give them the benefit of the doubt. But I suggest that it is not proper to change the personnel of the board. They should be told to make their own examination and study and to report on existing discriminations in freight rates. Then when a report is made we will decide whether it is good or not, whether they are competent or not. But that would be after they had been instructed to do this according to the expectations of the Canadian people. We would then have an opportunity to reconsider the matter ourselves.
I say one last thing. If this suggestion is accepted we will have a report on freight rates in a much shorter time than if we appoint a judge or if we appoint any other body than the board of transport commissioners.


Mr. McIVOR:: Mr. Chairman, I see another side to this big question perhaps because I am not a lawyer. One side is the honour of the judiciary and the public respect for it. The other side is made up of the groups of people who get into trouble. Whom would you prefer to have preside, an independent judge, a distinguished businessman, a cabinet minister, an outstanding member of the opposition, or someone else? If I were a member of one of those groups, whether employer or employee, I would certainly choose a judge. Is it not the lifetime work of a judge to settle difficulties between individuals? What bigger job is there in a court than to settle difficulties which come before a commission such as this?


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: Shall the
resolution carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No. I wish to add a word. I think, we can all accept what has been said by the Minister of Justice as to the requirement of independence. I listened with great interest to what he said-and by the way, I think the judges before whom he appears when he gets back to the practice of law will have to fortify themselves, so as not too readily to be carried away.

Board oj Transport Commissioners
I wish to make one point. We talk about independence; let us be realistic about it. It seems to me there is one way in which we can get the independence the minister wants, without transgressing the principle the hon. member for Stanstead has outlined.
Let us not fool ourselves about judges; let us not believe that they are a separate order of creation or that they are not moved by the same feelings as those by which the rest of us are moved. We must not allow ourselves to get into that state of mind. No one has more respect than I have for judges; nevertheless I understand it has been the practice, one very regularly followed, that judges are not promoted from lower positions in the judiciary to chief justiceships. Why? It certainly was the practice for a long time in Ontario, as I understand it. One reason was that they did not want to tamper with the independence of judges-among other things, by placing a judge in such a position that he might have to seek to ingratiate himself with governments. Surely that is a creditable and well-recognized principle. It acknowledges that judges are human like the rest of us, and that we have to seek in every possible way to avoid lessening their independence. What are we doing here? First of all it seems to me that the general principle outlined by the hon. member for Stanstead is sound, that we should not have plums floating about for judges. I am .being blunt about the matter, because we must regard them as ordinary human beings. Let us not fool ourselves; judges are like the rest of us, and they would like to have substantial additions to their incomes in special jobs which turn up.
It seems to me that what we are doing here is something which, is far worse. As I understand it a continuing plum of a very substantial nature will constantly be held out before the judges of the exchequer court. The business of the judge of the exchequer court, in the main, is to decide between the government and the individual. If I understand the position correctly, being human hie cannot entirely get it out of his mind that if he is a good boy and very highly and favourably regarded by the powers that be, the time may come when he may get a very important position.
Is there any way out? I suggest there is a simple way out-and I still hope the Minister of Justice will consider it. My suggestion is almost exactly in line with that of the hon. member for Lake Centre, although it may differ in one important detail. The law is that we can appoint a judge. No one questions that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: You do not have to.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Let me make this clear; I do not question the appointment of a judge. But as the hon. member for Stanstead has said, if a judge is appointed let him resign from the judiciary, and then attach to this office a proper pension. Public opinion would surely approve a proper pension, so that a man could take it and be independent.
Mr. ILSLEY": It would not be sufficient unless you gave the office life tenure, or a tenure to seventy-five years.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If the minister will allow me, I do not see why you need to give life tenure. I am impressed by the argument against it, but usually if he has the full ten years and is eligible for reappointment, and if he is a good man, he is reappointed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A good man or a good boy?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I come back to this thought: It seems to me we do not need to follow this plan, which I think has certain evils in it. The only disadvantage in following my plan is that it may cost us a little more money. I do not like to suggest the expenditure of additional dollars, but I certainly think it would be very much worthwhile; and I suggest, before I take my seat, that the ten-year appointment, subject to reappointment-and I think that might have been done; it happened in the case of Judge Mabee-would meet the objection of the hon. member for Stanstead.
Notwithstanding the eloquence of the Minister of Justice I do believe that there is a great deal of evil there, and that the very independence which he himself so rightly emphasizes is in danger of being challenged.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I just wish to say a word about the first part of my hon. friend's remarks, that there are plums floating around here for exchequer court judges. It sound persuasive. But bear in mind the fact that the exchequer "court judges are sometimes promoted to be president of the exchequer court; a't least they are eligible for promotion. Judges of provincial appeal courts are continually being promoted to the position of chief justice of the appeal court; members of appeal courts in the provinces are often promoted to be judges of the Supreme Court of Canada and members of the trial divisions in the provinces are continually moved to the appeal divisions. AVhile greater financial remuneration is involved, these positions are regarded by most of them as more desirable appointments.

Board oj Transport Commissioners


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That may be all very undesirable.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is no way of avoiding it. If I were a member of the Exchequer Court of Canada I would not regard the additional pay here as a plum. If I had my mind on money, I would not take that job on a bet. If I were a member of the Exchequer Court of Canada I would stick right there. If I were not interested in doing a job for the country I would never think of moving from the Exchequer Court of Canada over to the board of transport commissioners, with all the grief there is there and all the difficulties there are there.
The hon, member seems to think we are making provision here by which a judge takes a sort of non-judicial or political appointment. The board of transport commissioners is itself a court of record. He is a judge; when he is chairman of the board of transport commissioners his work is judicial.
My hon. friend from Lake Centre is talking about the dangerous precedent which will be established by adding to the bench in the provinces in order to give political jobs.


John George Diefenbaker: I said there could be.


James Lorimer Ilsley: As a matter of fact there could not, because the constitution of the courts of the provinces cannot be changed by us. It has to be changed by the province. We cannot do it.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But if we could, this does not create any additional precedent because we are not putting a judge into a political job. We are putting him into a judicial job. This is the only way we can get the necessary quality and the necessary independence, when you consider the salary we pay, the superannuation, and all that kind of thing.
What would my difficulty have been, or that of the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Transport, if they had brought in that program? We would be on the other side then. I knew the hon. member for Stanstead and the hon. member for Lake Centre would come forward with this idea, that you should not use judges for anything else. But I would say to my hon. friends: do not just let habit of mind dictate what you say on everything. Look at the merits of the case. Have a little bit of adaptability, so that you can look at the real merits of this proposal. Do not apply preconceived rules to every situation. This is a case in which your rules do not apply.


William Henry Golding: Shall I report the resolution?


John George Diefenbaker: No.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Ilsley thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 347, to amend the Railway Act, the Exchequer Court Act and the Judges Act, 1946.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
At one o'clock the house took recess.



REVISED STATUTES


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure respecting the Revised Statutes of Canada, to thereby establish a commission to effect such revision and to authorize remuneration to he paid the members of the commission, assistants, officers, clerks and employees.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Mr. MARQUIS:: Mr. Speaker, to my mind this is one of the most important enactments of the present session, and for this reason I would be remiss in my duty if I did not say a few words with respect to it.
There is no doubt that the revision of our federal laws is long overdue, although there are many reasons why it could not have taken place before. The great war which we had to go through, the resultant uncertain period which has followed, and the temporary nature of the'greater part of our emergency legislation in consequence thereof, have all contributed to the delays. I wish, therefore, to thank the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) and to congratulate him upon having initiated this important and advantageous enterprise before his retirement. This work will be the crowning opus of a parliamentary career so rich in learned and useful contributions to our federal legislation for well over twenty years.
All those who are affected by our federal legislation-and that means practically every Canadian, but more specially the judges and magistrates who have to apply the laws, and the lawyers, businessmen and administrators of all kinds who are in daily contact with them -will, I am sure, be thankful that their duties will have been made easier by the revision.

Revised Statutes oj Canada
In a very interesting article by Doctor Maurice Ollivier which has just appeared in the last number of the Canadian Bar Review, and in which the law clerk of the House of Commons makes a study of the different statute revisions both in the United Kingdom and in Canada throughout the years, I noticed a section in the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, Act, to the effect that the printed roll of the French version:
-should be deemed to be the authentic original French version of the said statutes, and as such shall have the force of law as if herein enacted.
The article refers to the discussion which took place at that time, and quotes Mr. Aylesworth, then minister of justice, as having stated in the house that:
The French text of our statutes is of absolutely equal potency with the English.
This section dealing with the French version does not appear in the governing act of the revised statutes of 1927, nor does it appear in the present bill. I wonder if the minister would not consider the insertion of a similar clause as section 13 of the present bill; or if not, would he consider making a declaration to the house that, although this section will not appear in the act, the situation as far as the authenticity of the French version is concerned remains unchanged.
Dealing with the next revision of the statutes as contemplated in the present bill, Doctor Ollivier makes what I believe to be some valuable suggestions which I should like briefly to bring to the attention of the house and of the minister.
The first suggestion is that a departmental subcommittee of the Department of Justice might prepare a codification and extensive revision of the criminal code, to be passed at the next session of parliament, to improve the act from the points of view of drafting, arrangement of parts and sections, and simplification of procedure.
His second suggestion has to do with the consolidation and revision of taxation measures along the line already started with the revision of the act respecting income taxes. In other words, there should be a revision of the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act and the Customs Tariff. Doctor Ollivier states that if these statutes, and some others which he names, could be adopted by the house purely as consolidations, without changes, and by consent without discussion, much of the work of the commissioners would be eliminated, and consequently the cost of the general revision would be greatly reduced.
The article goes on to suggest that it would expedite matters if an act were passed or the
rules of the house amended to provide that when a revised act is introduced it shall receive first, second and third readings without any discussion if the minister introducing it states that the bill is simply a consolidation without any new matter or essential change. It could further be provided that, if the minister so desires, the bill may be referred to a committee, there to be further revised, studied and examined.
These are all valuable suggestions which certainly deserve to be considered. I have no doubt, however, that the minister has read this memorandum by our law clerk and has had these very points under advisement and consideration.


Thomas Langton Church: The hon. gentleman who has just sat down, Mr. Chairman, is one of those mentioned for promotion in case there is any change in the Department of Justice.
This bill is one of the most important which the present Minister of Justice has introduced into this house. Some years ago I proposed that the statutes of Canada should, like the Bank Act, be revised every ten years. This revision is going to take a long time. The last revision was in 1927. Every year amendments to statutes are made; and a very large amount of legislation has been put on the statute book since 1927. I believe the time has come for revision.
The present Minister of Justice will be very much missed. I am sorry to see him go, because he is a conscientious and hard-working public officer and has proved himself a most trustworthy attorney general. But if a change is to be made in the Department of Justice I believe that the province of Ontario should have this important portfolio. Sir Wilfrid Laurier appointed as minister of justice one of his colleagues, Mr. Mills, who represented a part of the country from which you yourself come, Mr. Chairman, western Ontario.
I want to compliment you, sir, on the work you have done as chairman during a large part of the discussion of these bills. I believe that in the estimates provision of $2,000 a year should be made for our chairman for the work he did last year and this year. Having said that I may say that the time has come when that portfolio should be given to the old province of Ontario.
I should like to hear something from the minister about this resolution. Is it proposed, as in the case of the revision of the Ontario statutes, to have a commission of judges conduct this revision-because it will take a long time to go over all the law? We have to consider also the rules and regulations which
Revised Statutes nf Canada

the crown makes on almost every statute that is passed, giving these regulations also the force of statutes.
The next point I want to make is this. The enforcement of all federal law from confederation to the present, has been a matter for the provinces, and the provinces simply turn it over to the municipalities. They have a municipal police system of their own. Up until recent times Ontario had only a skeleton police force, something like the skeleton in the health department. They have taken the skeleton out of the closet now, and once the skeleton gets out nobody knows what will happen.
So far as this revision is concerned I am hoping that someone like Hon. Mr. Justice Mackay, who has had a great deal to do with the law of libel and slander, criminal and constitutional cases, will be included as one of the commission. I see no reason why some estimate of the cost should not be given, because this will be a very expensive commission. It reminds me of what I proposed a short time ago, Mr. Chairman. We should have a legal committee in this house. They have had one in nearly all the provinces since confederation. These legal bills could be considered by that legal committee. I commend that suggestion to the present minister.
I do not know that I can say anything further, because I do not want to hold up the minister's resolution and bill. I hope that this commission will not be too large, that the members will be selected from some of the judges, and that the recommendations of the chief constables' association will be given consideration. I hope that the provincial police systems, which are largely municipal, will receive bonuses, subventions and subsidies from this parliament to enforce federal law, because we do not enforce federal law ourselves.
When I was chairman of the police commission in Toronto I found that the number of federal acts that had to be enforced, together with the orders in council issued by the government during the first war, entailed a large sum of money. With the late Mr. Bradshaw, our city treasurer, assisting me, I wrote to many states; he wrote to Australia and to New Zealand. We found that in Australia the city of Sydney received over J2,000.000 in bonuses, subventions and subsidies for doing this work of enforcing federal law. A very large part of our police work is devoted to traffic and to the enforcement of these orders in council. The mounted police serve the Northwest Territories. We all owe a great deal to the work which the mounted police did during the two wars and between

the wars in coming to the aid of the civil police systems. If the federal government is not going to enforce its own federal law, there should be some recognition, by federal contribution, of the work done by the police Ihroughout the whole of Canada during the second great war and since, in enforcing all federal law and hundreds and thousands of orders in council.
I am sorry to see the minister go. I compliment him on having the courage and the wisdom to bring in this resolution so that the matter may be cleaned up. When that is done, and a complete revision of federal law adopted, we shall have a better state of affairs in the enforcement of law and order in this country.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is general agreement in the house that the time is ripe, if not overdue, for a revision of the statutes of Canada. In the past there have been just three revisions. The last one, which was made in 1927, is already twenty-one years old. No doubt by the time the revision now proposed is completed the 1927 revision will be twenty-five years old. The previous revisions of 1886 and 1906 did not present anything like the amount of work that was presented to the commissioners in 1927, and, of course, not nearly the amount of work that will confront the commissioners in this new work of revision.
Certain questions naturally suggest themselves on a reading of the resolution, and I would ask the Minister of Justice when he speaks to deal with such points as these. First of all, will the minister indicate the size of the proposed commission, the terms of appointment and the qualifications he has in mind for the personnel? In 1927 revision was carried out very largely by judges. Does the minister intend that the commission this time shall be composed in the main of judges?
Important questions arise also with reference to the scope of revision. It will be one thing if the task of the commissioners is simply to be the work of consolidation-a simpler task and one which could be accomplished much more quickly. But if a serious attempt is to be made to revise the statutes, then the undertaking is bound to be much greater.
When I spoke a moment ago about the revision being in the hands of judges 1 spoke rather of the provision for an earlier revision. The 1927 revision was in the hands of the following as commissioners:	Sir Charles Fitzpatrick as president; Mr. Newcombe, who was deputy minister of justice at the time the commission was set up-on his appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada he was

Revised Statutes of Canada
relieved of his position on the commission: Mr. Hartley Dewar; Mr. E. J. Daly, of Ottawa; Mr. F. R. Russell, Iv.C.; Mr. L. A. Rivet, of Montreal.
It is quite a coincidence that just last week the Canadian Bar Review carried an article by the law clerk of the house, Doctor Maurice Ollivier, on the subject of revision of the statutes. It is an article in which there is much learning. The author reviews the work of revision on the previous occasions. He outlines the work of revision of the statutes in the United Kingdom, and in some of the provinces where revisions have been carried out much more frequently than in the dominion sphere.
Some thoughts are expressed by the law clerk which call for some comment. He has a paragraph on page 810 of the May issue of the Canadian Bar Review on the need of revision. I should like to read the paragraph. He says:
There is no doubt that a new revision of our federal statutes is long overdue. Many reasons have been given for not starting it. The main one is certainly the unusual situation created by the second world war. This had the effect of interrupting many normal activities and concentrating attention on more pressing problems. The situation thus created has not yet returned to normal, nor stabilized itself. The annual statutes are cluttered up with emergency and temporary measures; some of these may exist for a short time only, while others may be of the sort, of temporary nature which is sometimes referred to as permanently temporary. Until the situation has been clarified by the lapse of time, it is difficult to say which of these acts should be included in a general revision and which should be omitted.
He points out the necessity for revision in certain classes of statutes, such as the criminal code, statutes relating to taxation, and some other acts which he mentions. But Doctor Ollivier goes on to deal with another matter which in my opinion calls for comment in this house. The law clerk offers his views with respect to the procedure to be followed in the house in the matter of revision, and I must say I am shocked at some of the views expressed in the paragraph which I should now like to quote. It will be found at page 811:
It would expedite matters if an act could be passed, or the rules of the house amended, to provide that when a revised act is introduced it would receive first, second and third readings without any discussion, if the minister introducing it states that the bill is simply a consolidation without any new matter or essential change. It could be provided further that, if the minister so desires, the bill will be referred to a committee, there to 'be further revised, studied and examined. The work of the committee would consist simply in verifying that the consolidation contains no new matter and that the changes made are matters of form and
do not substantially change the law, and in suggesting any further improvements in drafting or arrangement of sections.
He then goes on to point out what he considers to be the advantages to be derived from following a procedure of the kind-a sort of short-circuiting procedure. I entertain the highest respect for Doctor Ollivier, but I certainly do not share the view he has expressed in the paragraph I have read, in which he indicates that parliament should be quite content, so far as the work of revision is concerned, simply to give, without any discussion, first, second and third readings to bills of any kind which the minister introducing them intimates do not contain any change in matter or substance.
It is not the function of parliament to be a rubber stamp for anybody, the government or anybody else. While I hope that the commission on the revision of statutes will be a commission of eminent men whose opinions on the revision of statutes and the consolidation of sections will be entitled to the highest respect, I do not think that parliament will be paying to the work of the commissioners the respect which we trust will be due to their labours if we simply swallow their reports holus-bolus without addressing ourselves to the subject matter of the statutes so presented.
Surely parliament would be remiss in its duty if it simply conferred upon the reports of the commissioners, in effect, the force of statute without going through the procedure that has been laid down for the review of bills introduced in this house. Whatever is good in the reports of the commissioners-and I am sure that much in their reports will be good- should have careful study in this house. I trust therefore there will be no thought, on the part of those who will be members of this house when the reports of the commissioners are brought in, of simply taking that work and rushing it through first, second and third readings without careful consideration.
Parliament itself ought to be a party to the task of the revision and consolidation of the laws it passes. Simply because this is conceived to be a work of revision of existing statutes, there should be no excuse for parliament turning its back on its duty of accepting primary responsibility for such a revision.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I have to register the most solemn protest against one of the suggestions of the hon. gentleman. He has suggested the appointment of "eminent men" to that commission. What is an eminent man? How many eminent men have we, those splendid looking wizards who impress bureaucratic civil servants? I hope the minister will not appoint any so-called eminent
Revised Statutes of Canada

man. We have enough of them, $15,000 a year eminent men. I had hopes for the hon. member for Eglinton. I had hoped that he would fight bureaucracy to the limit, but now he is indulging in the same errors as those who support it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thought I was saying a word for the duty of parliament to retain responsibility for this revision and not simply to abdicate in favour of commissioners.


Jean-François Pouliot: Did not the hon. gentleman mention eminent men? He would never call a Liberal an eminent man; I know him well enough.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a question of privilege, I wish to correct this statement of the hon. member for Temiscouata. I would not say there are no Liberals who are eminent. As a matter of fact I consider the hon. gentleman himself an eminent man, and I think that his eminence is in large part due to the fact that he is not a rubber-stamp Liberal but one who practises independence in the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. gentleman for what he has said. It is news to me before I read the afternoon paper. I wish to warn him however about that eminent man stuff. I do not believe in it personally, though sometimes I use the expression as a matter of grace and just to show my good disposition. I do not believe that eminent men can be found to be placed on the tariff board. We do not need eminent men there. We need sensible men.


An hon, MEMBER:: Men of horse sense.


Jean-François Pouliot: Sensible, competent men. They will be competent if they are sensible. But we want men who are willing to work, who know how to work and who have a sufficient sense of duty to do the work which will be assigned to them by their functions, so that there will be no difficulty about it.


Mr. GRANT:: Eminent men do not work.


Jean-François Pouliot: I regret to differ. In fact I do not know what my hon. friend means by an eminent man. Probably the idea which my hon, friend the member for Kings has of what constitutes an eminent man is entirely different from that which is entertained by the hon. member for Eglinton. At any rate, whether a man is a judge or not, I hope, contrary to some suggestions that are made in this house, that when new appointments are made those who are appointed will be sensible men. Whether they wear robes of ermine or not, we can find sensible men in

all walks of life. It is not necessary to be a judge in order to be a sensible man. I hope the minister will be happy in his appointment after the good wishes that have been expressed by the hon. member for Stanstead, the hon. member for Lake Centre and the hon. member for Eglinton.


John Thomas Hackett: Has the minister stated yet how many members will form the commission, and whether it is intended that the commission shall depart in any radical way from the course followed by previous commissions which have been entrusted with a similar task?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I should like to deal for a few minutes with some of the remarks that have been made.
The hon. member for Kamouraska asked that I make a statement similar to that made by Sir Allen Aylesworth with regard to the authenticity of the French version. I will look at that statement and see whether I can do so when we are on the bill. I will give consideration to the hon. member's suggestion. The same observation applies to the other suggestions he made, such as that the Department of Justice should prepare a revision of the criminal code for the consideration of the commissioners, and that there should be a consolidation of some of the taxation legislation.
The hon. member for Eglinton asked about the size of the commission. The bill provides for the appointment of five commissioners, but I may move an amendment to provide for the appointment of seven, so that one section of the commission may devote itself exclusively to the criminal code. This is an idea which is under consideration at the present time. I am afraid that I cannot saj'- much with regard to the terms. At. the time of the former revisions I believe the commissioners were paid on a per diem basis and were not full-time commissioners. I am unable to say what qualifications they will possess except competency, if it is possible to get that qualification.
The hon. member for Eglinton stated that in the 1006 revision the commission consisted largely of judges, but that is incorrect. There was only one judge on that commission.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In 1927, I said.


James Lorimer Ilsley: First let us deal with 1906. The hon. gentleman first said 1927; then he corrected himself by saying 1906. In 1906 the commissioners were: The Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General ex officio; Right Hon. Sir Henry Strong, president; Wentworth E. Roscoe, K.C.; Augustus Power, K.C.; Henry Robertson, K.C.-

Revised, Statutes oj Canada


John Thomas Hackett: Mr. Power was in the Department of Justice, was he not?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know whether he was or not.


John Thomas Hackett: It seems to me that he was.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I mentioned Henry Robertson. K.C. Then there was Edward R. Cameron, K.C.; Thomas L. Metcalfe, barrister, and Henry Philippe Sirois, notary public.


John Thomas Hackett: Mr. Cameron was in the courts.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


John Thomas Hackett: He was registrar of the supreme court.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. So there was only one judge on that commission. In 1927 the commissioners were-


John Thomas Hackett: Sir Charles Fitzpatrick- Mr. FLEMING: I read the names.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, they were placed before the committee by the hon. member for Eglin-ton. Apparently there were no judges at all on that commission, although I understood one county court judge was engaged in the revision in 1927.
I am interested in some of the observations that have been made this afternoon. I certainly was not aware that it was part of the scheme for the revision of the statutes to have the statutes debated section by section when they went through the house. That was contrary to my impression of what is done or what can practically be done. That seemed to be the view that the hon. member for Eglinton had as to the duties of members of parliament. I do not think that they have ever assumed that responsibility. I think that they take adequate means to see that the statutes on the books are truly reproduced, and that is all. I do not think they go over them critically at all, section by section. But I will look into the suggestion. I think the hon. member for Eglinton is all wrong about the operation if he thinks that this is a reconsideration, and that the revision of the statutes involves reconsideration by parliament of all the statutes of Canada. I do not think it ordinarily does.


John Thomas Hackett: I was under the impression that a report was made dealing with all the statutes that had been considered, giving the reason for the elimination of some that were not included, and for the abbreviation of others. I am not certain about that, though.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will make inquiries about it. This is the very purpose of discussion on the resolution; we can get our views straightened out on these matters. Then I can come back, either on the second reading of the bill or when we are in committee, and answer these questions.
The hon. member for Eglinton seemed to think that Doctor Ollivier's suggestion that there be some consolidation by parliament before the work is undertaken by the commissioners is not a good one. I simply took it that Doctor Ollivier was suggesting that that would be a more convenient way to effect consolidation; that the officials-and I suppose largely finance officials-were in a position to consolidate these taxation statutes, and that they should do it; that the consolidation should go through without discussion provided there was an assurance that there was no change in the existing law, and that the commissioners would be saved that much time and the government would be saved that much money. It does not strike me as an important saving, I must say; nevertheless I do not think there is anything particularly dangerous about it.


John George Diefenbaker: What does the
minister mean by "revision"? It is a word that requires interpretation. What had the minister in mind? Was it merely a consolidation, bringing up to date the various amendments and setting them under their respective sections?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will tell the committee what I mean by revision, and what I mean by consolidation, but whether my definitions are in accordance with the dictionary definitions or the ordinary acceptation, I do not know. By revision I mean re-enactment after consideration, with some changes. By consolidation I mean re-enactment, in perhaps slightly different form, but without any change in meaning. The duty of the commissioners, if I am correctly informed, has been to effect a consolidation without change of meaning. They straighten out language, rearrange sections, and remove anomalies. They strike out sections which were put in for the purpose of fixing the date of the coming into force of the act. They may remove preambles. They may make all sorts of verbal changes. But if they are consolidating the statutes they are not making any change in the effect or meaning of the statutes. That is a consolidation, and I think that is a duty of the commissioners. Revision, in the sense in which I use the word, is a different matter.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a parliamentary responsibility.
Revised Statutes oj Canada


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; the matter of revision is a parliamentary responsibility. It has been suggested to me that parliament should take in hand quite a number of acts before this consolidation is completed, with a view to revision. It is suggested that these acts contain provisions which ought to be changed. But that is a different suggestion altogether from the one made by Doctor Ollivier in his article. He was suggesting a parliamentary consolidation preliminary to consolidation by the commissioners. I do not think there is much against it, but I do not think it is a particularly important suggestion.
Mr. KNOWI.ES: In view of the proper distinction the minister has made between the words "revision" and "consolidation", and in view of the fact that he stated it is his intention that this commission is to do a consolidating job, I should like to know the significance of the word "revision" in the second line of the resolution.


James Lorimer Ilsley: They have always been called the revised statutes of Canada. In some jurisdictions they are called the consolidated statutes, but in Canada they have always been called the revised statutes. "Revision" apparently was used in a sense different from that in which I am using it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The terms of the bill will be such as to make it clear that the powers of the commission are only to do what the minister means by consolidating?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The wording of the bill I am going to submit will not be exactly the same as that of the bill introduced in 1927. I oelieve the wording of that bill was exactly the same as the bill of 1906. A little change is being made which we cannot advantageously discuss here but which will be discussed when we come to that particular section.
Of course the criminal code ought to be revised, and it may be that if this is to be undertaken by a section ,of the commission that is to be set up, special powers or special responsibilities in respect to the criminal code will have to be given them. I must say that I have not been able to give any clear idea as to how the criminal code is to be revised. If the task of revision, if the changing of the code, if the changing of the penalties, if the changing of the principles of punishment and so on are to be delegated to commissioners they would be a sort of royal commission to advise the government on what the law ought to be-then the government and parliament will have to take the responsibility for the changes in the criminal 
code in a sense in which they would not have to take it with regard to most of the laws on the statute books of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: The distinction
which the minister makes renders rather unimportant the work of revision by this commission. As a matter of fact if the revision of the statutes is to mean simply a rearranging of the sections, a recommending of the removal of the occasional preamble, then it is more or less a perfunctory act that is to be performed by these men. If that is so, the question of their eminence or ability or knowledge of the law would be of very little importance.
I suggest to the minister that in addition to discharging the more or less perfunctory responsibility which is necessary he ought to give consideration to widening the meaning of the word "revision" so that the commission to be set up under the bill to be based on this resolution will be discharging an essential function, namely, recommending to parliament or to the Department of Justice the necessity of changes in various sections of the statutes in order to bring them up to date.
I have not said anything on the matter up to the present, but after listening to the minister I feel that if all we are doing is setting up a commission for the purpose of running through the statutes and saying, "Well, this statute of 1932 has been amended four times and we will put in the amendments in the respective sections," then revision is of little importance in respect to the final findings.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is what it is for.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It would be just a collection of office consolidations.


John George Diefenbaker: As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says, it would simply be a collection of office consolidations of which there is one for practically every important statute. When you come to the revision of the criminal code, to which the minister has made reference, that is quite another thing. That will require unusual experience and knowledge of criminal law and practice, and also of the changes that have taken place in sociology and psychology and medicine and preventive jurisprudence since 1892.
For instance, there is the question of the responsibility for criminal acts. The law today is that a child under seven years of age has no capacity to perform a criminal act; between the ages of seven and fourteen years the capacity is not presumed but must be established affirmatively by the crown. When those rules were made a hundred and fifty or two hundred years ago, physical age and mental

Revised Statutes *j Canada
age were synonymous. We realize today that a person with a physical age of eighteen years may have a mental age of only eight years; but regardless of that fact the presumption still prevails that because of his physical age he in fact has the mental age to understand and appreciate the nature and quality of his acts. These are things in respect to which the criminal code should be brought up to date.
As the minister said yesterday, the insanity rules date back to 1842, I think it is-over a hundred years, in any event-to the Mac-naughton case. There has been no change since. Many have felt from time to time that changes should be made in the law of insanity with a view to bringing it in accordance with modern scientific knowledge. It is of interest in that connection to note that in England a committee of parliament was set up which took evidence from judges, eminent counsel trained in the law and medical authorities. After hearing all' that evidence, and with the experience of a hundred years behind them, the decision made in England was that the law as set out in the Macnaughton case with regard to insanity, should not be altered and is in keeping with the present day. That is an example of the matters that should be considered in a revision of the criminal code.
The minister mentioned the question of punishment. Today we ameliorate or increase punishment more or less in a haphazard and uncertain way. From year to year we follow a system of selective uncertainty. When this commission is set up, and if it is actually to discharge any serious responsibility, I should like to have it make recommendations for the revision of the criminal code so that it will become an instrument for justice rather than, so far as certain sections are concerned, being conducive to unfairness by reason of changing conditions and changing knowledge, scientific and otherwise.
Will the minister give consideration to widening-I do not know whether he can answer now-the scope of the commission to be set up? The commission cannot legislate, because that is the responsibility of parliament. Surely the commission, if it is to be composed of seven outstanding members of the bench and bar of the dominion, should have a responsibility greater than a clerical one. It should be a responsibility which would utilize their knowledge and experience, which would help parliament by making recommendations to the Department of Justice, and in general revise these statutes and bring them up to date.
There are statutes which have no place at all in our present system. They have been obsolete for a number of years, but still
appear in the revised statutes. I think a recommendation might well be made for their removal.


John Thomas Hackett: When I was in the
Department of Justice there was a large file which not infrequently occupied the attention of the then deputy minister, Mr. Newcombe. He had a man in the department who, while I will not say he worked constantly, certainly worked frequently on revision. This was a work which grew over the years. I believe the important part of revision was done in and about the office of the Minister of Justice and the office of the supreme court. There was a Mr. E. R. Cameron, an indefatigable worker, and according to the article in the Canadian Bar Review I believe he succeeded Mr. Newcombe as one of the commissioners, when Mr. Newcombe became a judge of the supreme court.
Does the minister know whether the deputy minister has been able to devote some time to an anticipated revision, and whether in fact the actual back-breaking work of the revision must not be done by his department and his officials? The minister will recall that Mr. O'Connor did a good deal of work in anticipation of the last revision, and I believe his work was turned to account. To the minister's knowledge has some work been done in the department?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am unable to say, but I would doubt it. I shall find out however, and give the information tomorrow. The Department of Justice has been so very busy, drafting new statutes of every kind, sort and description, especially throughout the war years, in an effort to see that they did not get everyone into trouble-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Including the government.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, including the government-that possibly they have not made any collection of ideas for future amendments. I suggest to the hon. member for Lake Centre that it would be pretty difficult to get a commission to revise in any effective and competent way a large number of miscellaneous statutes.
For example, if we are convinced that the Immigration Act ought to be amended in certain respects, what competency would a revising commission have to give us new ideas upon which that act should be based? They must emanate from the Department of Mines and Resources, go to the cabinet, be considered there, and come out from there. Then someone will ask why I take a different view with regard to the criminal code. Well, the criminal code is just too great, that is all. It is too
Veterans Insurance Act

extensive for us to get anywhere by using that method. These changes in the principles and important provisions of statutes are not in my opinion the sort of thing which should emanate from a commission of five or seven men.


William Henry Golding: Shall the resolution carry?


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the minister one question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the portfolio?


John Thomas Hackett: Another competitor for the leadership.


John George Diefenbaker: This is just an anticipatory step. It will not be long before all of us are over here.
Does the answer the minister has just given apply to recommendations as well?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall give consideration to that suggestion, but we are not going to the lengths which apparently the hon. member thinks we should go.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Ilsley thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 348, respecting the Revised Statutes of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



VETERANS INSURANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 60, to amend the Veterans Insurance Act-Mr. Gregg -Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Persons eligible for insurance.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Before we proceed, could the minister say whether copies of this bill as amended, and others to follow, are available?
Hon. MILTON F. GREGG (Minister of Veterans Affairs): If the committee desires, I shall outline the amendments made to the bill.
Subsection 1 of section 3 of the act sets out the various classes with whom the minister may enter into a contract of insurance and the time within which the persons must apply for a contract of insurance.
It is now proposed 'to add to those classes and, at the same time, extend the period within which a person eligible to obtain insurance must apply therefor.
Accordingly, subsection 1 of section 3 is being repealed and a new subsection for the purpose above mentioned is being put forward.
fMr. Ilsley.]
Paragraph (a) of the said subsection extends the time of three years in which a veteran must apply! to six years from the date of his discharge from service or six years from the 20th day of February, 1945, which was the date upon which, by proclamation, the Veterans Insurance Act came into force.
Paragraph (b) merely re-enacts the present paragraph (b) of the act.
Paragraph (c) enables the widow or widower of a person who died on service during the war to apply for insurance within six years after the death of that person or within six years after the coming into force of the act.
Paragraph (d) enables members of the permanent force to take advantage of the act. This paragraph puts into statutory form the provisions of order in council, P.C. 467, of the 7th February, 1947, by which the benefits of the act were extended to members of the permanent force. The time within which these members of the permanent force may apply for insurance is six years from the 1st of April, 1946, that being the date on which they first became entitled by virtue of the above-mentioned order in council to apply for insurance.
Paragraph (e). Those merchant seamen who received or who were entitled to receive a bonus pursuant to the merchant seamen special bonus orders are now, by virtue of order in council, P.C. 3227, of the 3rd of May, 1945, entitled to apply for insurance. This class is now being given those rights by statute, and, in addition, the benefits of the act are extended to those merchant seamen who received or who were eligible to receive a war service bonus pursuant to the merchant seamen war service bonus order of 1944.
Paragraph (f). As the act presently stands, an}' person who is in receipt of a pension relating to the war may apply for a contract of insurance. It has been found that the [DOT] wording of the act is sufficiently broad to allow parents or persons in loco parentis of the deceased member of the forces to apply.
It was never intended that dependents of the deceased member of the forces, other than his widow, would be entitled to insurance. That condition is now cured by confining "pensioners" to those who obtain their pension by reason of their own disability. Widows of persons who died during service will obtain their rights under proposed paragraph (c). It may be noted that some parents and others in loco parentis have already been issued policies and that although this subsection is, by clause 3 of the bill, made retroactive to the 1st of April, 1947, paragraph (f) is exempted from this retroactive effect, and the policies that

War Veterans Allowance Act
have been issued to those persons are protected from being invalidated.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. MILTON F. GREGG (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 196, to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-"Orphan".
Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: We have not had any opportunity to go over the bill to see whether the amendments approved by the committee have been incorporated in the bill. If the chairman does not mind my jumping ahead a few sections, I am principally interested in section 6, which provides for the increase to 1250. Has that been carried throughout the bill?


Mr. GREGG:: The bill now before us is based upon the recommendations made by the special committee on veterans affairs. It is exactly as reported to the house by that committee.


George Stanley White: I
do not know whether the minister wishes me to make my remarks on this first clause or on the sections in which we are interested as we reach them. My remarks will apply principally to clause 6.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Perhaps we could have any discussion on the section to which it applies.


Frank Exton Lennard: I have a few remarks to make which are not particularly applicable to any section. I refer to the brief which was presented by the British Canadian veterans on May 10. As many hon. members know, on May 6, 1946, they presented a brief to the veterans affairs committee of that year. The brief which was presented to the veterans affairs committee on May 10 of this year was one of the most complete and fairest briefs presented to the committee. It was presented by Stephen Jones, Toronto, supported by George MacKay of Hamilton. All that they asked for was entitlement for those British Canadian veterans who served in an actual
theatre of war and who had twenty years of continuous residence in Canada. They pointed out that the British Canadian veterans who had resided continuously in Canada for twenty years after the first great war had been paying taxes. They had raised their families. They had contributed to the federal treasury from which all federal expenditures, including war veterans pensions, are paid. Their sons and daughters had served in the second great war and were prepared to serve again. To all intents and purposes they should be on an equal footing with the Canadian-born veteran.
I believe that myself, and I am disappointed that the recommendation was not passed in the veterans affairs committee. I may say I had the privilege of moving the following resolution which was defeated:
That the committee recommend that the appropriate section of the act be amended to allow that the benefits of the War Veterans Allowance Act be extended to veterans who served with the imperial forces in an actual theatre of war other than the British isles, and who had no pre-war domicile, but whose period of continuous residence in Canada has reached twenty years.
I felt on several occasions that this resolution would meet with the unanimous approval of the committee, but we found that it was voted down. As I say, I was disappointed, because the number of British Canadian veterans who would be involved was such that we could very well have adopted this resolution.
I consider that an injustice has been done to those veterans of the first great war. It is true that they were not promised anything. They were not enticed to this country with any promise of that kind. Because of their continuous residence in Canada and their good citizenship, they are most certainly entitled to these benefits.
Another matter that should have received some consideration is contained in a brief presented by Canadian non-pensioned veterans' widows. Some of their points were well taken. This was fully covered by the committee, and I do not intend to deal with it section by section. I merely mention that it should have received more consideration. Probably I shall have more to say when we deal with the various sections of the bill.


Mr. QUELCH:: I find myself in general accord with the remarks of the last speaker. The bill that we have before us is undoubtedly a better bill than the one which went to the committee, just as that bill made certain improvements upon the war veterans allowance as it exists today.
When the pensions bill came back to the house I congratulated the minister upon the
War Veterans Allowance Act

changes that had been made, and at that time I expressed the hope that we would be able to deal as generously with the war veterans allowance bill as we had with that bill. However I am afraid that the present bill falls far short of the requests made by the various veterans organizations of this country. The bill as amended provides an increase in the allowance from $30 to S40 a month for single veterans, and from $60 to $70 for married veterans. In addition, it removes the ceiling upon casual earnings. That is all to the good. But, as I say, it falls far short of the requests that have been made by the various veterans organizations. For instance, at the last convention of the legion a resolution was passed as follows:
Resolved that we instruct our dominion command to continue to press for basic rates of $50 per month for single men and $S5 per month for married men.
II hen that question was being discussed in the committee-as a matter of fact, the matter had already been discussed and decided upon in the committee when the legion met in convention, and therefore we could not deal with it again-a motion similar to it was moved and lost by a very narrow margin. As a matter of fact, it was a tie, fifteen to fifteen, and the chairman cast the deciding vote. He had the very unpleasant task of having to decide the vote. It was decided strictly on party lines, the opposition all voting for the amendment and the Liberal members all voting against it. It is quite obvious that the rate proposed in the bill will not be a sufficient amount to give the veterans depending upon this allowance a real living income. They can get by and will be able to exist. No doubt the government will argue that they are existing today on the present rate and will continue to exist on this increased rate. The point is that, with the increased cost of living, the amount proposed is not sufficient to give them a real decent living allowance.
The second point raised by the legion resolutions passed at the convention reads as follows:
Resolved that the brief of the Canadian Legion be fully endorsed to the effect that veterans of imperial forces, domiciled in Canada ii1" twenty - ears, be eligible for war veterans allowance.
This is another matter that was discussed in the veterans committee. Again that resolution was lost in the committee by a very narrow margin. It was voted down, thirteen to ten.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Did I understand the hon. member to say it was defeated?


Victor Quelch: Yes, it was defeated in the veterans committee, thirteen to ten. Again it was on a straight party vote, the opposition all supporting the proposal and the Liberal members voting against it. It is well to remember that the men mentioned in the resolution had all served in the first war in the British forces and not in the Canadian forces. Some of these men had been domiciled in Canada prior to enlistment; but, owing to the fact that, they had gone back to the old country, probably a few months or a year before the start of the war, they were not considered to be domiciled in this country, and therefore were not eligible for the allowance as they would have been had they been domiciled in Canada at the time of enlistment. Nevertheless these men have now been domiciled in Canada for twenty years. They have been paying taxes in this country; they have helped to contribute to the wealth of the country; they have raised families and in many cases their sons and daughters served in the second world war. There is a very strong sentiment in Canada today that these men should now be made eligible for the war veterans allowance.
The third point that was dealt with in the legion brief is as follows:
World war I veterans with service in Great Britain.
Resolved that the benefits of the War Veterans Allowance Act be extended to Canadian veterans who served in Great Britain only for a period of eighteen months or more during world war I.
This resolution was also brought before the veterans committee, and again it was lost by a very narrow margin. The vote on the resolution was thirteen against and twelve for. Again it was decided on a straight party vote, the opposition all voting for the resolution and the Liberal members voting against it, with the exception of one. One Liberal voted for the motion.
I believe that in the past the legion have taken a stand against England being considered a theatre of war, but at this convention at any rate they did urge 'that veterans who had served in England for at least eighteen months should be eligible for the war veterans allowance. Of course, if these three resolutions had carried in the committee we would have had a far stronger talking point in urging the government to give consideration to this matter.
The minister realizes only too well that it was a toss-up whether these resolutions carried in the committee or not. The margin was so narrow in one case, while there was a tie in

War Veterans Allowance Act
another, that it was just a question whether it carried. It was lost by one vote on one occasion and by three on another, and if a few more of the opposition members had been present the decision might have been reversed. In view of the fact that there is such a strong demand in Canada that each of these resolutions shall be adopted, and a strong demand, not merely on the part of veterans organizations but among various civilian bodies in the country, I would urge the minister to take the matter up with the cabinet and try to have the whole subject reconsidered, so that the amount of the allowance for single veterans may be increased to $50 and for married veterans to $85. Further, I suggest that England be considered an actual theatre of war and that imperials who have resided in Canada for twenty years or more be eligible for war veterans allowance.


Mr. PEARKES:: I associate myself with those who have spoken, and I express regret, almost resentment, that the allowances have not been extended to meet the suggestions advanced by the Canadian Legion, both as regards the amount of the allowance and also as regards the extension of the provisions to include imperials who have had long residence in Canada, and those Canadian soldiers who served only in Great Britain during world war I. They served only in Great Britain, but that was no fault of theirs. It was due to the exigencies of the service or to the demand for their particular talent in training other men.
I have already spoken during this session on both these classes of veterans. I will not now repeat the remarks I have made previously, but I wish to bring to the attention of the committee one striking fact to illustrate the irony of the regulations which prohibit a soldier of world war I who served only in Great Britain from drawing these allowances. The allowances are available to any soldier of world war I who served on the continent of Europe up to the date of the conclusion of hostilities at that time. I remind the committee that the armistice was signed on the eleventh day of November 1918, but the war was not declared over until August 1920. Therefore a man might have left Canada after the signing of the armistice, and after a short period of training in Great Britain he might have been sent over to reinforce one of the battalions forming the army of occupation, being billeted in a comfortable house on the banks of the Rhine, suffering no hardship at all and returning at the conclusion of peace when the army of occupation returned to England. That man is eligible for all the considerations and the benefits of this act.
Similarly a man who went over to Great Britain, who did not see any fighting at all, who did not move to the continent of Europe until after the armistice, might have been attached then to some of the labour battalions connected with the imperial war graves commission. That man is also eligible for these benefits.
But the soldier who went over in 1914, who was exposed to the hardship of Salisbury plain, whose health perhaps was ruined, and who remained in Great Britain training other men for many years, perhaps right up to the conclusion of hostilities, separated from his family all that time, is not eligible for the benefits provided.
That is so ironical it is well worth further consideration. I hope the minister will bear these facts in mind and remember that this legislation is never finished. It is like history, unfinished business. I hope that when, between now and next session, he reviews this legislation with a view to bringing down further amendments he will realize that the granting of adequate allowances, the granting of allowances at all to imperials, and to the men of world war I in the Canadian forces who remained only in Great Britain for a period of over eighteen months, is still a matter of unfinished business.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say once again that those of us who are not veterans are grateful for the hard work which the veteran members of the special committee have done on behalf of their comrades. I think it is also true to say that in the house and generally throughout the country there will be disappointment that more was not accomplished.
I support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Nanaimo that this is unfinished business, and I hope that the government will continue to consider the points raised by those who have spoken thus far this afternoon.
In the first place-and I think this is the view of the citizens of Canada generally-we feel that something better than $40 a month should be done for those whom we know as burnt-out pensioners. There is on the part of Canadians generally a great deal of sympathy for these old soldiers who have become known as burnt-out pensioners, and in the light of today's cost of living, $40 a month is not good enough.
I am sorry that, although the committee did make a change, as I read the reprinted bill, incorporating the extra $10 as part of the allowance itself rather than as a supplementary allowance, the value of that has been somewhat lost by the reduction of the amount of other allowable income from $250 to $125.
I know there is now no ceiling on what is called casual income, but I think that is likely
War Veterans Allowance Act

to create difficulties. I remind the government that a similar situation in connection with another piece of legislation developed back in 1943. In that year the government increased the amount of the old age pension by $60, but at the same time it reduced by the sum of $60 the amount of other income which the old age pensioner could earn. Some of us pointed out at the time that this was an anomalous situation which should not be allowed to continue, and it was only a matter of months until the government found that they had to restore the S125 figure which stood in the legislation at that time. I have the feeling that the government will again come to the realization that they should not have contracted this amount of other income which the pensioner may have.
I also strongly support the suggestion, which has been made a good many times from the floor of this house, that the imperial soldier should be included under this legislation. I also urge continued consideration-and I hope it will get somewhere-of this matter of England and world war I. England is not yet considered in this bill to have been a theatre of war. I need not repeat examples of the anomalous situation that this has produced, but I should like to say one word in this connection on behalf of the widows of lion-pensioned veterans who are covered under this same legislation. It is tough on the old soldier himself to be in the position referred to by the hon. member for Nanaimo, when he served in England during world war I and was piepared to go to the continent but did not get there, to find that lie does not qualify for the burnt-out pension. But it seems even tougher on the widow of a non-pensioned veteran who has passed on, to discover that she is denied this small widows' allowance because her husband-although he served and was prepared to serve anywhere-did not get to the continent during world war I. I would say there is fairly general disappointment that these changes were not made.
Speaking for myself and knowing something of the attitude of other hon. members and of people outside the house, I think I should say there is appreciation of the attitude which the Minister of Veterans Affairs has taken toward the work of his department and also appreciation of the attitude he has shown toward the desires of the members of the committee. In fact this has been a highly significant session of parliament in that regard. I cannot recall another occasion when so many changes in legislation have been made in committee as have been made this time. It is because the minister has paid attention and given consideration to the wishes of the

members of the committee that here today we are voicing these sentiments again. We hope that he will treat these matters as unfinished business, that he will continue to give them earnest and sympathetic consideration, and that it will not be long until we shall have a further amendment of this act providing $50 a month as the basic burnt-out pension; restoring the amount of other income that can be earned to the figure at which it stood before; bringing in the imperials, and treating England as a theatre of war in world war I. If this can be done, it will mean a great deal to the burnt-out pensioners covered by this act and also to the widows of non-pensioned veterans.


John Ritchie MacNicol: All those who were
present on Saturday last at the opening of Sunnybrook hospital in the city of Toronto, and who later in the day had the pleasure of attending the dinner in the Royal York hotel, were pleased at the great applause given to the minister when his name was called and he was asked to stand up on each occasion. It showed the appreciation of the soldier city of Toronto for what the minister has being trying to do and for what he has done. I myself was highly pleased with the great reception that the minister received there; because when Toronto is satisfied it gives a good reception.
I want to add just a few words to what has already been said. I agree with all that was said by the hon. member for Wentworth, the hon. member for Nanaimo, the hon. member for Acadia and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. These hon. members demonstrated, as they have on many previous occasions, their sympathy for the soldiers and their dependents. I have the great honour of representing a part of the city of Toronto in which is located the section known as Earlscourt which, in the first great war, enlisted almost to a man and filled up the Princess Patricia's battalion, of which I had the honour to be patron. In the second great war the men in that section enlisted by the thousands. Other sections of Toronto and elsewhere perhaps in Canada did as well; but I can say that no part of Canada did any better and few parts equalled the voluntary enlistments in that area.
A few days ago a case came to my attention -and they are coming in all the time-about which I believe I have written to the department. It was that of a widow of the class mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Her husband served in the first great war; but because the officers who were around England apparently took a great

U'ar Veterans Allowance Act
fancy to the services he could render to them, they did not allow him to go to France- They kept him in England. He was there for four years. He died some time ago; I have just forgotten the date. His widow has been appealing to me to see if she could not receive some consideration. Because her husband did not serve in France during the war, she gets mighty little return for his four years' service in England. Therefore I agree with all that has been said by the other hon. members. Surely the time has come when those who served in England and were kept there against their will -because this particular man did his best to get over to France, as I know many others did-should receive consideration, and when England should be considered as having been a theatre of war in the first great war. I support what was said by the previous speakers in that regard.
I now wish to refer to the imperials. I remember very well that, in the part of the city in which I live, prior to the great war all sorts of rifle companies were in existence. These people nearly all came from the old country. Nearly every family I knew came from there. They formed rifle battalions and practised shooting, and one military exercise and another in that part of the city. Anticipating the storm that was approaching at that time, quite a number of them went to the old country immediately before war was declared and enlisted in regiments in Great Britain. I have in mind two brothers. One of them rushed over to Britain in order to be ready to defend his homeland. The other, who was not able to go from Canada at that time, later wen-t over after the war was declared and fought in the great war. After the war was over, the one who, preceding the opening of the war, had gone to Britain, served faithfully over there, and was badly wounded, came back to Canada again because he liked Canada. His British pension is not one, two, three with that of his brother who served in the Canadian forces.
I endorse everything that was said by previous speakers. Surely to goodness the time has come to consider the imperial veterans of that class and, in addition, the imperial veterans who came out and lived here for twenty years. I believe the hon. member for Wentworth strongly emphasized the twenty-year limit for imperial veterans, with regard to both pension and war veterans allowance. I cannot add anything to what he and others have said in that regard, but I strongly endorse what they have said. These men served in the defence of the empire and of Canada in the first war, and surely they should receive some recognition. It is not their fault
that the dear old mother country has been so drained of resources, both at home and abroad, that she is on her back today. It is not their fault that the homeland cannot give them the same recompense as is given to their brothers who were here in Canada.
I for one have every confidence that, now the minister has started on his way, he will consider the representations which have been made today by those whose knowledge of this matter is much greater than my own. I have taken very little part in discussions of this kind, and I do so now mostly because of the thousands and thousands of old country people who live in my part of the city of Toronto. A great majority of them served in the first war, and in many cases their sons and daughters served in the last war.
I am happy that consideration is being given to the widows of soldiers who served in England. Many of those widows were without pensions for a long time. As the minister knows, I was the first one in the house to bring up the question of non-pensioned widows' pensions. I was always supported by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre after he came to the house. I spoke the strongest words at my command on their behalf. I have seen so many of them die without recognition and without receiving what they should have received.
I trust that the minister will take into his warm consideration, not only the claims of the imperial veterans and of those who served in England but did not get to France, but also of the widows of those who did serve.


Mr. LOCKHART:: I wish to say just a word, because I do not want to repeat what has been said previously. I did not have the privilege of sitting on this committee, but I do want to express regret that certain phases of -this matter were not treated favourably. In my own area there is a very active organization of British Canadian veterans. I have listened to the presentations made by different hon. members, especially the hon. member for Nanaimo, and I in turn could cite dozens of cases where inconsistency has occurred, apparently because of the attitude of certain members of the veterans committee.
I am rather confused in trying to understand why the members of the committee split on party lines. It seems to me that the interests of these men and the widows of these men who served so valiantly should be above that. There appears to be a feeling among British Canadian veterans, among the widows of those who served in different branches of the services, among those who have not received recognition, that there is still some faint hope; that a new outlook is possible with the advent of the new minister.

War Veterans Allowance Act

The members of the veterans committee did noble work in trying to advance legislation that would be more in the interests of our veterans and their widows. I want to say to the minister that in the short time he has served he has gained the confidence, not only of those who have been favourably dealt with but of those who are somewhat disappointed. But, as has been said, this is a continuing work. I believe I am only reflecting the views of many in my part of Canada when I say I feel that this matter will not die simply because a particular cross-section of this house which was serving on the veterans committee decided to split on the lines which have been indicated by the hon. member for Acadia. Perhaps the minister will find ways of correcting these inconsistencies in connection with those who served equally as well as those who are being favourably treated by the terms of this bill. I want to impress upon the minister the need for continuing this work, so that there will be no inconsistencies in the administration of veterans affairs.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: As a member of the veterans affairs committee, I first wish to indicate the keen enjoyment I have had in working on that committee. I think I speak for all the members of the committee when I express my appreciation of the way in which the chairman of the war veterans allowance board, his officials and the officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs presented evidence, facts, figures and information to the committee. I have rarely sat on a committee where information has been given more clearly and more fully. Anything the committee asked for concerning any aspect of veterans affairs was presented without question and in an understandable form.
I do not want to take up time this afternoon by speaking at length, but I should like to support what previous speakers have said with regard to disappointment in connection with certain aspects of this bill. I think the najor disappointment as far as veterans' organizations are concerned is in connection with the treatment given to their suggested amendments. I am sure that the $40 a month which was decided upon was far short of what the veterans' organizations of this country expected, and hoped for and desired.
A couple of weeks ago I had an opportunity of attending the dominion convention of the Canadian Legion at Saskatoon. Many matters of great interest to the delegates and to the Canadian people were brought up before that large gathering of nearly one thousand delegates. I think the matter of greatest interest to the delegates at that convention

was that of securing $50 a month for those who are entitled to war veterans allowance. That was evidenced by the special concern about the matter, and by the sending of telegrams to the minister and the chairman of the committee on veterans affairs, urging reconsideration of the committee's former decisions.
I am sure the attitude of the legion and other veterans' organizations has the support of a large number of people in this country. I am sure, too, that the majority of the Canadian people wish to make certain that aging veterans have at least sufficient to get along in a very modest way. I am sure no one would suggest that $40 a month is sufficient under present living costs and conditions.
These men form a particular group. In many instances they have suffered pre-aging and war disabilities. Owing to developments within our industrial structure, it is much more difficult for them to obtain additional employment than it was twenty years ago. I will admit that in the smaller places many of these men can supplement their income to a limited extent, but in the larger centres it is becoming increasingly difficult to do this from day to day.
Therefore I again support the remarks of hon. members who have expressed their disappointment concerning the decision to grant only $40 a month to those entitled to war veterans allowance.
Then, there is a group of imperials who have resided in this country for twenty years but who served with the British forces. In so doing, they were indirectly defending Canada. They have come to this country and spent many years of their lives here. Now many of them are in a position where they require assistance. I am quite sure that here, again, not only the veterans' organizations but the vast majority of the Canadian people would wish to see them given entitlement to war veterans allowance.
There is also the group of Canadians who served only in England. As was mentioned by a previous speaker, prior to the recent convention the legion had not taken a stand on this matter. It is now the considered opinion of the legion, as a result of comradeship and a fellow feeling for those in distress, that those who saw service in England should be brought under the War Veterans Allowance Act, and the legion has so urged upon the government and the committee.
We have to look at this question from all points of view. We must have a sense of responsibility and consider the financial aspects of the matter. But when one con-

War Veterans Allowance Act
siders the sum mentioned as being necessary to increase veterans allowances to $50 a month, to give allowances to imperials who have lived in Canada for twenty years and to give veterans allowances to Canadians who served in England, he realizes that it is not beyond the easy capacity of the Canadian people to pay. I am sure these payments would receive the endorsation of Canadians as a whole.
In that respect my principal argument would be that the defence of Canada is a national responsibility. Therefore I, in common with many other members of the committee, maintain that those who suffered disabilities of war are entitled to be cared for by the nation. Their care is a national responsibility. While this bill is a great improvement on the one presented to the committee, and -while the recommendations have been accepted in several respects, I suggest that the minister and the government should give further consideration to increasing the allowance to $50 a month, giving veterans allowances to imperials resident in Canada for twenty years, and to Canadians who served in England, in view of the fact that many people maintain-and, I believe, rightly so-that the care of those who suffered by war is a national responsibility.


Mr. MOORE:: I do not intend to take up much time of the committee, but perhaps as a member of the committee on veterans affairs I should congratulate the minister upon the fine spirit he has shown in dealing with veterans problems.
I regret, however, that the committee found it difficult to obtain changes in the War Veterans Allowance Act. It was noticeable that the government accepted the changes suggested by the committee so far as the Pension Act is concerned, but it was not quite so ready to accept changes with respect to the War Veterans Allowance Act.
I do not wish to cover any of the ground already covered; but, because of the large amount of correspondence received in the past year, I would say that the recommendation of the committee that England be considered a theatre of war in the first world war, within the meaning of the act, should be reconsidered by the government.
Another matter which should be brought to the attention of the government is that of applications for war veterans allowance by soldiers of the Canadian army who saw service only in Canada. I happen to have a number of applications from men who served for at least two years in Canada and who are now in necessitous circumstances. Because benefits under this act can be granted only for service
performed in a theatre of actual war, they cannot be included. Something should be done to relieve the circumstances under which most of these people are now forced to live. The high cost of living has had a great deal to do with the applications now coming in for increased benefits under veterans legislation.


Frank Exton Lennard: There is one situation I should like to describe on the record, because to my mind it is stupid. It seems odd that two departments of the same government cannot agree as to whether a man is or is not employable. Under the regulations which apply with respect to the War Veterans Allowance Act, a man must be permanently unemployable before he can qualify for the allowance. The unemployment insurance commission say that a man must be available and able to work before benefits under their scheme are payable. Yet a man who can qualify for war veterans allowance must expend his unemployment insurance benefits or credits first.
How can a man who is permanently unemployable be available for work? If a man qualifies for a war veterans allowance, why cannot his unemployment insurance benefits or credits be disregarded, so that he can be paid his war veterans allowance from the day he qualifies? The position of an individual could be indicated on paper. This would save a man a good deal of running around and standing in line at employment offices, when it is a foregone conclusion he will not be employed anyway.
I wanted to put that statement on record, so that the department could straighten the matter out in the next year, and thereby prevent this stupid arrangement from continuing.


Mr. SKEY:: While the department is considering the matters mentioned by the hon. member for Wentworth, I suggest that it might consider the domicile clause in the Pension Act and gratuities and rehabilitation benefits. I know the minister and his deputy are aware of the situation. It seems to me wrong that we should consider a man eligible for rehabilitation in Canada and for all these benefits, and then if he has lost a leg or an arm in war, permit the domicile clause, which is different from that in the rehabilitation measure, to take away from him pension benefits to which he would be justly entitled.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Maximum allowance in certain
cases.
George Stanley White: This is the main section of the bill, and provides for
If'fl)1 Veterans Allowance Act

a small increase in the veterans allowance. I do not want to rehash all the matters that came before the committee or what has been said this afternoon, but I would read to the minister from the report of the veterans affairs committee, where at page 661 I find this:
Mr. White: This comes back to the argument I raised the other day. It really means that the veteran who is getting both the veterans allowance and earning the full amount is not going to benefit in any way by this increase.


The Chairman:: Correct.
Mr. White:	Even if you carry Mr. Harris'
motion, it will still mean exactly that.


William Ross Macdonald: That is correct. The only
difference is it does remove it from the questionable category of a supplementary grant, and raises to $485 his maximum receipts. Are you ready for the question, then?
So this really means that the veteran who, under the oldi act, was getting $365 a year if single, and double that if married, and earning the full amount available, will not benefit in any way under the amendment which the minister now proposes. Does the minister disagree with me?
Secondly, with the amount restricted to $365, plus whatever the veteran's casual earnings may be, I fear that the amendment will have a tendency in some cases to make the veteran *who is able to work and earn something decide that he will simply not earn that extra money if his allowance is to be cut down to the maximum of $485. I would have thought the minister would leave the earnings at $250 for a single man and $365 for a married man or a widower with children. It was pointed out in the committee that a large number of widows will benefit by the act, and I am very glad that they will receive the benefit of the act. On the other hand a large number of veterans who are receiving the allowance today will not benefit in any way from the amendment which the minister now proposes. I would suggest to the minister that, even at this late date, he consider amending this section to provide that the earnings shall be increased to at least $250 since, if the amount is left at $125, many veterans will not benefit in any way, because they will refuse to earn extra money if their allowance is to be cut.
The minister and his department and the government must have taken some notice of the storm of protest at the legion convention a few weeks ago. The legion requested a further hearing by the committee, which was granted, and I should like to read one paragraph from the supplementary brief presented by the legion and dealing with this increase. It will be found at page 2:
The dominion council is greatly concerned about an increasing number of veterans who are finding it impossible to secure any employ-

ment and must subsist solely on the allowance. Certainly in these days, the allowances provided by the bill under consideration are quite inadequate for food and shelter alone.
I would impress on the minister those last few words, "are quite inadequate for food and shelter alone." No member of this house would say that the request of the legion that the basic rate for single men and widows be $50, and $85 for married men and widowers with children, is unreasonable. As I said, I ask the minister, even at this late stage, to reconsider and recommend to the cabinet, first, that the veteran be allowed to have larger earnings, and second, that the recommendation in the legion brief be implemented.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I do not propose this afternoon to refer to all the things that have been said, because most of these questions were fully discussed in the veterans affairs committee. I want to say, first of all, that I and the officials of my department realize fully that these matters affecting veterans are unfinished business and will remain unfinished business long after the end of this session, even if Canada should not take part in any more wars.
The discussion this afternoon has ranged about two items connected with the bill. One is the amount of the increase. The other is eligibility: the eligibility of those who served in Britain only in the first war; and secondly, the eligibility of the British Canadian veterans who came to Canada after the old war and resided in Canada for many years but who was not resident in Canada prior to his service in 1914. The arguments on that have been discussed here and elsewhere. I am not going to say that the increase we have provided in the bill is such as any member of the veterans affairs committee or any member of this house would like to see, but I would point out that since 1930 the War Veterans Allowance Act has been twice improved in that respect. It was $20 in 1930 and stands at $40 today for the single man, and $70 for the married man. The government felt, in a year when the pensions bill had been increased, the first increase since 1926, that the committee had incorporated in this bill a reasonable increase which is looked upon as a permanent increase. We are now at a peak time as to both cost of living and employment. It is true, as has been stated this afternoon, that the older veterans cannot all get work; nevertheless a surprisingly large proportion of them are working, a great many of them full-time and many of them part-time. They are anxious to work, and I doubt whether many of them will give up useful and interesting works just to keep themselves within the terms

War Veterans Allowance Act
of the amount which will be applicable to them under these amendments.
We should also bear in mind that there must be some equitable relationship between the benefits under this act and the benefits granted to those old people who did not serve Canada in uniform in the early days of their lives. As it is now, leaving out of consideration for the moment a very special factor, the terms of this act by and large- I am not going to argue the details this afternoon-are as good as those of any old age pension scheme in any province of Canada. But the special factor which I mentioned is that under this bill the old soldier at the age of sixty, if he comes within its terms, automatically gets war veterans allowance at the age of sixty rather than at the age of seventy, as is the case with old age pensions.
On the point of eligibility of members of the Canadian forces who served only in England during the first war, I think it is evident from the discussion here this afternoon that, if at this time they were made eligible under this bill, right behind it comes the next point:	What about those who served only
in Canada for four or five years in the first war? Side by side with that comes another point: What about the second war and those who served only in Canada? You have those questions raised right there. It is but dodging the issue to say these are not so vocal. I think, before that bridge is crossed, some decision must be reached. I think, too, the generation of veterans who are still young, and who served only in Canada, in the second war, might give some consideration to looking forward in years to come to an equitable protection through the normal social security measures within our country.
On the third point I state right now that I should like to consider all the factors which have been submitted in the discussion this afternoon and to keep it under consideration for the future.


George Randolph Pearkes: The minister is drawing a red herring across the trail by talking about considering those men who served only in Canada during the first war. That point has never been raised at all.


Milton Fowler Gregg: It was raised this afternoon.


George Randolph Pearkes: It has not been raised in the house.


Mr. MUTCH:: Yes, this afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought I was following the minister very closely, but I did not get what he meant by the third point that he said he was keeping under active consideration.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The third point was with regard to the British Canadians, or, as they have nearly always been called, the imperial veterans who served in the British forces in a theatre of battle in the first great war, and who; since then, have come to Canada and have been here for many years. They will be kept under consideration for the future.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is one other point I should like to have perfectly clear, namely, the ceiling on the combined income allowed to a burnt-out pensioner. I recognize that, at the moment, 1 am not looking at the fact that casual income is outside the pale. Apart from that, the bill as it went to the committee provided in the case of single veterans for an allowance of $365 and $250 other income, or a total ceiling of $615 a year. The bill as it has come back from the committee provides for an allowance of $485 and other income of $125, or a ceiling of $610. In other words, there has been an actua1 reduction of $5 a year in the ceiling on allowance and other income. The corresponding figures for a married burnt-out pensioner are as follows: The bill as it went to the committee provided for an allowance of $730, and $375 other income permissible, or a total of $1,105. The bill as we now have it before us provides for an allowance of $850. and other income of $250, or a total of $1,100. The amount involved is small, only $5 a year, but it does seem strange that this reduction should have been made. How it comes about is that the allowance has been increased by $120 a year, and the amount of other income allowed has been reduced by $125 a year. Basically I strongly support the point made by the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough that the amount of other income should be put back to $250. I remind the government again that that is what they found they had to do with respect to the old age pension question back in 1943 and 1944. But at the moment I should like to have this reduction of $5 clarified.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am rather averse to going into the intricacies of this. All I can do is to assure the hon. member that the object sought by the committee with regard to that angle of it, at any rate, has been achieved. It will be remembered that in the original draft of the bill the expression used was "supplementary allowance of $10 a month". That then was a separate item. Then, when the parliamentary committee got at it they said, why do you call it a supplementary allowance? There was no reason, because it was intended that it should be permanent, anyway. Therefore it was lifted from there over to another clause. I am assured by the
5254
War Veterans Allowance Act

deputy minister that it conveys the desire of the committee on that score, and that the thing which is desired to be done is being done. The permissible income remains the same.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I understand what the committee did, and for the moment I am not arguing as to the facts of the case. I have pointed out that the committee transferred the $120 from what was previously called a supplemental allowance and made it part of the allowance itself. The committee offset that transfer by making a reduction in the permissible income. But when they reduced the permissible income they did not reduce it by the same figure, $120, they reduced it by $125, hence the $5 reduction.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The permissible income
remains exactly the same in the first draft and the draft now before the committee.


Mr. BRYCE:: I should like to follow up what the hon. member for Nanaimo said regarding the amount of the pension. I hope that the minister will give consideration to the men of the first war who were not allowed to leave Britain. I have a typical case in my own constituency. This man went overseas in the early part of the war, in 1914. He was among the first to go over. He was employed in instructing officers in gas warfare. I am sure that the hon. member remembers those days. That man was not allowed to leave Britain. He is now back home. He has lived in Canada all his life. He is refused a pension because he was not out of Britain. I think the minister will probably admit that this is a deserving case, and there may be more than one.


George Stanley White: I should like to point out to the minister that in both clauses 3 and 4 these words are used: "Without child or children." Both the single and the plural are used. I take it that this means that a widow or widower, whether he or she has one child or six children would receive the same amount of allowance. The allowance would be exactly the same. Is that correct?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is correct.


George Stanley White: If that is correct, does the minister not think a widower with more than one child should have a permissible income of more than $250 a year?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I cannot very well answer the question offhand as to whether I consider it adequate. I do not think the item has been challenged by the committee, and I should like to see it carried as it is.


George Stanley White: In the Pension Act there is a separate allowance for each child. Apparently the War Veterans Allowance Act does not recognize more than one child. The amount of the allowance is exactly the same. I am not quarrelling with that; but the widower is restricted as to the amount of money that he can earn without reducing his war veterans allowance. Surely a widower with several children should be allowed to earn more than $250 a year without having his veterans allowance reduced. I do not think anybody would question that.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I should like to point out that, compared with pensions, quite a different principle is involved here. In the case of old age pensions, there is no arrangement in any of the provinces for children. This is not intended to be more than some assistance for the veteran who needs it at that particular period of his life, and it is fair to state that there are not a great many who would come under that section owing to their age.


George Stanley White: That may be true, but you should recognize the liability, because you are providing that a widow with a child shall get double the amount. If you recognize it for one child it is only reasonable to recognize it for the other children,


Mr. TUSTIN:: I cannot see why these men should not be allowed to earn a little extra money. Two cases were brought to my attention last week. One man drew the burnt-out pension and he could do some light work. He has two children; his wife has been ill for some time, and he advises me that it is actually impossible for him to get by on the allowance he is receiving, being allowed to earn only $250 in the year. I urge the minister to give further consideration to this provision.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: If a man with a 50 per cent pensionable disability dies of that disability his widow receive $840?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: The question the hon. gentleman asks relates to disability pensions. Under the War Veterans Allowance Act, it is not a question of degree of disability, since it is not strictly a pension in that sense but a living allowance. Therefore the question has no application to this specific act.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: If a man has a disability of 50 per cent or more, his widow will receive the whole $850. I think that is correct. Therefore a deadline is struck at 50 per cent. Why that is done no one seems to know. If a man has a 45 per cent disability which is pensionable, and he dies, the widow receives $485. I do not see why there should be

War Veterans Allowance Act
that difference. My suggestion is that further consideration should be given this point. At the present time $40 a month is about the equivalent of $20 before the war, so that there is no increase. I am making a plea for these women. They are all getting older, especially those from the last war. First of all, the deadline was 80 per cent. If the disability was over 80 per cent the widow automatically got the pension. Gradually that was lowered to 50 per cent. I do not know why that figure was decided upon. The widow whose husband had a 50 per cent disability is in the same category as the widow whose husband's disability was 45 per cent.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: It is now 48 per cent.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The difference between $850 and $485 is considerable. The amount of the allowance at the present time is only $40 a month, which is no more than the equivalent of $20 a month before the war. As regards both the burnt-out pensioner and the widow, it would be only a small matter for the government to bring the allowance up to $50 a month. The minister has referred to old age pensions, but that has nothing to do with the maiter. The widow's husband when overseas suffered a certain degree of disability, and she looked after him. Some consideration should be given her. It would not hurt the dominion if the amount were increased to $50. The amount the veteran is allowed to earn is also ridiculously low when one considers the cost of living. I know of one veteran who can earn a bit more than $250. He is suffering from silicosis and cannot work all the time. He is a stone worker and that is all he gets, so that his income for the year is very small. Something should be done to increase these allowances.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Maximum allowance in certain cases.
Frank Exton Lennard: A married couple under the Old Age Pensions Act in some provinces can get up to $80 a month, and under this act as revised the maximum is a little over $70 a month. I know what the answer will be: they receive pension at sixty years of age instead of at seventy. But when a war veteran reaches the age of seventy, in order to receive the additional $9 or $10 a month under the present regulations he may not wish to transfer to the old age pension scheme. In many cases I do not think the veteran would wish to do that. I think he would wish to feel that he was getting his pension from the source from which he had earned it, instead of transferring to another source.
5849-334J


Mr. KNIGHT:: Paragraph (c) of this section refers to a veteran deserted by his or her spouse. I was thinking of the contrary case where the veteran deserted his spouse and I was wondering about the rights of the wife under those circumstances. Where there is a voluntary separation, established over a number of years, the veteran can claim and receive veterans allowance only as if he were a single man. Is that correct?


Milton Fowler Gregg: In the situation outlined, the allowance would belong to the veteran.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The spouse has no claim in the matter?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Is it a fact that in the case of an established separation, a voluntary separation, the veteran when he draws the veterans allowance draws only such veterans allowance as is customarily granted to a single man?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is correct.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: To follow that up a little further, the man's receiving his allowance as a married man-that is to say, receiving the greater amount-is conditional upon the fact that he is living with his wife.


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is right.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: If the circumstances are such that he does not live with his wife, and he still has to support her-which is true in many cases-he still can use to support her only the amount of his allowance which he draws as a single man and not as a married man. That is also correct, is it?


Milton Fowler Gregg: For ordinary normal absence, the allowance for the wife would be continued. As in most things, it is a matter of intention. If they are apart and intend to live together, and if everything is in order with regard to their marriage relationship, certainly their allowance will be continued. But if they have broken it up for any reason, then he would be a single man as far as we are concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
William Henry Golding: Shall I
report the bill?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman. There are some amendments to be made.


Milton Fowler Gregg: There are one or two amendments from the parliamentary committee.
Veterans Rehabilitation Act


William Henry Golding: Are they new clauses?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Yes, there are new clauses. I would ask my colleague the Secretary of State to move each one in turn.


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West) moved:: To amend section 19, subsections 1 and 2, by changing 365 to 485 when those figures appear.


William Henry Golding: Shall this amendment carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can we be told the effect of it?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: This is a consequential
amendment to bring this section into line with the provision in sections 7, 8 and 11 which substitute $485 for $365.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Leslie Alexander Mutch: Then there is this second amendment which I will ask the Secretary of State to move.


Colin William George Gibson: To delete from part IV of the act paragraph
12 (1).


William Henry Golding: Shall that amendment carry?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: During the deliberations of the committee it was pointed out that the regulations at the present time make it impossible for a Canadian who served with the Canadian forces but who, subsequently to his service, had been residing in the United States, to return to Canada and to obtain relief under this legislation until a period of three months had elapsed. Formerly the period was six months, and a former committee reduced that to three months. The committee this year agreed that the necessity for that three months' period had lapsed. That is the purpose of introducing the amendment which we have just had the Secretary of State move. It is bringing into line an overlooked recommendation of the committee to eliminate that waiting period.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Leslie Alexander Mutch: There is one more amendment which I will ask the Secretary of State to move.


Colin William George Gibson: To amend paragraph (d) of section 4 of the act by adding after the word "allies" in line three the words "or powers associated with His Majesty in world war I."


William Henry Golding: Shall this amendment carry?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I should like to offer a word of explanation. It appears that, since the con-

elusion of world war I. those Canadians who served in the United States forces, or those Americans who were domiciled in Canada but served in the United States forces and then returned and lived in Canada since, are not eligible under this act by virtue of the fact that it has been held that the United States was not an ally in world war I but rather an associated power. A small number of veterans in that category have been denied the benefits of this legislation. This amendment will make it possible for those applications to be granted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Amendments read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. GREGG moved the third reading of the bill.
James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Frank Exton Lennard: On division.
Bill read the third time and passed.



VETERANS REHABILITATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. MILTON F. GREGG (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 200, to amend the Veterans Rehabilitation Act. *
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-"Dependent" defined.
William Henry Golding: Shall the
section carry?


Mr. MENARY:: May we have the bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have not yet received the bill.


Colin William George Gibson: It is in your file.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But it has since been amended.


George Randolph Pearkes: Has it not been amended since it was first printed?


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is not a reprint, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps the minister can tell us whether the amendments are extensive.


Milton Fowler Gregg: When the resolution was before the house I outlined the bill itself quite fully. There are no amendments to amount to anything. I will refer to them immediately. On page 5 of the bill, there is an amendment at the last line, which reads "on the thirtieth day of September, 1947," to make it read "on

Dominion Elections Act
the thirtieth day of June, 1948." That was the only amendment proposed by the parliamentary committee.


George Randolph Pearkes: On what page was that?


Milton Fowler Gregg: On the last page.


William Henry Golding: Order. We had better wait until we come to that point.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes, we will come to that.
It is the last line of the section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On section 6-Persons deemed to be discharged as of September 30, 1947.
Milton Fowler Gregg: This is the section to which I referred. I would ask my colleague the Secretary of State to move that, in the last line on page 5, "June" be substituted for "September" and "forty-eight" be substituted for "forty-seven."


Colin William George Gibson: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Secretary of State) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 198, to amend the Dominion Elections Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Fishermen.
Lawrence Wilton Skey: I should like to bring a matter to the minister's attention, mainly with the idea of getting his advice. This ks a problem which we have met with from time to time in large centres. I think it would be better if I described the situation rather than put a question to the minister. It is possible for a home owner on enumeration to register a considerable number of people who may be casual visitors but who are not necessarily residents in that particular place.


Colin William George Gibson: I do not think that would come under section 1.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Is this not a general section?


Colin William George Gibson: This section amends certain sections of the elections act.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Would the minister tell me if there is any section under which I can bring this matter up?


Colin William George Gibson: It should have been referred to on the second reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Tenure of office, salary, rank, and powers of chief electoral officer.
Colin William George Gibson: There is an amendment to section 2 which I will ask the Minister of Public Works to move. This was suggested by the committee that considered this bill, and it deals with the appointment and remuneration of the chief electoral officer.


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: I move:
2. (1) Subsection one of section four of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"4. (1) The chief electoral officer shall rank as and have all the powers of a deputy head of a department, communicate with the governor in council through the Secretary of State of Canada, devote himself exclusively to the performance of the duties of his office and be paid a salary of not less than eight nor more than ten thousand dollars per annum to be fixed by order of the governor in council. He shall be eligible as a contributor under and entitled to all the benefits of the Civil Service Superannuation Act but. until he has attained the age of sixty-five years when he shall be compulsorily retired, he shall be removable only for cause in the same manner as a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada.
(2)	Subsection one of this section, and subsection one of section four of the said act as enacted by subsection one of this section, shall become operative only upon the retirement of the person who is chief electoral officer at the date of the coming into force of this act.
(3)	The person who is chief electoral officer at the date of the coming into force of this act, shall be paid a salary of ten thousand dollars, per annum as from the first day of July, nineteen hundred and1 forty-seven."


John George Diefenbaker: It is difficult to follow an amendment when one has not it before him. There was some reference to a salary of between $8,000 and $10,000 to be fixed by the governor in council. Would the minister explain the reason for that and tell me in what other legislation is there a provision analogous to that, whereby the fixing of the amount rests with the governor in council?


Colin William George Gibson: The salary of the chief electoral officer was set in the act that is being amended at $8,000. The present incumbent has been there for many years and has given valuable service. It was felt that his remuneration should be increased to
525S
Dominion Elections Act

$10,000, but it was also considered that this should not necessarily apply to any new appointee. It was thought that the salary should have a limit of $10,000, but that provision should be made whereby a new appointee could be appointed at a salary ranging between $8,000 and $10,000.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 3, 4 and 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Qualifications.
Mr. WINTERS:: 
Alphonse Fournier: I so move.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


William Henry Golding: Shall the amendment carry?


Mr. BROWN:: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni:
That section 6 be amended by deleting subsection 2 (f) of section 14 as set out in section 6 of the bill.
The purpose of this amendment-


Mr. MILLER:: On a point of order, what happened to the amendment moved a moment ago in connection with section 14 (2) (i) ?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It carried.


Calvert Charlton Miller: No, it did not.


George Randolph Pearkes: I was on my feet to object to it.


Colin William George Gibson: That is right; the hon. member was on his feet.


William Henry Golding: I did not know the hon. member for Nanaimo wished to speak.


Donald Ferguson Brown: Which amendment are we dealing with?


William Henry Golding: We are dealing with the amendment moved by the Minister of Public Works.


George Randolph Pearkes: Would the minister explain the purpose of that amendment?


Colin William George Gibson: The purpose is to enable Canadian citizens who are of Japanese race to be eligible to vote.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is that irrespective of whether they were eligible to vote in the province in which they were residing?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes, that is correct.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is there any other case where people are not eligible to vote in a province, but who are being permitted to vote in federal elections?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes, there are others. For example, there are some who are inmates of charitable institutions.


George Randolph Pearkes: Are they not permitted to vote in the provinces?


Colin William George Gibson: In some provinces they are not permitted to vote.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Also the Doukhobors of British Columbia are covered by subsection 2 (i). I believe those in charitable institutions are covered by another section of the bill.


Colin William George Gibson: Yes.


John Ewen Sinclair: Does the deletion of subsection 2 (i) mean that henceforth in British Columbia Doukhobors and Japanese will vote in that province in federal elections? Perhaps they would come under paragraph (j)?


George Randolph Pearkes: The Doukhobors will be permitted to vote as well.


Colin William George Gibson: No; they come under another section of the act which is not being amended.


George Randolph Pearkes: Can the minister explain why? Are the Doukhobors not a race?


Angus MacInnis: I will explain the point. They are debarred from voting because they refuse to accept military service. They are exempt from military service because of the order in council under which they came to Canada. The situation is altogether different.


George Randolph Pearkes: Are the Quakers debarred for that reason?


Colin William George Gibson: No; they do not come under this section. The Douk-hobors came to this country under a special agreement. I shall read paragraph (j), which is not being repealed. It states:
In any province, every person exempted or entitled to claim exemption or who on production of any certificate might have become or would now be entitled to claim exemption from, military service by reason of the order in council of December 6, 1898, because the doctrines of his religion make him averse to bearing arms, and -who is by the law of that province disqualified from voting at an election of a member of the legislative assembly of that province.
Amendment (Mr. Fournier, Hull) agreed to.

Dominion Elections Act


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Before putting the second
amendment-


Donald Ferguson Brown: I think I have the floor, speaking to the second amendment.


William Henry Golding: I have read the hon. member's amendment, and he is speaking to it.


Donald Ferguson Brown: Will you call it six o'clock?


Lawrence Wilton Skey: It will not take me long.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Donald Ferguson Brown: It is just two minutes to six o'clock.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hurry up.


Donald Ferguson Brown: Mr. Chairman,I shall give my reason for the amendment. The Indian Affairs committee, which is a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, has considered the question of voting by the Indian population in Canada. On or about May 6 of this year a unanimous report was made by the committee to the house, recommending that votes be given to the Indians on the same basis as they are given to urban voters. The reason was that in that way it would be necessary that they be enumerated and be on the enumerators' list. At elections they would not be able to go to the polls with some other person already on the list, and be sworn in.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


William Henry Golding: When the committee rose at six o'clock the hon. member for Essex West was speaking to an amendment.


Donald Ferguson Brown: Mr. Chairman, as we
adjourned for the dinner recess I had explained that this amendment is the result of a report made to this house by the Indian affairs committee on or about the 6th day of May of this year, recommending that the North American Indian on a reserve in Canada be given the right to vote in dominion elections on the same basis as voters in urban centres. The Indian would then have to be enumerated and be on an enumerator's list on election day. This recommendation was the result of many representations made to the committee by various organizations from coast to coast throughout Canada and by many Indian organizations. Representations have also been made by one who, as I speak here tonight, is sitting in the gallery of this house, the Reverend Doctor Peter Kelly, of the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia, a Doctor of Divinity and a member of the United Church clergy.
The Indian pays taxes. He pays sales tax; he pays income tax on income earned off the reserve; in fact, he pays all taxes except taxes on the land he occupies on the reserve. It is therefore felt by the Indians that they are paying taxes and having no representation. The principle of taxation without representation does not appeal to them or to many church and other organizations. It was unanimously felt by the committee that the giving of the vote to the Indian would create in him a desire to help himself-the theme of the Indian affairs committee since its inception has been that we were endeavouring to help the Indian help himself-and that it would create in the Indian a sense of obligation to society. It would train him in our democratic practices and make him realize that he has a place in the Canadian economy and in the Canadian society.
On the other hand, the giving of the vote to the Indian would result in a- recognition by government agencies and by members of parliament that the Indian was not a chattel but a human being and as such had certain rights in our society and that he should be looked to and his rights be protected. In other words, the thought of the committee has been that the giving of the vote to the Indian will help us to assimilate the Indian. When I say assimilate I do not mean that the Indian would lose his rich background of cultural achievements, or any of the rights that he enjoys under treaties, or any of his rights, statutory or at common law; but that he would be recognized as being a human being and subject to the attention of those seeking office.
This thought of the Indian affairs committee and this recommendation are not without precedent, for in the United States the vote was given to the Indian in federal elections with certain minor qualifications. So that in moving this amendment, Mr. Chairman, I feel that a great step would be taken toward the assimilation of the Indian into the population of the Dominion of Canada, and it would make not only Indians but the other Canadians realize that we are all united.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Chairman, in rising to second the amendment of the hon. member for Essex West, who, as the committee knows, was chairman of the Indian affairs committee, I think it is well to call attention at once to the recommendation that was submitted to the house last year by the Indian affairs committee in regard to the

Dominion Elections Act
enfranchisement of Indians. Perhaps I should not say "enfranchisement," because the Indians feel that there is some liability connected with that term; shall I say, grant the privilege to the Indian of voting in a federal election.
I can well appreciate the stand now taken by the Indians. They feel that they are unjustly taxed by the income tax law, because they say they have not a vote. Generally speaking, it is the more advanced and more cultured Indians who will be paying most of the tax, because in ordinary circumstances the more cultured among them have the higher incomes.
When the Indian affairs committee made this recommendation we knew that the committee on the Dominion Elections Act was sitting, and I thought at that time it would be possible for that committee to consider our recommendation and make it possible for certain segments of our Indian population, the better educated and more advanced, to vote in dominion elections. Everyone will agree that the problem of Indians voting is a peculiar one. We have 125.000 Indians scattered over this country from the United States border to the Arctic ocean, and as a result they are bound to be in all stages of civilization. The more advanced professional people among the Indians live near the United States border, and the Indians who are still in almost an aboriginal state live farther north. I do not think it would be wise to grant to the aboriginal native Indian, without an education and without a knowledge of English, the same privilege that we grant to his brother who may be a professional man. That is the feeling of the Indian leaders themselves. They realize what a vast difference there is in the culture of the Indians in various parts of Canada.
As a way out of some part of the problem, it seems to me that it might be necessary for us to recommend to the committee on the Dominion Elections Act that an Indian applying for the privilege of voting be required to fill in an application to indicate to the enumerators that he can read and write. It does not seem quite right that a man who cannot read the names on the ballot should have the privilege and the responsibility of going into an election booth and taking part in a federal election. There is no question that the educational disability which some of the Indians possess will be overcome in the next twenty years so far as seventy-five per cent of them are concerned. Anybody who has studied the program of the Department of Mines and Resources and the Department of National Health and Welfare will realize that these branches of government are making available 
a greater sum of money to further Indian educational advancement. From my own personal knowledge of the Indians on the Pacific coast, I would say that within the next twenty years most of them will be competent to exercise an intelligent franchise without any test as to education. In fact, most of them are competent now. The difficulties and problems which the Indians now face will certainly be solved by the action of the members of parliament whom, I trust, they will help to elect when they receive the vote.


Colin William George Gibson: The amendment which has been offered is one which has not been considered by the elections committee. I understand that many problems will arise if this amendment is passed. I would hesitate to hold up the passage of this bill by referring the amendment back to the committee which has already considiered the elections act. The committee considered the act last session and throughout this session, d he amendment which has been put forward tonight is not one that was brought before the committee during its meeting, and while I do not know all the problems that it would raise,
I understand that many Indians are not anxious to have the vote. I understand that in Saskatchewan the chiefs of all the tribes in that province at a gathering decided to have a petition forwarded that they be not granted the vote, since they felt it might be the thin edge of the wedge to take away their treaty rights. I believe this matter should be thoroughly considered by the elections committee before being incorporated in the act, and I would suggest that the amendment be dropped in the meantime and referred to the elections committee at another session, so that it could be given careful consideration.


Thomas Langton Church: I have not had an opportunity of going over this bill, but I wish to express my views on the principle of the disqualification clause. I am in favour of allowing the Indians to vote, because they should be citizens. I refer to those who did not serve in the first and second wars. Citizenship should be made available to them.
I should like to refer to a matter which I voted for before, namely, subsection 1, paragraph (k), which refers to those in charitable institutions. I think it is a very small piece of business for this parliament to adopt the law of the provinces which debars from voting those old people in charitable institutions. They have borne the heat of the day, and many of them have voted all their lives. I am in favour of extending this provision, notwithstanding the provision in some of the other provincial acts.

Dominion Elections Act


Mr. CHARLTON:: I should like to say a few words in support of this amendment. I have the pleasure of representing the largest Indian reserve in the Dominion of Canada, and am also a member of the Indian Affairs committee. In view of the minister's remarks, surely we can accept the recommendation of the Indian Affairs committee, which has been meeting now for the past three years, without sending this amendment back to the elections act committee. I would be very sorry if that were done. The Indians were the first citizens of this country.


John Ewen Sinclair: Citizens? Aborigines.


John Alpheus Charlton: Surely it is time that these people were allowed the privilege of voting if they wish. I realize that many Indians do not wish to vote. Why is that? Because they are fearful that, by so doing, they will lose part of their rights and privileges. That is not true. Indians are a very proud people. They do not want to lose their identity as Indians. If we pass this amendment now we shall not be forcing them to vote. We shall simply be giving them an opportunity to vote if they wish. I think it would be poor judgment on the part of this committee not to pass this amendment.


John Ewen Sinclair: I should like to say one or two words on this amendment. To me it is a surprising amendment. I was a member of the elections act committee. At no time was there a suggestion before our committee that the Indian should get the vote. In my own riding I have over forty Indian reserves. The Indian question is very much to the fore. To me, and I think to the leaders of the Indian groups in my riding, the solution of the Indian problem of Canada is to get the Indians away from being wards of the government and living on reserves, to the ordinary everyday rights of Canadian citizens living in cities, municipalities and districts, paying normal taxes and voting as Canadians. Therefore I cannot see how Indians who still want to maintain their treaty rights as wards of the state living on reserves away from the great influence of Canadian life can expect at the same time to be able to vote as Canadian citizens in dominion elections.
I confess that for the first time since I have been in the House of Commons I am at odds with my very good friend-we use that word very loosely around the House of Commons -the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. With all due deference, for example, to the hon. member for Davenport, I doubt whether there is a member in this House of Commons who knows the Indians of Canada as well as 5849-335
the hon. member for Comox-Alberni does. He was pretty well reared in an Indian village. His west coast riding of Comox-Alberni includes more Indians. I suppose, than the rest of British Columbia, who are renowned in Canadian history, the most warlike of all the Canadian Indians, the only ones who stopped the Spanish, the British and the Canadian explorers. But at the same time I wonder, when the hon. member for Comox-Alberni asks for the vote for the Indians, whether he would turn his mind back to two or three years ago and think whether some of these old klootchmen-that is an Indian phrase on the west coast-whether these very old and aged Indian women, if called upon at the last election to sort out the relative virtues of Jack Gibson, the Independent candidate for parliament, Nigel Morgan, the communist candidate for parliament and Mr. Barnett, C.C.F. candidate for parliament, because of their lack of knowledge of the English or the French language-they speak Chinook-could have decided which one of these three was best able to represent them in parliament,


Edmund Davie Fulton: Gibson was Indian enough.


John Ewen Sinclair: I know there are many good Scotch names which seem very heavily interlarded throughout the Indian tribes in British Columbia.
A certain thing which strikes me as unusual about this amendment is that it was moved by the hon. member for Essex West.


Donald Ferguson Brown: The sun parlour of Canada.


John Ewen Sinclair: It was moved by the hon. member for the sun parlour of Canada and seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, who in his speech suggested that perhaps twenty years from now the Indians on the reserves might be fit for the vote. I have never heard of a motion moved, by one person who wanted to have it become effective immediately, and seconded by another who wanted it twenty years from now.


John Lambert Gibson: My hon. friend did not hear me.


John Ewen Sinclair: The hon. gentleman will probably be here twenty years from now as the independent member for Comox-Alberni and he can then move it himself. I feel that one of the great incentives in the way of getting the Indians off the reserves, so that they might live as the rest of Canadians do under normal circumstances, would be to say to them, "if you cease being wards of the government, if you move out of the reserve and live as other Canadians live, you will get the vote". That would be a great incentive to the Indians.
Dominion Elections Act

In my own riding I live three blocks away from one of the principal reserves in the Vancouver area. In my own city of North Vancouver there are a great number of Indian families-as a matter of fact one cannot call them Indian families; they are Canadian families-who left the reserve to establish themselves where their children would go, not to Catholic or to Protestant Indian schools, but to Canadian schools, where they would learn to live as Canadians. These people have the vote. I should like to think they will vote for me, but whether they vote for me or for my opponent, they have established that right. I say therefore that, because those hon. members who are interested in this matter evidently did not take sufficient interest in it to bring it before the committee on the elections act, and secondly, because those who still live on the reserves are wards of the government and as such are dependents and not entitled to the consideration which should be given to Indians who have left their reserves and begun to live as Canadians, I must vote against the amendment moved by the hon. member for Essex West and seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


Mr. CROLL:: I welcome the opportunity of supporting the amendment moved by the chairman of the Indian affairs committee, and I am particularly impressed by the seconder, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, and even more so after the recommendation he received from the hon. member from Vancouver North. I feel, therefore, that I am on solid ground when I suggest to the committee, agreeing with the mover of the resolution, that the time has come for us, not only to consider the discontinuance of the practice, but actually to put an end to it, of treating the Indians like children. Let us, instead, allow them to live normal adult lives.
I recall the debate in this house on a resolution moved by the hon. member for Calgary East in 1945 when many pious utterances were made over the usual period of an hour, but nothing has been done in the three years that have elapsed. My own feeling is that we have too long kept the Indians in dependence and restricted them to an inferior status. The time has come-it should not be twenty years hence; the time is now-when we should clothe them with the dignity of citizenship and assimilate them into Canadian life. I think our difficulty has been that we have adopted a paternal attitude toward the Indians; as a matter of fact, an attitude of archaic paternalism which belongs to another day.
Whether this committee believes it or not, the Indian is the only man without a vote in

the country of his origin. I am told that in the last war 5,000 Indians served in the armed forces.


Colin William George Gibson: They all got the vote.


David Arnold Croll: I am not suggesting that they did not. In this war there were 4,000. They also pay taxes. I think that should appeal to hon. members when they realize that taxation without representation changed the face of the continent to the south of us.
The suggestion is made that Indians are a backward race. That is due to sheer neglect and indifference on our part. Instead of the Indians being backward, our treatment of the Indian marks us as backward at the present time. I welcome this discussion, because it is an opportunity to correct a great wrong. It is a reform long overdue. I do not think the resolution went far enough. It is time that the Indian affairs committee reported, so that we might have an Indian department with Indians on the staff, giving the Indians an opportunity to lead normal lives. Canadian Indians must become Canadian citizens. Eor that reason I support the resolution.


John Ewen Sinclair: May I ask the hon. member a question? He has spoken learnedly of the Indians. Just how many Indians or Indian reservations are there in the great riding of Spadina?


Mr. HARKNESS:: I should like to support the motion made by the hon. member for Essex West. I am unable to understand why anyone would like to continue to keep the Indians in a class by themselves as the only people born in this country who have not the right to vote. A man coming from any other part of the world, after fulfilling his residence qualification, has the right to vote, and his children born here have the right to vote, regardless of their understanding of the election issues or anything else in that regard. I cannot see why we should continue to keep this one group of people in the position where they are denied the franchise. The situation is anomalous, in that all Indians who are veterans have the right to vote, so that on some reservations, of people with more or less the same educational qualifications and understanding of national affairs, some may vote, while others have not the right. I submit that the time is long past when these people should be granted the same rights in respect of the franchise which everyone else in the country enjoys.


Donald Ferguson Brown: I realize that this is a serious subject and one that should receive careful consideration. I realize also that there

Dominion Elections Act
are objections from many sources. I know this is a great forward step and, like any other such moves, it. encounters many obstacles. This debate has been most valuable, in that it has brought the issue to the fore and brings the matter into the open, where it may be considered by the Canadian public as a whole. If the Secretary of State will give some assurance that this matter will be referred-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: Stick to your guns.


Donald Ferguson Brown: If the Secretary of State will give some assurance that this matter will go where it properly belongs, that is, to the dominion elections committee or some similar committee-


Mr. FRASER:: Or in the pigeon-hole.


Donald Ferguson Brown: with the consent of my seconder I shall be pleased to withdraw the amendment.


John Lambert Gibson: Many of my hon. friends seem to think this is a simple problem; but, no matter which way they voted on the amendment of the hon. member for Essex West, they would probaby be wrong. In the Indian affairs committee of which I was a member, the idea was to pass this without hedging it round with recommendations as to how the mechanics would work, and leave details to the elections committee. We were of the opinion that the elections committee was then sitting and would immediately set about looking into our recommendation and considering it. I myself was surprised to see that this bill was introduced into the house without that recommendation having been taken into consideration. The hon. member for Essex West is probably inclined to feel that, now that the matter has been brought out, the motion should be withdrawn. I feel that, before we take this drastic step- a step with which, incidentally, as I have already said, the Indians are not completely in accord-it might be advisable if the Secretary of State would give us an undertaking that the elections committee will again be set up next year, and by that I mean a specific undertaking. I am not talking about ten years from now.


John Ewen Sinclair: Twenty years from now.


John Lambert Gibson: If the
Secretary of State would give us a specific undertaking that the elections committee will be set up at the start of the next session and that this matter will be considered before the next general election-and I think that, after all, that is the meat of the matter; we want 5849-335J
to know if the Indians are to obtain the vote in the next election-I will withdraw the amendment, because I believe that procedure is in the best interests of everyone, including members of this committee who do not know on what they are voting.


Colin William George Gibson: As I said previously, a great many questions must be considered in connection with an amendment-such as this. It is not one that I should want to have referred back to the elections committee at this stage of the session and perhaps not get the bill through before parliament prorogues. I undertake that I will recommend that the committee be set up again at the next session, so that this matter can be brought before it.


William Henry Golding: Has the hon. member permission to withdraw the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. IRVINE :: It belongs to the committee.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It can be withdrawn only with the unanimous consent of the committee.


William Henry Golding: In view of the explanation made by the minister and the desire expressed by the hon. member to withdraw the motion, supported by his seconder, I was going to ask if he now had the consent of committee to withdraw it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is still on the order paper.


Angus MacInnis: Before this matter is dealt with-


William Henry Golding: Order. Does the hon. member wish to speak to the point of order or to the amendment?


Angus MacInnis: I was thinking that perhaps the Secretary of State made a promise that, he may find fairly hard to meet. That is, of course, his business and n6t mine. I was going to ask the hon. member for Essex West if his motion arose out of a recommendation made by the Indian affairs committee.


David Arnold Croll: He said that.


Angus MacInnis: If that is the case, that recommendation should have been made in a report to the house.


Mr GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: It was.


Angus MacInnis: otherwise, the elections committee would be taking upon itself to deal with something with which it had no authority to deal by way of reference from the house. I would just make [DOT]that point. If the motion is still before the committee, I should like to have something to say on it.
Mr. SMITH (Calgary West) Tama little bit confused by the withdrawal undertaking given by the Secretary of State. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni asked if the Secretary of State would give an assurance that this matter would be submitted at the next session of the house, so that it might be dealt with by the house before the next general election. When the next general election is to be is something that I assume the Secretary of State knows. Did he give that undertaking on the basis that there will be no general election before the next session of this house?


Colin William George Gibson: No. I did not understand that the hon. member used the words "before the next general election."


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: Yes. They were plain. I would ask the hon. member to stand up and prove that.


John Lambert Gibson: That was my intention.


Colin William George Gibson: I could not say-


Arthur Leroy Smith: That was your undertaking.


Colin William George Gibson: My undertaking was that at the next session of the house I will recommend that the elections committee be again set up to consider this amendment or any amendments to the elections act that may be brought before it. I, of course, cannot say what can be done before a general election, because I do not know when the general election will be brought on.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then, may I submit that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni agreed to 'the withdrawal of the motion on a certain condition. That condition was that the minister would give the committee an assurance or an undertaking that this matter would be dealt with by the elections committee at the next session of the house and before the next general election. That was the request made and that was the request granted by the minister. We have no agreement at the moment, because the minister has not accepted the condition laid down by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. Surely the hon. member for Comox-Alberni must now make his withdrawal absolutely

without condition, in order to conform with the innocuous statement just now made by the Secretary of State.


John Lambert Gibson: I would object to making my withdrawal absolutely unconditional. I assumed that there would not be an election for another year. However, not being in the seats of the mighty, I could not give my hon. friend that guarantee. However, if the Secretary of State can not assure us that there will not be a general election -and after all, we must be fair about the thing-if he will assure us that at the next session of the house he will reconstitute this committee and submit this matter to it, that is satisfactory to me.


John Ewen Sinclair: Does the hon. member for Comox-Alberni not realize that, whether the election is held now or a year from now, the same government will still be in office, whether it is before the election or after the election.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Wrong again.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is what you think.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I intend to take a trip to the flooded areas and try to get a little water on my brain.


William Henry Golding: Order. Has the hon. member the consent of the committee to withdraw the amendment?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Henry Golding: Then we shall have to put the question. All those in favour of the hon. member having leave to withdraw the amendment please say "yea".


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yea.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


An hon. MEMBER:: Let him withdraw.


William Henry Golding: It is necessary for us to put the amendment if the hon. member has not the leave of the committee to withdraw it.


Mr. HARRIS (Grey-Bruce):: Put the amendment.


William Henry Golding: We have not the leave of the committee. Mr. Brown moves, seconded by Mr. Gibson, that section 6 be amended by deleting subsection 2 (f) of section 14 as set out in section 6 of this bill, All in favour of this amendment will please say "yea".
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 39; nays, 58.

Dominion Elections Act
Mr. OOCK'ERAM: Mr. Chairman, I hope you noted that the mover and the seconder voted for that?


Donald Ferguson Brown: On a question of privilege, the hon. member for York South has accused me-I did not get all of what he said*-of something and wanted it noted that I had voted in favour of this motion. That is quite correct. After all, I was a member of that committee.


Mr. ROWE:: And a member of that party.


Donald Ferguson Brown: Yes, a member of that party, and I am proud of it. I am a Liberal. I want to withdraw this motion because, unlike some of the opposition, we feel that the committee of which I had the honour to be chairman-


Arthur Leroy Smith: What is before the chair? What is the point of order?


An hon. MEMBER:: It is a question of privilege.


Donald Ferguson Brown: We have a sincere responsibility over the lives and habits of 130,000 people, and it is no time for us to be playing politics.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 to 19 inclusive agreed to.
On section 20-Instructions to be furnished D.R.O.
Colin William George Gibson: There is an amendment to add a clause, which I shall have the Minister of Public Works move.


Alphonse Fournier: I move:
That subsection 2 of section 34 of the said act be repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) Each of the agents of such candidate* and, in the absence of agents, each of the. electors representing such candidate, on being admitted to the polling station, shall take an. oath in form No. 35 to keep secret the name of the candidate for whom the ballot paper of any elector is marked in his presence."


Arthur Leroy Smith: Would someone just explain in a word what this means?


Colin William George Gibson: This is a secrecy clause, providing that each agent of the candidate, or in the absence of agents, each of the electors representing such candidate, on being admitted to the polling station shall take oath to keep secret the name of the candidate for whom the ballot paper of any elector is marked in his presence.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 21 to 24 inclusive agreed to.
On section 25-Entry in poll book.
Leslie Alexander Mutch: Mr. Chairman, I understand that this is the clause under which it would be appropriate to make the few remarks I desire to make with respect to the method of taking the vote. Suggestions have been made from time to time by influential groups in this country representing serious-minded people who have given a great deal of consideration to the study of the method of voting. I am one of those who are desirous of having the single transferable vote adopted in constituencies where more than two candidates are running.
I come from a province where the single transferable vote has been used in provincial elections for a considerable number of years. In my view and in the view of many others the results have been good, in that they have eliminated the election of members by a minority vote in the riding. This does not introduce a new method of voting, because it is the practice also in the province of Alberta. Here again I am told that the results have been satisfactory to the electors.
One need only to look at the membership of this house as it has been brought up to date in the last few days to realize the extent to which minority representation exists. At the present time there are 145 members who are in this house as a result of minority votes in the ridings from which they come. I admit quite freely, as someone will no doubt point out, that in the last election that condition applied to myself. Some sixty of those members are members of the government party; thirty-eight are members of the Progressive Conservative party; twenty-eight are members of the C.C.F. party; twelve are members of the Social Credit party, and there are seven others. If we needed lessons, we have had additional lessons in connection with this matter in the last few weeks.
Surely this is an opportune time to raise the question and) to invite hon. members to give serious consideration to it. A few moments ago the Secretary of State indicated that he did not desire to reopen a question and refer it back to the committee, but if I heard him correctly he did indicate that such matters as this committee might desire to have discussed further before another election, assuming that there would not be one in the interval between sessions, could be referred back to the committee.
This is a matter which has been exercising the minds of large numbers of people in this country over a considerable period of years. It has been supported by a large section of the party of which I am a member since as far
Dominion Elections Act

back as 1921, 1925, 1926 and consistently since. It was supported in the house in my time enthusiastically by the C.C.F. party, although it is notable that, since that party achieved power in the one place in which they have achieved it, namely Saskatchewan, they have been cold to the idea, and have tended to veer toward the support of another form of voting known as proportional representation, in which I do not desire to support them.
I wish to make it abundantly clear that my plea with respect to this is for the single transferable vote. It will be urged against the adoption of this practice that in the large majority of cases where this practice is followed there has been very little change in the representation as between the candidate who was high on the first count and the candidate who ultimately won on the second count.
I have not done the necessary research to discover the exact number of cases in which this situation has obtained in either ALberta or Manitoba, where the practice is followed; but I suggest this to the committee, that even if that be true, and even if it should prove to be an almost universal practice that the candidate who was high on the first count was ultimately elected, it does not remove one of the principal arguments for the adoption of the single transferable vote. The point is this, that the man who is high on the first count, or the man who is second on the first count, in the event of there being three candidates, does have the satisfaction of knowing that when he rises in his place in a legislature, or in the House of Commons, he is there or here by virtue of the fact that a majority of the electors in that constituency preferred him on either their first or their second choice, to speak for them. This system eliminates something of the disquietude of mind which disturbs the constituents themselves, when they realize that under the present system the man who is elected may have a majority opposed to him; and yet he speaks in their name.
It will remove that feeling; and if it did nothing else it would be worthy of consideration because of the added confidence it would give to the electors under our system of representative government, in the conviction that they have indeed a full share in electing the person who speaks for them in the legislatures of the country.
I am not going to branch out into a dissertation as to the methods or practices in connection with the system. I suggest through you, Mr. Chairman, to the committee, that there has never been a time more opportune than the present for the serious consideration of a change in our electoral law.

I expect there are those who are allergic to change. No doubt there are some among us who might have in their ridings and in their own personalities opposition and objection to change. However, this is something which I should hope would recommend itself to members of the house for serious study. We shall have an interval between now and the next session-I do not expect a very long interval- and during that time if we have any sort of assurance that when the house convenes again a committee will be set up to give further study to the matter, I would earnestly hope that members w'ould give this matter some further thought.


John Ritchie MacNicol: We have had three
already.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: They could consult with their electors when they go home, and return here well posted to give intelligent and proper consideration to the matter, and to express the popular will of our people which, I am conv'inced, is for the adoption of the single transferable vote.


Mr. FAIR:: Coming from the most progressive province in Canada, Alberta, I wish to support the stand taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg South. I am sorry he did not go much farther. However, perhaps he has many other things on his mind, since his elevation recently to a new post, upon which we all congratulate him. Because I am so firmly convinced that the single transferable vote is what we should have, I intend to move an amendment which will bring the single transferable vote into effect, provided that it gets the necessary support in the House of Commons.
Therefore, before going farther I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), another Alberta member who is proud of his province:
That subsection 3 of section 45 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"In single member constituencies the elector on receiving the ballot paper shall forthwith proceed into one of the polling compartments and there mark his ballot paper with a black lead-pencil in the following manner:
(a) by placing Arabic numeral 1 in the white space containing the name of the candidate of his first choice;
Ob) by placing Arabic numeral 2 in the white space containing the name of the candidate of his second choice; and,
(c) by placing Arabic numerals 3, 4, 5, etc., in the white space containing the names of the candidates of 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc., choices, until a numeral choice has been made for each candidate's name appearing on the ballot.
The elector shall then fold his ballot paper as directed so that the initials on the track of it, and the numbers on the counterfoil can be seen wdthout opening it, and hand the paper

Dominion Elections Act
to the deputy returning officer who shall, without unfolding it, ascertain by examination of the initials and numbers appearing thereon that it is the same paper as that delivered to the elector, and if the same he shall forthwith, in full view of the voter and all others present, remove and destroy the counterfoil and deposit the ballot in the ballot box."
I feel that the use of our vote is one of the most important things with which we have to deal. If we insist upon using it wrongly it does not reflect great credit upon us. In Alberta I have not heard one objection to this system of voting, although in other provinces where the system is not understood as well as it is in my province there may be objections.
However, this is a simple and handy method of getting the number of votes for a candidate. We have, for instance, four candidates running in an election none of whom receives 50 per cent of the votes. In that event the candidate receiving the low number of the votes is dropped from the count, and his second choices are distributed among the three candidates remaining. After this is done and the votes are again counted, if none of the three candidates receives 51 per cent of the votes, or 50 per cent plus one, then the next lowest man is dropped, and in like manner his second choices are distributed among numbers 1 and 2. By this method either number 1 or 2 will have better than 50 per cent of the votes.
As pointed out by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, 61 per cent of the members elected to this house represent their constituencies by minority votes. In my opinion that is not good enough. We can bring about fair representation by adoption of the single transferable vote.
I do not intend to take up more time this evening, because I expect that there will be further discussions of the matter. I should hope that, before another general election is held, this method might be put into effect.


Thomas Langton Church: We have before us an amendment moved by the hon. member for Battle River and seconded by the hon. member for Calgary West. It is an amendment stating that subsection 3 of section 45 be deleted, and that certain paragraphs set out be substituted therefor. Then follow paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).
I doubt if one could find any body of public opinion in the two central provinces to support such a complicated system of voting. It is all right for one of the parliamentary assistants and for the hon. member for Calgary West to support it. I do not object to that, or to his seconding the amendment; but the average citizen in an industrial province does not want any such system as is proposed here.
They would not have it in municipal affairs. The municipalities would go bankrupt under such a system.
The Conservative party to which I belong-
I have been nothing but a Conservative; I do not claim to be Progressive, because calling yourself "Progressive" does not make you progressive. I am true blue. I may be the only one left, and we used to have a party in this house which occupied the treasury benches.
You have union government in Manitoba and British Columbia. I can never understand our party sacrificing all our principles for four or five jobs in a union government. Sir John A. Macdonald, our leader, adopted and followed a policy of protection ever since we were a country, and Laurier followed it too. What was that policy? It was the policy of protection, bonuses, subventions and subsidies, for all the provinces. It was that policy which made this country great. Today in Manitoba and British Columbia the only alternative to union government is hon. gentlemen to my left who believe in the socialist doctrine first, last and all the time. No wonder the two old parties were beaten in Yale, Vancouver Centre and all that kind of thing.
We have no right to pass legislation such as this. You are handed a ballot, and what do you find, under this amendment? You go into a polling compartment to mark your ballot paper in the following manner:
(a) by placing Arabic numeral 1 in the white space containing the name of the candidate of his first choice.
I would start at the other end. I would not vote for any of them under such a system.
I would throw them all out. It may be all right for new settlers in some districts, but those who have been here for many years and whose ancestors have been here for two and three hundred years do not want this kind of thing. So far as I am concerned, I am utterly opposed to the proposed doctrine of the transferable vote. It would mean that you would have a system of minorities established in this country. It would be far better to go back to the provincial law in federal elections.
The other day we had a taste of what happens when you link up provincial and municipal affairs. Toronto is an industrial city, built up by protection. I have always had support from the working classes in every election, and I have practically no organization. In the last election I did not even have a car on election day except my own, to visit the polling booths. They might have stuffed the ballot boxes. They did once. Several hundred
Dominion Elections Act

ballots were found in a box in one polling subdivision where there were only fifty-seven voters. If you want a system like that, all well and good. We can blame ourselves in this house for all these new doctrines that have been introduced here. No wonder on June 7 last some of the industrial ridings in Toronto voted the way they did. I can tell you why they did. A party that stands by its principles will never lack for a leader or a policy. That is the trouble in this country. Instead of a policy of principle and progress, we have now a policy of peanuts and party. That is what we have.
To come back to the amendment, people walk into a polling compartment and vote under this complicated system. I have read (a). Then there is (b):
(b) by placing Arabic numeral 2 in the white space containing the name of the candidate of his second choice; and

Then (c);
, (c) by placing Arabic numerals 3, 4, 5, etc., in the white space containing the names of the candidates of 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc., choices, until a numerical choice has been made for each candidate's name appearing on the ballot.
I doubt if anybody understands it. We have had enough of that kind of thing, filling out our income tax forms. The other day I was told by my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works that he could not read my writing and that I should write in block letters as you do in writing your name on the income tax form.
I doubt if anybody understands this proposed system of voting; but if that is what you want, all well and good. The party that sticks to its principles will never lack a following. We did not stick to our principles in the last election, and the result was that we crucified our party principle of preferential trade like a thief in the night and hanged it on the sour apple tree.
Under this proposed system of voting, everybody who votes will need a secretary. It reminds me of the committee of forty in Toronto. They would come to the police commission, of which I was the head, and complain of some actor or actress; it was generally an actress who did not wear enough clothing. They had their sleeves too short and other things too short. We had two committees in those days, the committee of forty and the committee of one hundred. Colonel Denison asked me once, as chairman of the police commission, what the difference was between the two committees, and I told him the difference was sixty. There were sixty more wanting their pet theories than the other committee of forty. With sixty people in a committee there is more conflict than there is with forty, and there is more conflict with a committee of one hundred 
than there is with a committee of sixty. The committee of one hundred wanted to abolish the bar and save the boy, and they wound up later by forgetting all about the boy.
It would take a Philadelphia lawyer to read the ballot. Suppose I do not like candidate A. I cross him out immediately, because he is one of the block system of candidates. Then I come to (b) and I am supposed to place a numeral in the white space containing the name of the candidate of my second choice. Well, now, they had a bill up here the other night introduced by an hon. member from the province of Alberta. The hon. member for Danforth is not in the house at the moment. By that bill they were cutting up horsemeat to be eaten. I said at the time that probably there would be no horses left; no horses for my good friend, the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, to ride around the tracks or at the Woodbine. If that is the kind of system you want, all very well.
Then we come to (c), which asks us to place numerals 3, 4, 5 and so forth in the white space containing the names of the candidates. Having seen some of these people going in to vote and requiring somebody in the polling booth at the same time to mark the ballot for them in West Centre, Toronto, where I was a candidate at one time, and having seen them go in behind the white curtain, may I say that they did not know what they were doing. Then they came out and people tried to explain to them what it was that they vot,ed for. It may be that they voted for No. 5 instead of No. 4, or No. 3 or No. 2 or No. 1. It is no wonder that a large number of ballots were found in the boxes, probably hundreds instead of twenty.
I am absolutely opposed to that kind of business. I am absolutely opposed to this modem combination system. A great many people have come to this country recently. We are glad to have them all from every country, but they will not understand this chartered accountant system. I venture to say that if this amendment should be passed the proposal should be referred by the Minister of Justice to the Supreme Court of Canada under the Supreme Court Act to find out whether this parliament has any right, over the heads of the provinces involved, to adopt such a system as the single transferable vote.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise to a point of order. May, thirteenth edition, at page 285 reads as follows:
Every amendment proposed to be made, either to a question or to a proposed amendment, should be so framed that, if agreed to by the house, the question or amendment, as amended, would be intelligible and consistent with itself!

Dominion Elections Act
I would point out, Mr. Chairman, first of all, that subsection 3 of section 45, which this amendment proposes to amend is not before us at the present time, and the measure is not worded in such a way as to put it into section 25 and do the job that the hon. member wants done. Further, I would point out that if one takes even a cursory glance through the elections act he will find that there are many other phases of our election procedure which this would affect. There is, for example, the method to be used in counting the ballots, the kind of report which the returning officer makes and many other things which one could find. The result would be that if we passed this amendment to this clause, not only would it be unintelligible in relation to clause 25 which is before us, but it would be inconsistent and unintelligible to the rest of the bill which is before us at the present time.


William Henry Golding: I wish to thank the hon. member for raising the point of order. I was going to say that I would have to rule this amendment out of order, on the ground that the hon. member has raised. In the first place, this amendment proposes "that subsection 3 of section 45 be deleted and the following substituted therefor". If the rest of the amendment were in order, I would not rule it out of order, since clause 25 of the bill with which we are dealing does itself amend section 45 of the act. Then that clause would have to be amended. In view of the fact that this would not be a proper amendment to put in the bill as it is at the present time, I shall have to rule it out of order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that your ruling has been given, but because you permitted the hon. member for Winnipeg South to say a few words on the question of the single transferable vote, I am sure that you will not deny me a similar right.


William Henry Golding: My ruling the amendment out of order does not prevent the hon. member for Lake Centre from saying anything he wishes.


John George Diefenbaker: I was quite interested in the alacrity with which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised a point of order on this matter. I am sure he did not have in mind the fact that if it came to a vote, in view of the policy of his party in Saskatchewan, he would find some difficulty in voting on the question.
I would point out, sir, that this matter has been before the house on many occasions. ^ It goes back to the year 1923 when a resolution was passed in this house in favour of the adoption of the single transferable vote. On April 30, 1925, the Prime Minister gave assurance that a bill would be brought down, and to use his words he said, "and we will proceed with it." That was a bill for the purpose of bringing in the single transferable vote. Indeed, the late Mr. Lapointe did introduce a bill on May 26, 1925, to provide for this type of voting. It received first reading. On June 9 of that year the late Mr. Robert Forke made inquiry regarding this matter. The house was prorogued on June 27 and the matter did not proceed any further that session.
There was an election in October, 1925. On September 29, 1932, the present Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, spoke in the Huron South by-election. According to the press reports of that date, he stated that the Liberal party advocated the alternative vote in single member constituencies, and the adoption of proportional representation in double member constituencies. In that by-election the present Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, promised this electoral reform as an integral part of the* policy of his party.
In the election of 1935, as you remember, sir, the Prime Minister, as leader of the opposition, repeatedly committed his party to electoral reform, and on August 2 of that year he said,: "The Liberal party stands for electoral laws which will ensure true parliamentary representation of the Canadian people." On September 17, 1935, in a broadcast during that campaign he said: "We are pledged to measures of electoral reform to ensure true parliamentary representation of the people." And finally,, sir, you will remember that on election night in 1935 that was one of the promises which were to be carried into effect. Nothing has been done about the matter.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg South said, we find ourselves today in the House of Commons in the position where a majority of the members of the house have been elected by minority votes, and I can speak on that subject because I am one of those in that position. There are 144 other members in the house in the same position.
One of the reasons given for the fact that many of us represent minorities is the apathy on the part of the people as a whole, their failure to vote. The suggestion that has been offered to secure proper discharge of the responsibilities of citizenship is the introduction of a system of compulsory voting such as has been in effect in Australia, where approximately ninety per cent of the people do in fact cast their vote. The alternative to that is the suggestion made by the hon. member, and

Dominion Elections Act
that is the single transferable vote, which has been in effect in the provinces of Manitoba and Alberta.
Some say that the single transferable vote will secure the result of majority representation. I believe that it will effect that result only if it is made compulsory and mandatory that each voter shall mark his ballot for a first, a second and a third choice. The situation in Alberta and in Manitoba indicates that where there is no compulsory requirement there is very little possibility of change in the ultimate result following the allocation of the votes according to the first choice.
I have looked into the matter with some little interest, merely for the purpose of getting some appreciation of the meaning and operation of the single transferable vote, and I find that in Manitoba in the five last general elections there were 124 electoral districts wherein there were three or more candidates. The degree to which a subsequent count will alter the results, unless there is a compulsory requirement that each person mark his ballot for a second and a third choice, is indicated by the fact that, in these electoral contests, only in four cases was the candidate with the largest vote on the first count actually defeated as a result of the second or third count as the case might be, quite a negligible change resulting from the counting of the second and the third choices, if the last becomes necessary.
In Alberta, in the five general elections, there were 186 contests in which there were three or more candidates. In only six cases was the candidate who had the largest number of first choices ultimately supplanted as a result of the second or the third count. These figures seem to indicate that the single transferable vote can be really effective only if there is a compulsory requirement whereby every person is obliged to mark his ballot for a second choice or a third choice or a fourth choice, as the case may be.
If there is not that compulsory requirement certain parties tend to plump. I can understand the difficulty in which my hon. friends to the left would be. Suppose their voters marked number one vote in favour of the adoption of socialism; then, with two other candidates in the field, they would have to mark the first vote for socialism and then vote for private enterprise in their second choice-


Angus MacInnis: Or lose their votes.


John George Diefenbaker: They must have had that in mind in Saskatchewan; because there, over and over again, one of the integral planks in their policy was the adoption of the single transferable vote, and it is only since power has been attained by that party that the 
importance of that particular plank has diminished if it has not altogether disappeared. Indeed, as late as February, 1947, the premier of the province, the Hon. Mr. Douglas, speaking before the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, was asked the question whether his party intended to bring in the single transferable vote before the general elections which will shortly be held, and he stated that it did not. He gave as his reason the fact that he had found in Alberta that there were quite a few spoiled ballots and that difficulty had been experienced in that province in explaining to the people how to vote. He indicated, however, that he believed in it personally, but he said it would take a long time to bring it into effect.
I point out that this was part of the policy, if indeed it was not part of the federal policy of that party, and recent events have indicated that something must be done. As to what that something is, we can disagree; each will have his own opinions. I point out that it is not a recent matter; it has been in evidence ever since 1930. If one takes the figures in the elections of 1930, 1935 and 1940, one will find they indicate that, our present electoral system is archaic, out-moded and ineffective in acquiring the highest form of representative government.
In 1930, in the federal election the Conservative party elected 137 members and all other parties elected 108, although in point of fact the other parties had more voters in favour of them than did the party that was elected as the government of the day. In that year the popular vote was: Conservatives, 1,909,955-all others, 1,989,040.
Then we come to 1935. During that election the Liberal party received a tremendous house majority. It elected 178 members, and all other parties elected sixty-seven. With respect to the strength of the parties, the Liberal party had a total of 2,076,394 votes, and the opposition parties had over 300,000 more votes than did the Liberal party. The opposition parties had 2,386,856 votes.
Then in the 1940 election the Liberal party elected 184 members, and all others elected sixty-one. That year the Liberal party had a majority. They had 2,513,524 votes, and all others had 2,082,221. All of that indicates that there is something seriously wrong with a system whereby a parliament is elected with a majority of members who do not represent the majority in their constituencies. I think the time has come for a serious consideration of the whole problem, with a view to arriving at an electoral system that will deny the existence of the anomalous conditions that prevail today. But a system of itself is not sufficient. Some-

Dominion Elections Act
thing must be done to arouse the people to a realization that only through the exercise of the vote will they in fact determine the continuance in our country of the democratic system.
I could refer to the votes in certain cities.
I think of the situation in the city of Toronto in the municipal field, where in 1939 44 per cent of the voting strength voted; in 1940 the figure had fallen to 36 per cent; in 1941, to 21 per cent; in 1942, to 19 per cent, and in 1943, to 17 per cent. Since then, it has gone up slightly. But that indicates an apathy on the part of our people which cannot be improved, however we change the electoral law.
I feel that we in this parliament should give consideration, first, to a method of electoral reform which will assure that the majority shall in fact determine the outcome in each constituency; and, second, that we should arrive at a plan in this parliament, whether by way of the compulsory vote or otherwise, whereby our people will be required to discharge their responsibilities. I know on the part of some the answer to that suggestion will be that if they are not sufficiently interested to' vote, they do not deserve the vote. However, that is not an answer. Education of itself has not been sufficient. Whether the compulsory vote is the means whereby we shall in fact secure a greater interest in the exercise of our democratic rights is, of course, open to question.
I do not intend to deal with the recent election in Ontario, but there is no doubt about one fact. Because the election was held on a holiday, many thousands and tens of thousands of people in this province utilized the benefits that flow from a holiday, and in doing that they failed to discharge their responsibilities as citizens within the province.
I think one responsibility we have is to assure that whatever government gets into power in this country shall in fact represent the majority. Whether the single transferable vote is the means by which to secure that end, I am not at the moment advancing any argument. But I am saying that the matter should be studied. Something should be done between now and the next federal election, with a view to assuring that whatever government is elected will be representative of the people in all parts of Canada.


Angus MacInnis: Inasmuch as considerable debate has taken place on this clause and since my party has been drawn into it, I think I ought to say something. It is strange to note the extreme urgency to have something done at this time. I am not surprised that the hon. member for Lake Centre should feel
that urgency, because I understand that he attended a meeting of the Progressive Conservative party held in Manitoba last week, and that in this critical period in the history of our topsy-turvy world the most important question at that meeting was how they could best prevent the C.C.F. from getting more seats, either by staying in the coalition or by running separate members.


Mr. HODGSON:: Hear, hear.


Angus MacInnis: The hon. member says. "Hear, hear". That is hardly a policy, although it may be a tactic, which is an altogether different matter. As far as this party is concerned, we have never in any of our national conventions gone on record in favour of either the alternative vote or proportional representation. In this house I have personally supported proportional representation, and I think I would accept the alternative vote if it went along with proportional representation.
There are two things that we must keep in mind with regard to proper representation. The first is that the governing party should, as nearly as possible, be elected by, and represent a majority of, the people and not necessarily obtain a majority of the seats. The second thing is that large minorities within the community should have representation in our parliaments and in our legislatures. When the present Prime Minister was speaking about electoral reform from 1921 on, he always associated proportional representation with the single transferable vote. The hon. member for Lake Centre has put many of his statements on record, and I will not deal with them. But what my hon. friends are concerned with is not a proper electoral system that will give proper representation to the people of this country. What they are concerned with is a system that will keep the C.C.F. out of office or out of parliament.


John Horne Blackmore: Or Social Credit out of office.


Angus MacInnis: The Social Credit party have far more representatives in this house than they would be entitled to under any proper system of representation.


John Ewen Sinclair: The two are the same thing.


John Horne Blackmore: There are not enough for Canada's good.


Angus MacInnis: I am not so sure about that. It is a matter of opinion. I will go this far; I will say that the opinion of the hon. member for Lethbridge is just as good as mine.
Dominion Elections Act

In 1942 and earlier, but in 1942 particularly, after the elected leader of the Conservative party was defeated in York South by the C.C.F. and after various other reverses took place, a large C.C.F. representation was elected to the legislature of Ontario. The other parties and their public press began to look around for a means of keeping the C.C.F. out of parliament and out of the legislatures.


Mr. FERGUSON:: Saving Canada.
Mr. MaeINNIS: The Montreal Gazette, under date of December 23, 1942, stated editorially as follows:
The Winnipeg Free Press, in a scholarly and informative editorial reproduced on this page, demonstrates once more the advantages of a reform in the electoral system whereby all parties will receive fair representation. This time it brings out a new angle to the argument, namely, that a continuance of the present single-vote method is likely to favour the socialists at the next general election.
There you have the high-minded and public-spirited Gazette at its usual high level in dealing with public questions. Various papers elaborated on the same theme. What disturbed me tonight was to find the hon. member for Lake Centre toying with the question of not only making it compulsory that one should go to the polls to cast his ballot, but making it compulsory that one should vote for a candidate whether he wanted that candidate to represent him or not. That is what the hon. gentleman suggested. If there were four candidates on the ballot, one Conservative, one Liberal, one C.C.F. and one communist-he mentioned only three-the voter, perhaps the hon. member for Lake Centre, would be compelled to vote for the communist candidate before his vote would count for any one of the others.


An hon. MEMBER:: No different in the last election.
Mr. MaeINNIS: That is always the logic of compulsion. The situation must be getting desperate when the hon. member for Lake Centre is so much upset that he has become an advocate of that kind of compulsion in elections.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Like telling Tories to vote Liberal.
Mr. MaeINNIS: Which one you vote for does not make any difference. A member of the legislature of New Brunswick visited Quebec recently, and when he arrived home he was telling the people of New Brunswick about the parties in Quebec. He said that his great difficulty was to decide whether Duplessis

was a Conservative or a Liberal. I can understand that. In this house no one could tell which was which if he did not note on which side of the house they were sitting. The fact of the matter is that a Conservative can move into the Liberal party or a Liberal can move into the Conservative party without sacrificing a single principle or renouncing a single item of policy.


An hon. MEMBER:: There are a lot of communists in yours.
Mr. MaeINNIS: Do not forget that the C.C.F. is the only party that stated publicly w'hen it was offered the support of the communist party that it did not want it. I see the Minister of Labour across the way, smiling good-naturedly as usual. When the communists were supporting him in Welland in 1942 he did not denounce them; certainly not.


William Henry Golding: Order. I hope hon. members will try to deal with this clause instead of getting into a political argument.


Mr. MITCHELL:: On a question of privilege, my hon. friend need not try to mislead the committee. I had a communist candidate running against me in the last election. My hon. friend was in the recent provincial election there and none of his crowd disavowed the communists.
Mr. MaeINNIS: As a matter of fact, I spoke in Welland in the recent election, and I said everything about the communists that could appear in print. My hon. friend says that he was opposed by a communist in the last election. Certainly they had a candidate in the field, but I was referring to the 1942 election when they were supporting him strongly. I will not go any farther unless my hon. friends drag the communists in. Then I shall have to tell them the story. I shall do it most reluctantly, and only if I am compelled.
The single transferable vote does not assure that the majority of the electors shall be represented in parliament or in the legislature.
I notice that my hon. friends did not state what had happened in Manitoba in the election of 1945. Out of a total of 131,603 popular votes, the Liberal-Progressive coalition party, with 36 per cent of that vote, elected twenty-three members to the legislature, or 51 per cent of the seats. The combined opposition, with 64 per cent of the vote, elected twenty-two members, or 49 per cent of the seats.


John George Diefenbaker: In how many of those constituencies were there three or more candidates?

Dominion Elections Act


William Henry Golding: I wonder if hon. members would get back to dealing with the principle of the clause?
Mr. MaeINNIS: We are told that the single transferable vote is working well in Manitoba. In Alberta, in the 1944 election the Social Credit party, with 55 per cent of the vote, elected all the forty-seven members outside the city where they have proportional representation, while the opposition parties, with 45 per cent of the vote, did not elect a single member. Surely that 45 per cent of the electors were entitled to representation in the legislature?


John George Diefenbaker: In how many cases in Manitoba were there three or more candidates in the field? In how many cases in Alberta in the election in question were there three or more candidates in the field?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Very few in Manitoba, because there was a coalition of Liberals and Conservatives.
Mr. MaeINNIS: I cannot tell my hon. friend, because I have not that information here. But the fact is that he has been stating in this committee that the alternative vote is working well in those two provinces.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Does my hon. friend deny that the single alternative vote does give the voters within the constituency unit a candidate who is representative of the majority?


John Ritchie MacNicol: It does nothing of the kind.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I am asking my hon. friend.
Mr. MaeINNIS: As the hon. member for Lake Centre pointed out, it depends upon how they mark their ballots.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: If they do not vote, they do not care.
Mr. MaeINNIS: What you are contending, though, is that it will give proper representation. and I am saying that is not necessarily so. Proper representation in our parliament and legislatures is desirable, but let us face it in the proper way. The purpose is to give the people the representation they are entitled to. It is not just a matter of saving our own political skins.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I hate to take up the time of the committee to do it, but I imagine it has to be done. Nothing new has been put forward tonight in connection with the matter of voting. There is nothing new in the request to try to change the voting system. In many countries for many years they appointed commissions and committees, numbers of them. England appointed three altogether; France appointed two, Ontario appointed two. I could go throughout the world, and give the numbers. In Australia the federal government appointed two, and New' South Wales also appointed two. They were trying to ascertain some way to change from the present system of voting, which some people call the first past the post voting system, but which is ordinarily rightfully called the majority system.
Other countries have tried other systems. And, just so that the record will be straight, I should like to mention a few of the voting systems. England, Spain and Portugal, following the year 1867, tried to obtain what the hon. member for Winnipeg South likes to allege the alternative vote does; that is, obtain a majority of the votes. It does nothing of the kind, as I shall show in a moment or two.
They adopted and tried out what is called the limited vote in three-member or five-member ridings, set up purposely to try out the system. The limited vote meant that a voter could not vote for three, but that he could vote only for two. Or, in a five-member riding he could not vote for five, but could vote only for four. The vote was limited. So that there was no such thing as plumping for five or three, as the case may be. In each of those countries the limited vote system was abolished, because it was found unsatisfactory.
The next system tried out was called the cumulative vote. That is now in operation in the state of Illinois. That is the only state in the American union which uses that style of voting. It was adopted there, so that the different nationalities, of which there are many in the city of Chicago, should have representation in the local legislature. For instance, in that city there are thousands of coloured people, Italians, Poles, Russians and others.
In the state of Illinois the state elects three members to the legislature, from each electoral district. You can give the whole three votes to one, if you like, or you can give one candidate two votes and another candidate one vote, or you can give the three candidates one vote each. That is the only place in the world, I believe, where that system is used. It gives satisfaction, so far as minority representation is concerned.
The next system is one which was tried in Colorado. It is called the Bucklin system, which is a point system. There again you have a number of preferences, and if no one candidate obtains more than 50 per cent on the first count, they count the ballots over again and
Dominion Elections Act

give each candidate his first, second and third votes, and so on. Those are added together, and whoever gets the highest total votes gets the seat. That has been abolished in nearly every place in which it has been tried in the western United States, and that is the only place it was tried.
Then, in Europe they have tried what is called the second ballot. Theoretically the second ballot is the best of all of them; but in actual operation it does not work out satisfactorily. Besides that, there are two systems of it. The second ballot was tried in quite a number of European countries. France tried it. There are two different systems. Under one system, if an election was held on the 10th of the month in single member ridings and no one candidate in a riding obtained a majority, then a second ballot was held ten days later. The voters are asked to vote for all1 the candidates over again; only in the second ballot whoever obtains a majority on the second vote is elected. They abolished that, because for obvious reasons it is unsatisfactory.
The next time they tried the second ballot they adopted a system whereby, if no one obtained a majority on the first ballot, then, on the second ballot ten days later they voted only on the two leading candidates on the first ballot. That has been unsatisfactory, also.
It will be observed that ten days later they held a second ballot. Now, some clever gentleman-he was clever; that is all-conceived the idea of doing all that balloting on the one day. His idea was not to have a second ballot, but to give the voter a second balloting or second choice at the same time.
The alternative vote is just a unique and freak system of voting. This is what Fischer Williams, one of the really great authorities in the world in respect to voting, says about the second ballot:
. No country which has tried the second ballot is content with it. Its evils have been one of the determining causes for the introduction and progress of proportional representation.
And at another page he says that the alternative vote, which succeeded the second ballot-
. . . though a great improvement in mechanism is still in principle only the second ballot in a new disguise.
That is all it is; it is just the second ballot in a new disguise. It allows the voter to vote twice or more on the same day by having a first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth or tenth choice, depending upon how many candidates there are in the field.
In an election where they have a choice like that the contest is not between parties. 
They do not concentrate on principles in an election like that. They say, Give me your first choice, vote for whomever you like on your second choice. The reason is that whoever gets the first choice, which is number one in the contingent or alternative vote-and its real name is the contingent vote-or in proportional representation, gets 79-66 per cent of the value of the ballot. The second choice is worth 17-33 per cent. So no candidate asks for the second choice, and much less would he ask for the third choice, because it is worth only a small fraction of the ballot.
The reason is that when a thinking voter goes into the polling booth his mind is made up. He is not a man who has a choice for this or that or anything else. He is not voting to have free water, or anything 1-ike that. His mind is made up to vote number one. But if his mind is not made up he would go in and vote number one and two, and, as I said a minute ago, the second choice is worth only 17-33 per cent of the value of the vote.
The contest becomes not an electoral contest, but rather a contest between candidates to try to obtain first choice. This alternative vote has been tried in quite a number of countries. It was recently bodily thrown out of Australia for federal senate elections, where it was a disastrous failure. In Australia, under the alternative vote, or the contingent vote as it is called, they elected their house of representatives. But they threw it out, and they now use another system. They elect their senate under the alternative vote. In recent years in Australia in an election they elected eighteen senators, three from each of six states. Eight hundred and sixty thousand votes elected seventeen senators-someone will say that is fair representation-and 820,000 votes elected one senator. Then, 178,000 did not elect any senators at all. There were three different parties.
All these freak systems of voting have many defects, and they all fail in practice. Someone has said that we must have electoral reform. It is not electoral reform we want. No electoral reform is superior to the one man, one vote majority system. When you go into the voting booth you know whom you are going to vote for, and you vote for him.
What we want and cannot get in this country, and perhaps for two or three more redistributions, is equal voting strength for every voter. For instance, in my riding with a population of approximately 70,000 there are about 45,000 voters. But I know of a riding with less than 20,000 population, and less than half of them vote. That is not fair representation.

Dominion Elections Act
But that is not the fault of the system of voting. How are we to overcome it? I did make some suggestions when redistribution was being considered, but I am not making them now. There is no other system of voting as simple as our system of voting.
Has the alternative vote failed in those two western provinces? I shall come to them in a oment.
The next proposal was to have proportional representation. I am sure that any man here who would advocate the alternative vote would agree that proportional representation is a better system. But you cannot get it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I do not think it is a better system.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Authorities say it is the better system.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Including the hon. member for Davenport.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You are always pretty smart in your expressions, but smartness does not add anything to a debate. I made a statement a moment ago and I stick to it. Authorities say proportional representation is the better system of those two.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I said I did not agree.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You said more than that.


Arthur Leroy Smith: No.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, you did. You implied that I was an authority. If my hon. friend will just leave me alone until I get through he can talk all he likes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I think I had better.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The Ontario government brought in its bill for proportional representation in 1923. The bill was not passed but it called for different counties to be merged. As examples, two ridings were proposed; one comprised Waterloo, Oxford and Brant; in the other, Lanark, Leeds, Carleton and Grenville were put together as one seat. You can see plainly that these counties would not have it and the members of parliament would not have it. That is proportional representation as they were going to have it in Ontario. In the west they have it in only two places in Alberta, in Calgary and Edmonton, and in Winnipeg, in Manitoba. Winnipeg has ten seats, and Edmonton and Calgary, five seats each. We would not like a system like that in our province. The results were not too good for some of us last time, although they were all right for some others.
I am going to say a word about the results of the alternative vote in Alberta. I am sorry to take so long, Mr. Chairman, and if I were in your place I would be tempted to call "Order". We have had three committees in Canada and held exhaustive inquiries, summoning experts to explain the transferable vote, but we have never adopted it. It should be thrown out now holus-bolus.
In the province of Alberta, in their last five general elections, there were 241 seats in the total, and in those 241 seats, on counting the second choices of the low candidate where it was necessary to do so, only six changes were made-six changes in 241 seats! That is a terrible price to put the province of Alberta to for such nonsense. If they had counted third, fourth and fifth choices it would have been even worse. In Pincher Creek, Alberta, three men were running. H. Bossenberry, Liberal; E. G. Cook, U.F.A.; R. O. Allison, Conservative. Bossenberry got 592 first-choice votes; Cook, 542, and Allison, 471. Not one of them got an absolute majority. So they counted the ballots of the low man over again, and the majority of the second choices of Allison's votes went to Cook, who, although he was in a minority on the first count, was declared elected over the man who had got most votes on the first count. We do not want that kind of system in Canada. Had they counted the ballots of Bossenberry and Cook over again, there is no telling who would have been elected. That is why I say to the hon. member for Winnipeg South that the alternative vote does not elect anyone by absolute majority, unless he gets a majority on the first ballot or on the counting of all ballot second choices.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Pardon me; it is not going to be carried for a moment. This thing might as well be disposed of and flattened out now. As I have said, we have had three committees inquiring into the single transferable vote, and it has been thrown out every time on the advice of experts.
To go a step further, the state of New South Wales had the alternative vote. It was one of the first to have it, and after a bitter trial they threw it out. Why? Because it was unsatisfactory. They got fed up with this idea of electing a man by recounting and recounting the ballots. They never would have got through if they had had to count all the ballots a second, third, fourth and fifth time.
Take Manitoba. The results there are just as bad as they are in Alberta. In Manitoba, out of 235 seats, in five general elections, and putting the people to all the bother of counting the votes over again, only four seats were

Dominion Elections Act
changed. A lot of good time was wasted just to please somebody's fancy to have a system like this. It has been thrown out in many places, but not in Alberta and Manitoba.
Those who advocate the alternative vote never tell you which system they want. There are five different systems of alternative voting. In Manitoba and Alberta you must vote for one candidate, but you do not have to vote for the others. That is outlawed in the United States. In Australia you had to vote for all the candidates. But that system has been thrown out of Australia. There are several different systems. Which system are you going to try to foist on this country? They must agree on something, and so they advocate the Alberta and Manitoba system, which calls for voting for one candidate only, and then you can do what you like with the others. That is outlawed in the state of Connecticut, in the state of Michigan, in the state of California, and I do not know in how many other states, because, according to the United States constitution, every vote must have the same value and it does not have the same value when in the one case you can vote for only one candidate, in another case you can vote for two, and in another case vote for three candidates or more. That makes a differentiation in the value of the votes, of one vote as against another. Therefore it is rightly outlawed, and it should be outlawed here.
The other system, the proportional transferable vote system is superior. It has some merit. But it, too, has been tried in many different places and thrown out; for instance, thrown out in Kalamazoo, Michigan; in New South Wales. Australia; in Toledo, in New York, in Cleveland and in Edmonton. It has been thrown out of Saskatoon, out of North Battleford. out of New Westminster, out of France and out o. many other places. Why do we want to bother with this thing, Mr. Chairman? Anybody going in to vote does not want to be pestered with one, two, three, four choices. I always know for whom I am going to vote. I am not going to vote for free trade and protection at the same time. The people should know for whom they are going to vote. I could go on indefinitely. I have a lot more to say but I shall keep it in case somebody else speaks on this matter.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am sure it must be very interesting for those of us who come from Alberta to find how badly our system is working. As a matter of fact, I know of no one in Alberta who thinks it is working badly. But perhaps it is necessary for us to come here and listen to the experts tell us that we are all crazy and that we do not know what we are doing. However, we shall 
plod along in our own usual way, in spite of the experts and the kindly advice that we get here. I think it cannot be said of me, in any event, that I have become concerned because of recent political events in the elections in the Dominion of Canada and in the province of Alberta, because I did, standing where I now am, advocate this system of voting long before any of those elections were ever thought of.
I want to put this to hon. members, because we now have all these fractions, 70 odd per cent, 17 per cent and so on introduced, and I make this broad statement. Except for those of us who were nominated by acclamation by our parties, or w'here there was only a two-person contest, we were all nominated by the very principle embodied in the single transferable vote. In other words, if four people stand for nomination at a convention of any of our parties, the system invariably adopted is that the low man drops. We vote again and the next man drops, and we vote again until some person has received a minimum of 50 per cent, plus one vote of those in attendance. It might be said that you will get more than 50 per cent. Yes, you do. Therefore I emphasize the word "minimum". That is what the single transferable vote is, although in this case you have a ballot given you which gives you those alternative choices, without going through four or five votings as we do in any party convention that any of us have ever attended. That is the principle of the single transferable vote. It undertakes that all persons voting have a choice between the last two persons to be voted on. That is what it is. It means that every person voting has a choice between the winner and the runner-up. Can anyone suggest anything wrong with it? I do nor. mean these complicated fractions and percentages; but if we reduce the thing to its bones, to its very simple form, that is exactly what it is.
I do not intend to discuss or compare proportional representation with the single transferable vote. It does not apply to the same circumstances at all. Proportional representation is used only where you have a multiple-member constituency. The best example is any city which has not adopted the ward system. We heard that it was thrown out of here and thrown out of there. The answer is that the burghers and the voters of that city went back to the ward system and preferred to elect their members by that method. I will go along with my hon. friends over here that in multiple constituencies it does guarantee that the minorities have representation. I am not quarreling with that, We have it in our city, but it is something which is complicated. '

Dominion Elections Act
What I am so anxious to make plain tonight is that what those of us who favour this are seeking is simply that the person who comes here-I am a minority representative from Calgary West, and 148 others of us are in the same position-will undertake that when we come to parliament we shall have a majority of the persons who vote voting for us as against our nearest and our last opponent. That is what this thing is, and it means nothing more than that. It is not complicated in any sense whatever, except to give every voter a choice between the last two persons, exactly as is done in the conventions where we are nominated by our parties to run for office in this dominion parliament.
I want to use the illustration used by my honourable, able and kindly friend, the hon. member for Davenport, who got annoyed at me a moment ago. In the constituency of Fincher Creek there were three men running, Cook, Bossenberry and Allison. On the first count neither of the three had a majority. Then Allison, who, I think, belonged to my party-I am not sure-had the lowest number of votes of the three. In the meantime, as the hon. member for Davenport said, Bossenberry was running ahead of Cook. But when they counted the No. 2 votes of Allison, who dropped out, it meant that Cook had beaten Bossenberry, and it meant taking the minority man and giving him the majority. Why should that not be? The decision was then between Cook and Bossenberry, and the majority of the voters wanted Cook.
How can we here who believe in democracy and who do much talking about majority rule, conceding that to be the principle upon which we operate in a democracy, quarrel with the idea that the persons who come here should have a majority of the votes of the persons who are sufficiently interested to vote? How anyone who believes in democracy can put up an argument against that is quite beyond me. I think the difficulty is this, Mr. Chairman. You have heard of our province, I am quite sure, starting some rather original things politically and in many other ways. It is so easy at a distance to say we have that crazy system of the single transferable vote. I have talked to a goodly number of members privately about this matter. I say it is not blameworthy on their part, but I found a number whom one might think would think otherwise who simply did not understand the system. It is the simplest thing in the world. I guarantee one thing, namely, that he who represents the people of a constituency will be sent here to represent them by a majority of the people in that constituency, and it means nothing else.


Robert Fair: I am glad to know there are so many members who are interested in the way
in which Canadians vote. I think the privilege of the ballot is being abused, and before it is too late we should have some reform in the method of voting. I do not think the majority of the people are satisfied with the single "X" marked on the ballot. I am sure that when the single transferable vote is properly explained to them we shall have no trouble whatever in canying that system into effect.. I wish to give notice now that at the next session I intend to introduce a bill dealing with this matter. If it should so happen that I am not returned at the next election I have no doubt there will be somebody else here who will take steps to introduce legislation to bring about the desired result, I hear a C.C.F. member saying something under his breath. I have nothing to fear from that quarter, when a C.C.F. candidate loses his deposit in my constituency.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 26 to 36 inclusive agreed to.
On section 37-Who may vote at advance polls.
Mr. CASE:: I suggest that he application of this section should be considerably broadened, inasmuch as I take the position that the advance poll exists for vhe convenience of those who desire to cast their ballots. In the recent Ontario elections, while advance polls were held in my constituency, members of parliament were not allowed to vote at an advance poll, which necessitated their remaining over until the following Monday to cast their ballots.
There is one comparison I would make between the provision contained in this section and a similar provision in the Ontario act. Here it refers to commercial travellers. They leave out the word "commercial." The term "traveller" would be sufficient. I do not see why it should be qualified by the word "commercial." I wonder if this section could not be broadened in its application with respect to those who may vote at advance polls. A good citizen who, of necessity, must be absent, either on business or for some other reason, desires to cast his ballot in any event. There might be some danger of impersonation in the larger centres; but in the majority of cases, if a citizen applies for the right to vote at an advance poll, I think the section should be broad enough to enable him to cast his ballot, if he knows he will be absent on election day. I suggest to the minister that he remove the word "commercial" and simply leave it "traveller."
Supply-Health and Welfare


Colin William George Gibson: This question was considered carefully by the committee at two of its sessions, and it was recommended that it be left in the present form. I think it should stay in the form in which it was brought in.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 38-Examining and sealing ballot box.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: I think there should be something in this section to impose a penalty upon a returning officer who opens the box ahead of time, because that has been done in more cases than one.


Colin William George Gibson: I understand from the chief electoral officer that this is considered misfeasance of duty and there is a heavy fine for such an offence.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is it in the elections act?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 39 to 48 inclusive agreed to.
William Henry Golding: An amendment was made by the committee to clause 7. Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
245. Departmental administration, $6-23,428.
Mr. WHITE (Middlesex East):: I wish to bring to the attention of the minister a matter in which my riding is interested. In that riding, and I suppose in many others, there are certain governmental institutions-I am referring particularly to Westminster hospital- and from time to time employees of that institution, sometimes transient employees who have been there for only a short time, perhaps three months, become a charge upon the township. During all their lifetime they have not contributed one cent of taxes to the municipality, but they become a charge upon it. I understand that in the case of Chalk river, the municipality was not able

to carry the burden of this hospitalization and care of transient labotir that came in to build up the Chalk river plant.


Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but of course he appreciates fully that the Westminster hospital does not come under this department.


Harry Oliver White: No. The point I am coming at is this. While Westminster hospital does not come under the minister's department, the Prime Minister has proclaimed a great health scheme for the dominion. If it is to be as far-reaching as we are led to believe it is to be, surely a place for it to be made operative is where municipalities do not receive any taxes from these government institutions, but are required to take care of their employees. For instance, if a corporation of some kind had a business employing as many people, with as many millions of dollars invested in it as are invested in Westminster hospital, it would be contributing a large sum of money to the municipality by way of taxes. Not only that, but some of the people who are employed in this hospital send their children to the schools in the municipality. Yet in 1946 all the taxes the municipality of Westminster received from the hospital was $161 and some cents. Some provision should be made in cases like that particularly.
I know of several cases in which employees have contracted tubercular diseases, and it has been necessary for them to receive care at the sanitarium. Then, after they were discharged from the sanitarium, they required further care for some time while they were at their homes. This has become a burden on some of the municipalities. In this health plan the Prime Minister is bringing before the country, surely there is some way whereby that matter could be taken care of. I should like to hear what the minister has to say about it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I simply want to point out that the Chairman ruled, when these estimates were first discussed, that consideration of matters involved in the new health plan must await the presentation of the supplementary estimates.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister indicated earlier that, without specific request, he would on each item give the actual expenditure in the previous year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, that is right. The
expenditure was $524,503.56; unliquidated commitments, $20,824.98; total commitments, $545,328.54.

Supply-Health and Welfare


Donald Methuen Fleming: An increase of about $92,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National Health Branch-
21,6. National health branch administration, $122,823.
Mr. JAQUES:: I should like to put on the record a quotation from a letter which I received from a constituent of mine who is a victim of arthritis. I know this lady. She is one of the pioneers of the west. She says this:
I am a widow and am crippled with rheumatoid arthritis. My life savings are nearly gone, and I have no income. I know several others who need help too. It would be a great blessing if we could even have a small pension, and save us from a lot of worry.
I know, of course, that financial relief does not come under the department of the Minister of Health and National Welfare; but I wanted to put that on the record because, as was said the other night by other speakers, at the present time arthritis is incurable. There are thousands, and maybe hundreds of thousands of victims of this disease who are situated as is this constituent of mine. I do not think I have ever read a more eloquent appeal than that. Let me read it again:
I am a widow and am crippled with rheumatoid arthritis. My life savings are nearly gone and I have no income,
I merely wanted to bring that to the attention of the committee, in the hope that something can be done for the victims of this crippling disease for which at the present time there seems to be no remedy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall be glad to take into consideration what the hon. member says. The expenditure on this item was $118,005.99; unliquidated commitments, $35,398.94; total commitments, $153,405.93.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wish to say a few words with regard to item 246, national health branch administration, and my remarks probably apply to the next item or two as well. There has been some consolidation of this and the next couple of branches in the departmental administration. I recall that on March 10 a statement was given, in reply to a question, that the food and drug division, the proprietary and patent medicine division-


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member is on the next item.


William Henry Golding: Is the hon. member speaking on item 246?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are on item 246.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. My remarks apply to items 247 and 248. The minister has given the expenditure on item 246.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, but we have not yet passed this item.


William Henry Golding: Shall the item carry?


Jean-François Pouliot: No. Before this is
carried-


William Henry Golding: The hon. member is speaking on item 246?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes. The other day I was interrupted in the middle of a sentence by eleven o'clock being called.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It may happen again.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am greatly interested in this matter. I appreciate what the minister is doing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon. member permit one observation?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I may be anticipating what my hon. friend has in mind, but does he not think what he is going to say should be said under item 272, welfare branch administration? He is a better authority on the rules of the house than I am, and perhaps he can say whether I am right.


Jean-François Pouliot: I may tell the minister that the distinction between health and welfare is very subtle. The cases to which I wish to refer are those people who suffer from infirmities. They must come to health to enjoy welfare. I wonder if the department has established a line of demarcation between health and welfare that is easy to understand. To me the two words are synonymous. Some of the experts on health may be experts on welfare, and vice versa. If there are doctors in the health branch administration and doctors in the welfare branch administration, they all must have made the same studies and reached the same results-to protect the health of the people. Welfare is not intended to make people rich; it is intended to make them healthy. I do not know whether I shall be here when the other item will be up, and I should like to submit this in all friendliness to the committee.
Family allowances come under welfare, because they are paid for young children who may or may not be in good health. Those allowances are paid according to age, but those who are sick do not receive any more than those who are well. The rate is standard
Supply-Health and Weljare

for all. That may be called welfare. Old people receive old age pensions, not because they are sick but because they have reached a certain age and are in need. The case I want to bring to the attention of the committee is that of people who suffer from infirmities.
These people are not exceedingly numerous and there would not be more than a few thousand in Canada. They suffer from disabilities and deficiencies which make life much harder for them. Nothing is provided for their assistance. The other day the hon. member for Macleod made a remarkable speech about incurables. There is a gap in our social service system. We hear a lot about social service; everybody is talking about it, and everybody thinks the government has a horn of plenty to satisfy the needs of all.
Old people may receive something if they are needy and are over the age of seventy years. The young receive something until they reach the age of sixteen years. The blind are assisted between the ages of twenty-one and seventy years. Along with the blind who are not between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one, those who suffer from infirmities receive no assistance from the ages of sixteen to seventy years.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: They do in British Columbia.


Jean-François Pouliot: I accept what my hon. friend says about British Columbia, but I do not know whether it is done in any other province. The hon. member for Terrebonne and the hon. member for Compton placed resolutions on the order paper to provide assistance for those between the ages of sixteen and seventy years who were suffering disabilities. They felt that the state should come to the assistance of those who could not look after themselves. If we accept the principle that the community must come to the assistance of its members who need it, why overlook the neediest cases? Just about a month before Christmas the great New York paper, the New York Times, devotes its front page to describing the neediest cases in the city. Some of those cases come under welfare, while others are health cases.
I had a survey made by the health unit of my constituency-this should be made in every constituency in the country-to find out those who needed the help of the state but could not reach the state, either because they lived in the back country and were not in contact with the authorities, because they were too shy to leave their homes, or for other reasons. These people all deserved special consideration. For a time this type of person was looked after by private charity. Private charity has

accomplished marvels in this country. One has only to note the magnificent institutions erected in our cities and towns by private charity for the welfare of our fellow citizens.
But taxes are high and those who are ready to give sometimes find that they cannot give as much, because it is hard for them to make both ends meet. If we accept the principle that the state must help those for whom private charity can no longer provide, we must first look after those whom we might term the deserted of life, les desherites de la vie. These people do not have the same standard of living as the average Canadian citizen because of their disability or handicap which prevents them from earning a living for themselves and their families. And two or three years-if I remember correctly it was in 1945; it was either 1945 or 1946-


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was last year.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, it was before that- there was a resolution sponsored by the hon. member for Terrebonne. I supported it, and it had the support of all members of the house. The hon. member for Portneuf supported it, and made an excellent speech on that occasion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was referring to your own suggestion.


Mr. GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: Last year it was the hon. member for Compton.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was referring to the speech of the hon. member for Temiscouata.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know it was a good debate, except for one speech, and that was the speech of the then minister of national health and welfare, the predecessor of my hon. friend the present minister. I was scandalized when I heard him say it was impossible to provide anything for the assistance of those who suffer from personal disability. I was both scandalized and shocked. I said it the other day. Hansard has reported me differently; but this is what I said; I was heard to say it, and I repeat it:	How is it that we
can send $20,000,000 to the children of Europe, but we cannot provide for our own people who are sick, who have not the means to go to the hospital and who have not the means to recuperate? What an absurdity!
I am all for helping those in other countries who are suffering; but how is it that we keep black spots in each constituency of this country? I could read the figures for my constituency. They are sad, but they are no sadder than those of any other constituency. They are the same. There are dwarfs in any constituency. There are people who have

Supply-Health and Welfare
lost their hands in sawmill accidents. Even sometimes in sliding they have broken legs or arms. Sometimes sports are responsible for these human deficiencies.
When people are poor and live in large families they cannot attend so well to those who have suffered. Those people should be given at least the same as is paid to the aged, because they suffer deficiencies that are sometimes worse than those suffered by the old people. That is easy to understand. But when I heard a minister of the crown daring to say in the House of Commons that the country had not enough money to look after those people I was most indignant.
I appeal to the good heart of the present Minister of National Health and Welfare. I hope he will not wait for the millennium to correct that absurd situation. This is the time to do something. It is most urgent because, when an injustice exists somewhere, whether we call it a social injustice or just an injustice, we should attend to it. I cannot see the difference between social justice and justice. When justice exists it is social justice. It is not necessary to use the word "social," because it is just justice. And when injustice exists it is not only injustice but social injustice.
When we think of any country with natural resources in the abundance in which we have them, a country in which there are people who suffer and who are ignored completely by the state, one is reminded of the parable of the good Samaritan. So many passed by and paid no attention to the man who was lying sick along the roadside. They were passing by, giving him the cold shoulder.
Those people may not be well enough to vote; they may not be able to leave their homes. Sometimes they cannot, because they have not the means to buy proper clothing to protect them against the rigours of our winter climate. Sometimes they cannot go out, because they are too sick and are unable to walk. Sometimes they are ashamed of their disabilities and do not leave their homes, because they would feel uncomfortable in meeting other people.
I must praise highly the health units of the province of Quebec which have accomplished marvels in our part of the country.


Pierre Gauthier: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am delighted to hear the hon. member for Portneuf, who is a distinguished member of the medical profession of this country, give his approval to what has been said about those people who belong to the health units of the province of Quebec, and who are afraid of no weather when they go out to look after those who need medical attention. Many times contagious epidemics have been stopped because of the devotion and sense of duty of the nurses, those fine young girls who go out in the blizzards of winter to look after the children at school, to vaccinate them and help them. Sir, let me remind you-


William Henry Golding: Order. It is eleven o'clock.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we shall consider Bill No. 345, to amend the Tariff Board Act; Bill No. 346, to authorize the provision of moneys to the Canadian National Railways system; the resolution in the name of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to amend the Diplomatic Service Superannuation Act; Bill No. 347, to amend the Railway Act, the Exchequer Court Act and the Judges Act, 1946; Bill No. 348, an act respecting the Revised Statutes of Canada. Then we shall move to go into supply to take up the estimates of the departments of National Health and Welfare, Trade and Commerce, Reconstruction and Supply, Veterans Affairs and Agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following item was passed in committee of supply]:
DEPARTMENT OP NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE 245. Departmental administration, $623,428.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 16, 1948