1950-04-20

Mr. W. F. Carroll (Inverness-Richmond):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of National Revenue whether W. F. Carroll, member for the constituency of Inverness-Richmond, and "Mr. C.", who is or was a judge of one of our Canadian courts and who as commissioner received some $15,000 on which he objected to paying income tax, are the same person.
Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue: The hon. member for Inverness-Richmond and "Mr. C." are not the same person, Mr. Speaker, and I am very sorry if the person who has been referred to as "Mr. C." has caused the hon. member any inconvenience or embarrassment.
[Later: ]
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. Carroll) at the opening of today's sitting raised the question of who "Mr. C." was, and, in effect, asked that any cloud be dispelled that might be over his name in that connection, may I ask the Minister of National Revenue to remove the cloud-from all of our judges' good names, and tell the House of Commons who "Mr. C." really is?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Under the terms of secrecy with reference to income tax returns I have not the right to divulge who "Mr. C." was, particularly on account of the fact that the appellant in the case asked that it be heard in camera.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask one further question? The minister has already given an answer which exonerated one judge. Does he mean that we have to put a question as to every judge in Canada before we can come to the man who is "Mr. C."?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Peel wishes to adopt those tactics and that mode of procedure, I will answer the questions one by one.


Gordon Graydon: Thank you.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall have to take into consideration whether or not such procedure would be allowed. At the moment I am not ruling that I will allow the questions to be put in that way.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask a question of the Minister of Justice? Until His Honour makes a ruling with respect to that matter, will the Minister of Justice table the names of all of the judges in Canada so that we may have them for the purpose of asking the questions?


Mr. Fraser:: They are all under a cloud.



FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROL


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to announce that the government has instructed counsel to appeal against the sentences imposed in the case of Rex v. Vernon G. Cardy.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Fraser:: 1.	Do any organizations, police departments, individuals or group of individuals in Canada have permission to possess and use hand grenades of any kind?
2.	If so, what are the names of these people or organizations?
3.	What kind of hand grenades do they possess and from what source did they receive them?


Mr. Garson:: 1.	Peace officers, immigration officers and service personnel may possess and use hand grenades under the general authority of section 129 of the Criminal Code; bona fide dealers may also possess hand grenades under the general authority of the same section and without having a specific authority in the form of a permit. Persons other than those already mentioned may also have hand grenades if in possession of a permit in Criminal Code form 76A. Such permits may be issued by the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or by any officer duly authorized by him or by any person authorized by

Questions
the attorney general of any province upon sufficient cause being shown and upon being satisfied as to the discretion and good character of the applicant.
Hand grenades come within the definition of "offensive weapon", as defined by section 2(25) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
2.	The names of persons or organizations to whom permits have been issued authorizing possession of hand grenades are not available, as there is no central record of such permits. Applications are normally dealt with by officers authorized by the attorney general of the province to deal with these matters under authority of section 120, subsection 2, of the Criminal Code.
3.	The information asked for is not available at present for the reason mentioned in the answer to No. 2.


MOTOR VEHICLES BEARING U.S. LICENCE PLATES HELD BY MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. White (Middlesex East):: 1.	Are any cars owned by Indians bearing Michigan or New York licence plates being held by Royal Canadian Mounted Police (a) in the province of Ontario; (b) at Muncey, Ontario; (c) at Six Nations Reservation, Brantford, Ontario?
2.	If so, how long have these cars been held, and for what reasons?
3.	How many cars, if any, are similarly held that are owned by American citizens other than Indians?


Mr. Garson:: 1.	(a) Yes; (b) yes; (c) yes.
2.	Seven cars for the whole province of Ontario, six of which bear Michigan licence plates, and one bearing a New York licence plate, have been held since the following dates:
At Muncey, Ont., since
20th	Jan., 1950	  1
At Muncey, Ont., since
21st	Jan.,	1950	  2
At Muncey, Ont., since
8th Feb., 1950	  1
At Muncey, Ont., since
12th	Feb.,	1950	  1
- 5
At Six Nations reserve, Brantford, Ont...	1
Elsewhere in Ontario (at Wallaceburg)..	1
All cars held for violations of the Customs Act.
3.	Cars bearing Michigan or New York licence plates owned by American citizens other than Indians:
In Ontario: N.Y. licence plates, 5; Michigan licence plates, 5; total, 10.


BONAVENTURE, QUE., FISHERMEN'S WHARF
Mr. Couriemanche:: 1.	Is the extension to the fishermen's wharf at Bonaventure, Bonaventure county, carried on from December 1, 1949, to March 15, 1950, now completed?
2.	If so, has the work been accepted and paid for, and on what date?
3.	What amount was paid to Achille Raymond, as supervisor, from February 1 to March 15, 1950, and how many days did he work?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	(a) $192; (b) twenty-four days.


APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES TO PROVINCIAL ROYAL COMMISSIONS
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What judges of (a) superior courts; (b) county or district courts, have been members of provincial royal commissions since the first of January, 1945?
2.	Of these, how many have received honoraria or allowances for services so rendered?
3.	Which of said judges have been authorized, by (a) the governor in council; (b) the Minister of Justice, to act on such commissions?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, for the sake of greater clarity-and I have discussed this with the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker)-the third question should read as follows:
Which of the said judges have been authorized, by (a) the governor in council; (b) the Minister of Justice, to act as members of such provincial royal commissions, and to receive honoraria or allowances for services so rendered?
On that basis I am answering the question.
1 and 2. Neither the attorneys general of the provinces nor the judges of the said courts report to the government of Canada those cases in which the said judges have been members of provincial royal commissions. The government of Canada therefore has no information concerning questions 1 and 2.
3. None.


DENIAL OF THE USE OF MAILS
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What were the charges alleged against the brokers and dealers in securities who, since the first day of March, have been denied the use of the mails?
2.	How many of these persons were given the opportunity of defending themselves against such charges before the order was made?
3.	Was any request for such order received from the government of the United States or any of the state administrations?


Mr. Lapointe:: 1 and 2. No charges were laid. The Postmaster General acted in the matter under authority of section 7 of the Post Office Act.
3. No.


PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE
Mr. Argue:: 
Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.


HEALTH GRANTS
Mr. Dickey:: 1.	How many research projects, by provinces, have been or are being carried out in Canada under the national health grants program?
2.	What is the total amount, by provinces, of the financial assistance by the federal government which has been approved to date in respect of such projects?


Mr. Marlin:: 1 and 2.		
	No. of	Amount
Province	projects	approvedNewfoundland 	. 2	$ 7,100.00Prince Edward Island.	. 1	1,000.00Nova Scotia 	. 4	13,545.00New Brunswick 	. 3	16,500.00Quebec 	. 16	132,777.36Ontario 	. . 41	359,758.00Manitoba 	, . 7	21,725.50Saskatchewan 	, . 8	39,269.78Alberta 	. 5	28,550.00British Columbia 	. 4	48,630.0091	$668,855.64


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	At what locations has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation installed frequency modulation transmitters?
2.	When did each commence operation?
3.	What were the costs of each frequency modulation installation?
4.	How many frequency modulation receivers are estimated to exist in Canadian communities within range of each Canadian Broadcasting Corporation frequency modulation transmitter?


James Joseph McCann: 1, 2 and 3. CBM-FM Montreal, July 2, 1946 and CBF-FM Montreal, March 5,	1948,
$45,200; CBO-FM Ottawa, February 18, 1948, $8,300; CBL-FM Toronto, October 8, 1946, $23,100; CBR-FM Vancouver, December 12, 1947, $17,500.
4.	No information.
Business of the House QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


GOVERNMENT PRINTING EQUIPMENT OTHER THAN IN PRINTING BUREAU
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Does the unemployment insurance commission operate printing equipment apart from and independently of the government printing bureau?
2.	If not, what is the explanation of the reference to "the printing division" on page 16 of the 1949 report of this commission?
3.	Are there any other government departments or agencies operating printing equipment of their own?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Righi Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:: That on Monday, April 24 next, and on Wednesday, April 26 next, and every Wednesday thereafter to the end of the session, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all other business except introduction of bills, questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that there ought to be a reasonable balance between government business and that which is initiated by private members. I do not believe there will be any disposition on the part of members of the house to deny the rights which the government should normally exercise with respect to government business, having in mind the time available for parliamentary work in general. In this instance, however, it could be successfully argued that by making this motion now the Prime Minister is throwing out of balance the relationship between government business and that of private members. It is on this basis that I wish to make a few remarks on the motion introduced by the Prime Minister.
I shall confine the remarks I have to make to the private members' notices of motions on the order paper, which of course would be seriously affected by the adoption of a motion such as this. We are now in the thirty-ninth day of this session, and there are twenty-two private members' notices of motions still to be dealt with. Up to the moment we have been able to deal with only two. In the normal course of affairs these notices of motions, looking at it from the practical point of view, are usually debated on Wednesday afternoon. They have precedence on Wednesday afternoon, and of course that priority is recognized. Of the thirty-nine sitting days this session, only two half days have been allowed for notices of

Business of the House motions by private members. I believe every member will agree that by the time routine proceedings are concluded there are not more than two and a halt hours left each Wednesday for private members' notices of motions.
I should like to suggest to the Prime Minister that he reconsider the position the government is taking. It does seem to me that four or five hours during the session is not enough to give private members the opportunity they should have to bring before the House of Commons their points of view on various matters. What I am about to say is said without any thought of party selfishness, because out of the twenty-two resolutions or motions on the order paper there are only two which are moved by members of the official opposition, although those two, concerning a bill of rights and the St. Lawrence waterway, are of as vital concern to the house as any of the legislation envisaged in the other notices that have been filed.
Actually this becomes an issue between the government and the private member, no matter where he may sit in the house. I want to speak, if I may, for the person who in ordinary street parlance-and I do not use the term in any offensive way-is called the ordinary Joe, into which category all of us private members in the House of Commons fall. It becomes an issue, I say, between the ordinary Joe and what may be regarded as the "top brass" in government circles. This being so, I want to plead the case of the ordinary Joe member of parliament like myself, who still thinks he ought to have, if he so desires, some opportunity to discuss matters which he believes to be of interest to the people of Canada.
What happens, Mr. Speaker, is this. The government provide the legislative menu day by day. They set the legislative table; they serve the legislative food, and it is for the ordinary Joe in parliament to take the food or to leave it, or to send it back to the kitchen for further preparation. We believe the ordinary Joe in parliament ought to be able to set the table once in a while, to prepare the food, and to ascertain the state of the government's digestion. That is one of the reasons why I think there ought to be more opportunity for private members to set the legislative table.
I am afraid that the procedure adopted by the Prime Minister has almost become a precedent which, having in mind the past attitude of the government, the private member can expect to see followed year by year. I am not suggesting that anyone who has a notice of motion on the order paper would be so motivated, nevertheless such a procedure

might normally encourage private members to place motions on the order paper merely for the purpose of having their views alone expressed on a particular matter. It might easily be regarded as a hit-and-run motion, because under present circumstances there need never be discussion on the matter. I believe we should not encourage hit-and-run motions in this House of Commons, but that is what we are doing if we adopt this procedure. If any decision of the house is to be made on this matter, I would expect every member who has a notice of motion on the order paper now to vote to have that motion heard by the house; otherwise I am quite sure his position would hardly be consistent with his having placed a notice of motion on the order paper.
There will perhaps be some who will say: What do these notices of motions accomplish? They accomplish a good deal. Many legislative enactments in the past have been based upon the testing of public opinion in this house and outside by a notice of motion which has been debated on the floor of the House of Commons. I have not put many notices of motions on the order paper in my time, but I remember that four years ago, before a notice of motion I had placed on the order paper, calling for a separate minister of external affairs, was heard, the government had appointed a new and separate minister to handle the Department of External Affairs. I might go on and give other instances in which motions moved by private members had a material influence in changing government policy.
While I am not arguing that we as private members should place obstacles in the path of government business, I suggest to the Prime Minister and to the house that it is just as important that we preserve the proper balance between government and private members. I therefore suggest to the Prime Minister that upon reflection he will perhaps agree with me that the motion now before us, if it were to carry, would throw out of balance the relationship to which I have just referred.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: Normally, Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the session I should be hesitant about opposing a motion of this kind; but for the reasons given iby the acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon), and also because of the wording of the motion itself, I am opposing it.
I want to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and to the attention of the house, the manner in which the motion is worded. It reads:
That on Monday, April 24 next, and on Wednesday, April 26 next, and every Wednesday thereafter to the end of the session, government notices of

motions and government orders shall have precedence over all other business except introduction of bills, questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.
On looking over the motion one immediately sees that after next Monday, which is taken away on account of the budget debate, Mondays will be restored as private members' days. Under standing order 15, Monday is private members' day, and the first order of business on Monday is private bills. What construction can be placed upon this motion? Private bills will come back to this house the following Monday. What private bills? Next week I take it that the pipe line bills will be before a committee and will probably come back to the house the following Monday. Consequently, if I am interpreting this motion aright, a special privilege is once again being given to these pipe line bills.
At the last session of parliament we had an extension of the private members' hour one evening in order to get these bills through. What I do not like about this kind of thing, whether it is deliberate or accidental, is that it is manipulating the rules of parliament. We have had too many variations of the rules of parliament. It is true that on this side of the house there is only a small minority; but, because of the overwhelming majority on the government side, care should be taken to see that the rules are observed and that private members are adequately protected.
I do not like this manner of dealing with private bills, and I am in good company on that score. A great Liberal in this country, Hon. Edward Blake, as long ago as 1883, is recorded as having said, as reported at page 37, volume I of Hansard for that year:
We have adopted a system wholly vicious, a system by which members of the house are expected, not merely to introduce and take the first steps in connection with the passage of private bills, but also to become their advocates and active promoters, and the position which we see is assumed with regard to such bills is one which is quite inconsistent with the true position of members of parliament called upon to pass judgment on them.
If that is true of an individual member of parliament, how much more true is it of a government when rules are varied in order to give precedence to private bills. If it is "wholly vicious" for members of the house to be expected not merely to introduce and take the first steps in connection with the passage of private bills, but also to become their advocates and active promoters, how much more vicious is it when a government varies the rules in order to give precedence to private bills which are meeting strenuous opposition in this house. If the government wants to make these bills government bills, 55948-110
Business of the House well and good; let us have them before us as government bills and treat them as government business. But let us not have the rules of the house set aside in discrimination against other bills, public orders and private members' resolutions, and in favour of these bills which have met with such strenuous opposition from some members of this House of Commons.
I myself have taken little part in the discussion of the pipe line bills. I spoke once on them. But "when I see a resolution such as this brought down, if my interpretation is correct, I feel that it is something about which we must make the most emphatic protest we can possibly make. In order that we may do what the acting leader of the opposition suggested just now, namely, place private members on an equal footing in this house with regard to their resolutions and their bills, I want to move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Mac-Innis):
That the motion he amended by deleting therefrom the words "and every Wednesday thereafter to the end of the session."
I do that so that on Wednesday private members' motions and public bills and orders, if we reach them, may be placed on an equal footing with other private members' bills such as the pipe line bills. Consequently I shall press this amendment to a division if it is not acceptable to the mover of the motion.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: There is not much left for me to say, Mr. Speaker, on this motion, but I think the position taken by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) is sound. I have tried to divorce this question completely from consideration of pipe line bills. Looking at it purely from the point of view of protection of the rights of private members, and also to achieve, as the hon. member for Peel has said, a proper balance between time for government business and time for private members' business, I am going to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.
I realize it will be charged that if we had not used so much time in the discussion of pipe line bills on this side of the house, there would have been more time for the discussion of private members' resolutions. I realize that our position on the opposition side of the house would be stronger if that had not happened.


Mr. Bradeile:: It would.


Solon Earl Low: I am making allowance for the feelings that hon. members may have in regard to the way these pipe line bills were dealt with. But we Social Crediters have not

Business of the House participated at all in the discussion of those bills, simply because we did not want to contribute to talking them out or destroying the chances of their getting through. I just want to put our position strictly on the basis of the rights of private members and a proper balance between time for private members' business and government business.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am not going to question the perfect sincerity and the high-mindedness of those who are opposing this motion. I even congratulate the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) on his concern about the rights of the ordinary Joe, because both he and I are the ordinary Joes of this House of Commons. I am happy to have provided him with the opportunity to give us the interesting expose that he made when this motion was called.
I thank the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) for the frank recognition that had there not been this very proper use of the rules of the house when these pipe line bills were called, there would have been ample opportunity to discuss all the private members' resolutions.
Now, to come to the position of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), who is so indignant at the "manipulating" of the rules of the house, I can hardly make that assertion conform with his suggestion that private bills be made government bills. That would do something pretty serious to the standing orders. So that there may be no ambiguity upon that point, I may say to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that the members of the government were very anxious that parliament, the whole of parliament, have the opportunity of expressing its views upon those pipe line bills, and that it be not prevented from doing so by the talking-out tactics deplored by the hon. member for Peace River.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar found it strange that there should not be the taking away immediately of the opportunity for considering private bills on the Mondays following next Monday. Well, it seems to us that so long as the rules of parliament provide that applications for private bills may be made, and that that is the only way in which incorporation for certain purposes can be obtained, it is proper that there should be opportunity for parliament to discharge that responsibility.
With respect to the amendment that we delete from the motion, the words "and every Wednesday thereafter to the end of the session", that would do for next week, but the hon. member will realize that there seemed to be considerable consternation last Monday night when hon. members found that

their resolutions were going to be called after the private bills had been dealt with. If hon. members will just look at Hansard-those who were not here to witness what took place that evening-they will see that one of those private resolutions occupies a space of about three inches of one column of Hansard, because there was no one prepared to debate it. The preceding one occupies seven or eight inches of a single column of Hansard because there was no one prepared to debate it.
There will be other occasions on which these resolutions can be called and dealt with. On the Mondays that are not being taken there will be opportunity to call all these resolutions, unless there are hon. members who still want to resort to the talking-out tactics against the pipe line bills. Of course there would be one other method of dealing with these talking-out tactics instead of providing additional time, and that would be to invoke the closure rule; but that rule has not been invoked for a long time; it would be rather distasteful to us all to have to resort to it, and it would offer at least one more opportunity of charging this side of the house with abusing the fact that it has a large majority on the floor of the House of Commons.


Mr. Green:: Why don't you put the pipe line through Canada?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Because in the pipe line bill this parliament decided that when a company was incorporated to build a pipe line it might exercise its powers, either within or without Canada, provided it did so in the manner determined by the transport board set up by this parliament to examine and consider where the line should pass.


Howard Charles Green: That is evading the question.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is not evading the question.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, it is.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I resent any charge of evading any question. The hon. member will never be able to put me in the position where I will have to evade any suggestion of his. I will always be prepared to meet him head on, either here or anywhere else. I am not going to evade any other suggestion-


Howard Charles Green: Don't get excited.


Gordon Graydon: Quiet down.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is rather exciting to one of my age, and to one who has always been careful of his reputation in Canada, to hear any hon. member of this house charge him with evasion, and I want my fellow members in the house to realize that I resent any such charge.


Gordon Graydon: You don't have to lose your temper over it.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would rather lose my temper than lose my reputation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Graydon: You are in better humour now.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I rejoice in what has happened here as evidence that at least with some hon. members I am not losing my reputation.


Howard Charles Green: Only with the rubber stamps.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There is nothing I wish to evade, not even the division on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has the floor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Mr. A. C. Stewart (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this motion, but I do so because the group sitting over here in the rump constitutes the largest group on this side of the house.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), in the thirty-nine days we have been sitting this session, has now risen over 139 times. Sitting here as a private member I am anxious to take part in debate on some of these private resolutions, including one or two of my own. However the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) made an interesting remark about the government's cooking up the mess and our having to eat it. Well, if we let them go on as they have on these pipe line bills, it will be a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth. We have too many cooks in the house already.
We have sat here thirty-nine days and we have accomplished practically nothing which has meant anything. In the interests of and

Business of the House at the request of the opposition, both at the previous session and at this one, the estimates were brought down in the first week. There has been constant obstruction of government business ever since those estimates were brought down. No general estimates for administration have been passed. Motion of non-confidence after motion of non-confidence has been moved on every motion to go into supply.
Everyone in the house knows that in supply in each department, on the item for general administration, if a member talks once he can say most of the things he should say in this session of parliament. But in my opinion, by this process of filibustering on the pipe line bills, much time has been wasted. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) interrupted the Prime Minister; the same member said he did not understand the pipe line bill when it was passed last year. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre claims he overlooked the material part of the bill. This is the same member who, because he saw a little clipping in the press pointing out how astute he was on parliamentary procedure, has been indulging in it ever since he read that clipping. He says that he sat in the house during the debate of the pipe line bill in 1949, which occupied eight pages of Hansard at one place and sixteen at another, and that he did not know that it gave the government certain powers that were given. *The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra sat there while five similar bills were passed, and he says he did not know that those bills meant what they said.
Speaking again for this group in the house- and I hope for all hon. members-may I say that we are tired of all this obstruction. I am glad to see that the Social Credit party have not taken part in it or delayed the business of the house. As Canadians and as members of the- House of Commons we want to get down to the real business of the house, including the general estimates. Let us discuss the business of government. Let the government go ahead with its motion and get down to government orders and government business, so that we can do something for Canada instead of sitting here and forming a debating society.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: This makes 140.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member wishes to ask a question of the hon. member for Yorkton?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right.
(Mr. Stewart (Yorkton).]


Alan Carl Stewart: On occasions the hon. member has refused to answer my questions. I have finished my speech, and he is out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Skip it.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the question with which we are dealing is too important to be dealt with in a spirit of levity. We are dealing with parliamentary rules and parliamentary procedure. All our rights and prerogatives in this house depend on the proper use of parliamentary procedure and parliamentary rules of order.
The rule which provides that during the session certain days will be given over to private members' resolutions does not limit the number of those days with the exception of the first four Thursdays in the session. The limitation is usually imposed by the government after taking into consideration the volume of government business that needs to be done and the number of days that have been given to private members' motions.
There can be no fault found with that procedure, provided that private members are allotted a reasonable amount of time. If all private members' days were being taken away at this time I do not believe members of the opposition would find fault with the government. What we do protest against is taking away private members' days next week so that private members will not have an opportunity to speak to their resolutions, and restoring private members' days when outside interests have measures that they want to have dealt with in this house.
That is the question which confronts us. Let me call attention to public bills and orders. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said that he was going to see to it that hon. members were given an opportunity to express an opinion on certain private bills. Hon. members will find that there are a number of public bills and orders on the order paper. I ask the Prime Minister if he is going to see to it that private members who have bills on the order paper will have an opportunity to secure expressions of opinion on those bills before the end of the session, or will the majority of these bills that are on the order paper be allowed to lapse without an opinion being expressed on them? In other words, are outside interests, such as a few financiers in New York, Montreal and Toronto, going to have an opportunity to have matters in which they are interested brought before the house and an opinion expressed thereon, while private members of this house are denied the same opportunity? That is the issue before us this afternoon.
I suggest to hon. members on both sides of the house that before they vote for or against

the motion or the amendment they decide whether their vote will be according to proper parliamentary procedure, and whether they will be defending the rights of the people who elected them to this House of Commons. What I object to in this instance is the manipulating of the rules so that one week we have private members' days, the next week the same days are not private members' days, then the next week they are restored, and so on. Surely that is a violation of the procedure and rules of this house. It is a travesty on parliamentary procedure. I am surprised that such a thing should have happened under the leadership of the gentleman who is now Prime Minister of this country.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, no one can say that I have been an obstructionist or a filibusterer in connection with these bills.


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


John George Diefenbaker: I have not spoken on the subject. There is no one who takes himself less seriously than the hon. member who has just interrupted. At no time have I participated in the pipe line discussions, nor was I present when the divisions took place.
After listening to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) today I must say that never have I known a prime minister or a government so energetic in getting something done that they did not care whether it is done or not. That is most unusual. I go back to November 15 last and recall what the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said to this house, to which I will refer in a moment. The government can dominate us because they have a majority; they can consider as naught the rules of this house because they have a majority; but that is not parliament.
I do not know why private members should be discriminated against in this manner. I agree with what the leader of the opposition has said, that if-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell)-I was speaking of the leader of the opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -so hon. members are a little early in their exhibition of levity, even though they do show a high degree of interest in what I am saying.
I am in entire agreement with what the acting leader of the opposition has said in this regard. We are fighting for our rights. We have the right and the people of Canada have the right to have all private bills and
Business of the House all private motions considered on equal terms. The government says that there are no outside influences. I have never seen a government so much given to playing fast and loose with the rules as this government has in connection with the pipe lines. The Prime Minister had an opportunity today to clear up the matter.


Mr. Howe:: Defensive obstruction this is.


John George Diefenbaker: Now we hear the voice of the greatest parliamentarian of these times. He regards parliament as just a necessary evil. He regards the debates in parliament as worthless. That is his attitude.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It depends on who is debating.


John George Diefenbaker: That is true. This is the first time the minister has admitted that there is only one side so far as parliament is concerned. That has always been his attitude; and that is one of the first signs of the idea of a one-party state.


An hon. Member:: Save that for the
convention.


John George Diefenbaker: Going back to last
November 15, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, with a cavalier disregard of parliament, said: We are going to get this thing through.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is quoting me, let him read what I said.


John George Diefenbaker: I have just stated what the minister said.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not say that.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, all one has to do is
read Hansard for November 15, 1949. The minister said: We are going to have this matter voted upon.


Some hon. Members:: Read it.


John George Diefenbaker: I am conducting my own argument.


Mr. Speaker:: I must point out that if an hon. member denies that he said what has been credited to him by another hon. member, that denial must be accepted.


John George Diefenbaker: But the statement by the minister was no denial. All he said was, "Read what I said," and I ask him to read what he said at page 1806 of Hansard for last fall.


Mr. Speaker:: I understood the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to say he did not make the statement mentioned by the hon. member. If my understanding is not correct of course I shall withdraw my remark.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not use the words used by my hon. friend.

Business of the House


John George Diefenbaker: No; I gave the purport of the words.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Bead them, and each of us will judge for himself the purport.


John George Diefenbaker: I stated that the Minister of Trade and Commerce said he intended to have this matter come to a vote in the house. If he says he did not say that I shall read his statement:
X should like also to say a word about what seems obviously to be a filibuster in connection with these bills. The government will not permit any small number of members to prevent this house as a whole from voting on a private bill. If these bills continue to be talked out in the limited time permitted for private bills, the government will ask the house to suspend the rules-


Some hon. Members:: "Ask the house."


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad my hon. friends interrupted, because there is a little more: -and provide whatever time is required to finish the discussion and to obtain a vote on such bills.


Mr. Poulioi:: On a question of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has stated from his place in this house that the Minister of Trade and Commerce said last session he wanted that legislation to pass. Then, after hesitation and tergiversation he decided to read Hansard; and when he did so he did not find at all what he had said.


Howard Charles Green: No point of order there.


Jean-François Pouliot: In that statement the minister was insisting that a vote be taken, which is entirely different from insisting on the passing of any bill. Read it correctly.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Jean-François Pouliot: No falsification.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right; and may the disciple be the first to learn his own philosophy.


Jean-François Pouliot: You cannot be the teacher.


John George Diefenbaker: As I said when I rose, Mr. Speaker, this is not a question in relation only to the pipe lines, in the debate on which I have taken no part. I do believe that in singling out these two bills, as in effect they are singled out for special attention in this house, and denying equal rights to all private members, the government is playing fast and loose with rules which ancient custom has shown are necessary to guard against the majority of a government, if parliament is to carry out its responsibilities and in doing so preserve freedom.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: After the attendance in the house yesterday, Mr. Speaker, it is a revelation to me to see the
[Mr. Howe.)
interest shown in this resolution. When I came into the house yesterday before the vote was taken there was barely more than a quorum of members. Why? Because they were not interested. Then what is the reason for this commotion now. When we have wasted our time we cannot have it.
' Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South): There are just two questions I have in mind, Mr. Speaker, that I would like cleared up. One has to do with the concern evidenced by the government on behalf of two private bills, as opposed to thirteen public bills and orders and twenty-five resolutions. There is no doubt that the resolution now before us definitely gives preference to two particular private bills over those public bills and orders and resolutions I have referred to.
Much has been said about these private bills having been talked out. During the four years I have sat in this house it has been an accepted practice for the government to talk out any private bill or resolution of which it does not approve. Year after year I have listened, as other members have listened, while cabinet ministers and government supporters have talked out private bills and resolutions to which they were opposed. That is nothing unusual in this house, and I am wondering why the government draws such a distinction between that practice and what has happened to these private bills in question which, as has been said already, have outside financial interests backing them, whose representatives were around this building day after day while those bills were before the house. Is there any connection between the fact that the representatives of those interests were visiting around this house while those bills were before us, and the action of the government? Why not? Or is it a mere coincidence that the government should favour these two bills?
There is another question I want to ask. By the introduction of this resolution it becomes quite evident that the government is anxious to get through the business of the session so hon. members may return home. Let me remind those on the government side of the house that we are elected and sent here to carry on the business of this house and are expected to stay here as long as that business requires, even if it takes twelve months a year. Let me remind the Liberal members of this house that there are plenty of men in this country, just as capable as many of us who sit in this house, who work 365 days per year for less than we members of parliament are receiving to conduct the business of this country. This manipulation

of the rules of the house in order to hurry	
through government business will not enhance	
the reputation of this parliament.	
The house divided on the amendment (Mr.	
Coldwell) which was negatived on the following division:
 YEAS Messrs:	
Argue	Herridge
Aylesworth	Higgins
Balcer	Hodgson
Beyerstein	Johnston
Blackmore	Jones
Blair	Knight
Browne (St. John's West) Knowles	
Bryce	Lennard
Casselman	Low
Charlton	Macdonnell (Greenwood)
Coldwell	Maclnnis
Coyle	McGregor
Diefenbaker	McLure
Fair	Nose worthy
Ferguson	Pearkes
Fleming	Poulin
Fraser	Quelch
Fulton	Ross (Souris)
Gagnon	Shaw
Graydon	Stanfield
Green	Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Hansell	Thatcher
Harkness	Thomas
Harris (Danforth)	Tustin
Hatfield	Wright-50.
 NAYS Messrs:
Anderson	Fontaine
Applewhaite	Fournier (Hull)
Ashbourne	Fulford
Bater	Gardiner
Benidiekson	Garland
Bennett	Garson
Bertrand	Gauthier (Lake St. John)
Blanchette	Gauthier (Sudbury)
Boisvert	Gauthier (Portneuf)
Boivin	George
Bonnier	Gingras
Boucher	Gingues
Bourget	Goode
Bradette	Gosselin
Bradley	Gour (Russell)
Brisson	Gourd (Chapleau)
Brown (Essex West)	Gregg
Bruneau	Harris (Grey-Bruce)
Byrne	Harrison
Cameron	Hellyer
Campney	Helme
Cannon	Henry
Carroll	Hetland
Cavers	Howe
Chevrier	Hunter
Cote (St. Johns-Iberville- Isnor	
Napierville)	Jeffery
Croll	Jut r as
Darroch	Kent
Dechene	Kickham
Denis	Kirk (Antigonish-
Dewar	Guysborough)
Dickey	Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth)
Dion	Lafontaine
Douglas	Laing
Eudes	Langlois (Gaspe)
Eyre	Lapointe
Ferrie	Larson
Follwell	Lefrancois
Little MacDougall
MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria) MacNaught Macnaughton McCann McCulloch McCusker Mclvor
McLean (Huron-Perth)
McWilliam
Major
Maltais
Martin
Matthews
Maybank
Mayhew
Monette
Mott
Murray (Oxford) Murray (Cariboo)
Mutch
Nixon
Pearson
Proudfoot
Richard (Ottawa East)
Riley
Roberge
Robertson
Robinson
Rooney
Ross (Hamilton East)
Simmons
Sinclair
Sinnott
Smith (York North) Smith (Moose Mountain) Stewart (Yorkton)
Stick
Stuart (Charlotte)
Tremblay
Valois
Ward
Warren
Weaver
Weir
Welboum Winkler Winters Wood-128.
Business of the House
Leger Lesage


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


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


Mr. Cruickshank:: I was paired with the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Wylie).


An hon. Member:: What about it?


Mr. Catherwood:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kent, Ontario (Mr. Huffman). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: I was paired with the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Black (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie):: I was paired with the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Cardiff). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. McCubbin:: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the question is put on the main motion, Mr. Speaker, I rise to move another amendment to it. The motion in the form in which it stands is still, in our view, discriminatory. It takes away private members' Wednesdays from now on, and that is the day on which private members' resolutions normally would come before the house. It takes away next Monday when the pipe line bills are out of this house but it

Business of the House restores Mondays as from the Monday following until the government decides to introduce another motion. In other words, the form of the motion as it is now before the chair still involves discrimination as between private members' resolutions on matters of public policy and private bills which seek the incorporation of private companies.
In the course of one of the debates last fall on a similar matter, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) objected to an amendment of mine which would have had the effect of affording another day's discussion-and perhaps a decision by the house-on the motion for federal aid for education, saying that no motion could be put through the house that would give special privilege to any particular resolution or bill. Yet we now have before us a motion which would do the very thing which the Prime Minister said must not be done, namely, a motion which gives special privilege to these pipe line bills by restoring Mondays as from a week this next Monday until these pipe line bills are through this house.
I feel that the views expressed today by my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) and by others who have spoken are not at all too strong in the condemnation that has been uttered of the way in which the rules of this house are being played with fast and loose. I feel too, Mr. Speaker, that it is a travesty on what parliament is supposed to do, that a parliamentary majority is being used to put through motions of this kind. It does seem to me that members of that majority party should take stock of their position. I think they should realize that when they time and again vote the way in which the government wants them to vote they are making it clear that their purpose in this institution is not very effective.
I suggest to some of these hon. members that if they want to carry weight with the government the thing for them to do once in a while is to vote against the government. The government pays no attention to members who always do what it wants them to do. It pays far more attention to members who vote against it once in a while.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear certain hon. members laughing at that suggestion. I remind those who were here in the last parliament when the majority was a little slimmer that their weight with the government was much greater than it is now; because that majority was so slim that the government at times had to yield to some of their suggestions.

I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that it is a crying shame the way the overwhelming majority of this parliament is being used. It is being used as a rubber stamp. I want to urge upon hon. members that they look at this motion that is now before the house and realize how discriminatory it is, not in favour of the subjects that are covered by private members' resolutions, and which their constituents are interested in, but in favour of private bills that seek the incorporation of private companies.
A few days ago someone sent me a clipping, which I had seen before, from the Reader's Digest, in which there were listed a number of interesting letters that had been sent to members of congress at Washington. Probably a good many hon. members have seen it. I remember one in particular. I do not have it before me, but it went something like this: "Dear Mr. Congressman: You have never met me. You do not know me at all. Surely you can have nothing against me. Why then do you always vote against the things that I want?"
I think such letters could be written to many of the members of the majority party in this house by their constituents. Their constituents must wonder why it is that time and again they vote the way they do.
I submit that we are giving to the members of that majority one more opportunity to show their independence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There seems to be a bit of laughter. Apparently independence is not something they want.
We have already made it clear that in our view private members' days should not be taken away at all. We accepted the point of view put forward last night by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), to the effect that it was desired to debate the budget next week, and on the basis of that we could see some sense in a motion that would take Monday and Wednesday of next week and make them government days; but by our previous amendment we suggested that that is as far as they should go. The whole point of our previous amendment was to eliminate the discrimination involved in the motion moved by the Prime Minister. The house has turned that down, but we now give hon. members the opportunity to eliminate that discrimination in another way. We now say: If you insist, against our wishes, against our judgment, on taking away all Wednesdays for the rest of the session, all right, play fair, take away Mondays too. If you are going to take away Wednesdays, the day on which private members' resolutions on matters of public policy

can be debated, play fair, take away Mondays, which are being retained only for the purpose of getting these pipe line bills through. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, to give effect to that attempt to get the discriminatory element out of this motion, to get away, if we possibly can, from this playing with parliamentary rules and procedure for private interests, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mel-fort (Mr. Wright):
That the motion be amended by inserting therein immediately after the word "every" in the second line thereof the words: "Monday and".
You will readily realize, Mr. Speaker, that the effect of the amendment would make the motion then read:
That on Monday, April 24 next, and on Wednesday, April 26 next, and every Monday and Wednesday thereafter to the end of the session, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all other business except introduction of bills, questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.
I want to say this further word in reply to the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart), who expressed the desire to get on with government business. He said in particular that he wanted to deal with the estimates. Well, here is his chance. If the Prime Minister's motion, without my amendment, carries, Mondays are going to be spent debating pipe line bills; but if my amendment carries Mondays will be available for government business such as the estimates. That is what he wants. I put it to him. If he meant what he said, here is his chance to give effect to it.


Mr. Ferguson:: He didn't know what he said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want to say this further word, Mr. Speaker. I do not like to see this house pass, at this stage of the game, a motion that takes away private members' days at all. In fact I will vote against the main motion if it is not amended in the form I have suggested. Let me say clearly that when we are confronted with a motion by the government that proposes to take away private members' Wednesdays I am against their doing it. But they are proposing to do it, and I suppose with their large majority it will go through. My point therefore is that if private members' Wednesdays, when private members' resolutions on matters of public policy could be debated, are to be taken away, private members' Mondays, which are being reserved only for pipe line bills, should also be taken away. My motion calls for an end to the discriminatory feature of this motion.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Before the amendment is put may I say that some reference was made by some hon. members a moment ago to the private member's motion that I introduced last year. I should like to
Business of the House give the house the facts regarding that, particularly in view of what has been said this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). As I say, last session I introduced a private member's motion which would give support to the idea of federal aid to education. At that time the Prime Minister was kind enough to add something to it. In fact, speaking to it, he said that it was a subject of vital importance, and that no doubt many hon. members on all sides of the house would favour another opportunity to discuss it. Thus it was that at the request of, I believe, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the procedure at the end of the debate was changed a bit-which was somewhat unusual-so that a way was left open for resumption of that particular debate. At the time, this seemed very satisfactory to me personally, but later we learned, either that the Prime Minister had changed his mind, or that, urged by the necessity of proceeding with government business, he had decided that the procedure should be changed. At any rate he refused the plea for another period on my resolution on two grounds: one, that government business was behind schedule, and that we would have to get on with it; and two,-and this is the point that I rose to draw to the attention of the house, and I would ask hon. members to note it- that no private resolution or bill could take precedence over any other. In view of what the Prime Minister has proposed this afternoon, and the remarks that he made in backing up his proposal, I thought that that fact should be brought to the attention of the house.
At page 1223 of Hansard for 1949, I find some comments by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I would remind the house that he was speaking against an argument which had been offered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who was proposing that a particular resolution should have further consideration which the Prime Minister had promised it would have. These are the words of the Prime Minister on that occasion:
I do not think that it would he a good precedent to have the house decide that any one of these academic resolutions-
I notice he described it as an academic resolution-
-submitted by hon. members should have precedence over the other. The rights of each member are equal, and when there is an opportunity for those rights to be exercised, it seems to me that they should be exercised1 according to the provisions of the standing orders.

Business of the House
And then a few lines farther down on the same page the Prime Minister is recorded to have said:
There should not be a day especially set aside for the continuation of the debate on the resolution of the member for Saskatoon.
May I suggest respectfully to him, if I may paraphrase his words, that there should not be a day especially set aside for the continuation of the debate or the business of the pipe lines companies.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I would not take part in this discussion had it not been for the fact that this afternoon we have heard a repetition of what has been occurring with increasing and disturbing frequency in this session, as it did at the last one, in the form of threats from the government, from the ministerial benches, to take advantage of their position so as to alter or to invoke certain rules with a view to influencing the course of discussions to bring about certain results.
That situation has become sufficiently serious that every hon. member in the House of Commons should make known his position with respect to it, and should make known his insistence that the rights and privileges of private members on all sides of the house should be respected and preserved.
I refer now particularly to the statement made last session by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), which has been referred to already by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenibaker), that the government would, if it felt so inclined, change the rules and force a vote on the particular pipe line bills then under discussion; and that it would amend the rules or move a motion to suspend them in order to bring about that result.
This afternoon we heard the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) enlarge the threat when he suggested that if the discussion on the pipe line bills were to be continued they might have to invoke closure. The Prime Minister cannot be taken to have been speaking at that particular time in the heat of the moment- although a few minutes later he did speak with considerable and elaborate heat.
At that particular time however he was speaking carefully and deliberately, with marked sarcasm as a matter of fact, with respect to the time which had been taken in the discussion on the pipe line bills, and using that as an argument in justification of the motion now before the house to take away next Monday and Wednesday, and every Wednesday thereafter, from private members for the discussion of private members' business.

He went on to speak elaborately and deliberately as to one course which might be followed to shorten the discussion on the pipe line bills. He made his threat at that time, that if this course were persisted in, if hon. members persisted in their right to discuss bills with respect to which they have strong feelings, the government might invoke closure. When we see the threat to suspend certain rules so as to bring about certain results, followed by the threat to invoke closure-which has not been invoked for at least a score of years-then I think it is time private members realized the danger we are in and refused to submit this early in the session, on the thirty-ninth sitting day, to the removal of the right to discuss private members' resolutions.
That was the effect of the first amendment offered by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). That amendment having been defeated, I think it is still open to us and it is still our obligation to protest against manipulation of the rules so as to give certain legislation, certain private members' proposals, the advantage over other proposals -a threat to manipulate the rules to bring about the results which are desired, but which could not be brought about if the rules were left undisturbed.
It is difficult to decide which of the two is worse, the removal altogether of the time available to private members, or this manipulation of rules so as to give favours and privileges to some which are denied to others. Of the two, if any distinction can be made, I believe the latter is worse than the former. I have no hesitation whatever in supporting the amendment just moved and, if it is defeated, in voting against the main motion.


Mr. James Sinclair (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, most hon. members in beginning their speeches have said that they had not intended to take part in the debate. I have been provoked into it, as I have been provoked into many debates, by the sanctimonious attitude taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) over this independence of Liberal members.
I have been in the house for ten years, and during that time I have had my share of standing on my own feet against my party when I, personally, have thought it was the right thing to do. Hon. members will recall there have been many occasions on which other private members of the Liberal party, and of the Conservative party, and of the Social Credit party, have stood up and voted against their own party policy. But never once in my ten years in this House of

Commons have I ever seen any C.C.F. member stand up and vote against his party's policy. They go blindly down the party line -just as blindly as any communist from Moscow.
I am glad to give examples. I have acquired a few examples as the years have gone by, because the accusation is always made against the Liberal party, and against Conservative and Social Credit members.


Mr. Thatcher:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the hon. member has said that he does not know any C.C.F. member who has voted against party policy.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have an opportunity to speak later on, at which time he may make the denial.


James Sinclair: I am glad the hon. member has risen, because the first two notes I have here refer to the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) who is the only C.C.F. member ever to show even a spark of independence. Hon. members who were here in 1945 will recall the brief and violent speech he made at that time against the British loan. The gist of that speech was that rather than lend the money to Britain we should be spending it on an irrigation and sewerage project for Moose Jaw.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: That is not right.


James Sinclair: It was a source of alarm to his leader who dissociated his party from the member's speech. But when the actual vote came, the hon. member for Moose Jaw was away, fishing. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson), who was his pair, stood up and said that, had he voted, he would have voted for the British loan, so his pair from Moose Jaw was against it.
Once again the hon. member for Moose Jaw showed the only kind of feeble independence that has been shown in the C.C.F. party. He showed it not so long ago, not in connection with C.C.F. policy, but on an amendment moved by, I believe, the leader of the Social Credit party, when it did not include the word "contributory" in an old age pension scheme. He has had to do a lot of explaining to his C.C.F. colleagues and to C.C.F. clubs as to why he broke, not the party line, but the party vote on a Social Credit amendment. I have other cases of blind party allegiance in the C.C.F. which I shall draw to the attention of the house, so that no longer will we hear these cheap jibes given by them.
Back in British Columbia we saw the beginning of the C.C.F., in 1933, as they did in Saskatchewan. They had laid down party policy, not according to Marx but according
Business of the House to Regina. It is interesting to note that in British Columbia there were some leaders in the party including Mr. Connell, Mr. Swailes, Mr. Bakewell and Mr. Taylor-almost half the party representation in the House of Commons and the legislature-who had the independence and the courage publicly to disagree with certain minor parts of C.C.F. policy. What happened to them was the same thing that has happened to all socialists whether they be Marxist socialists or C.C.F. socialists; they were purged. The only difference was one of degree-the Marxist socialists liquidate; these socialists excommunicate. These people were purged out of the party, by formal declaration. Does any member recall anyone being purged out of the Liberal or Conservative parties?
Hon. members will recall other C.C.F. purges in other provinces. They had a purge in Manitoba and excommunicated two provincial members. About a year ago they had a purge in Saskatchewan of one member because he did- not toe the party line blindly. As with the communists, one deviation and out you go. Hon. members will even recall the example right here in this House of Commons. I think every hon. member respects the hon. member, who at one time was a Liberal but, for reasons not known to many, joined the C.C.F. party. He ran once or twice unsuccessfully as a C.C.F. provincial candidate. Finally he got elected to the provincial legislature as the member for Trail. Then the time came when he wanted to expand his horizon to the federal parliament, but that was not permitted by C.C.F. policy. There was one little C.C.F. local bylaw which said that a member could not resign if he held a legislative office. The member ran but he was purged by the C.C.F., not for deviating from party policy, but for breaking one little party regulation.
The C.C.F. then broke their own rules by putting up against him a school teacher who had been a member for only six months although the rules stated that a candidate should be a member for two years. The hon. member for Kootenay West ran anyway and because of his record he came to this house despite the official C.C.F. Some of us remember him sitting forlornly in the far corner. Then apparently there was an attempt to lure him back because he seemed to be carrying a lot of weight in Ottawa, and so would be an asset to the C.C.F. There were some members who took the stump against him at that time. I have in my office clippings showing what the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) said in the 1945 elections about this quisling who had deserted the C.C.F. forces. What he said was

Business of the House mild compared to what Mrs. Steeves, C.C.F. president in British Columbia, said against the present member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge).
Then the hon. member for Kootenay West returned to the fold, mainly I think at the request of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) who knew his value. It certainly was not at the request of Harold Winch, the local leader, for according to the Vancouver Sun Winch insisted on him signing a letter never again to deviate from party policy. Yet this is the party that is talking so much of independence. These are the people who stand up and say, "Why don't the Liberals show a little independence? Why don't the Conservatives show a little independence? Why don't the Social Crediters show a little independence?"-when they themselves blindly follow the party line like communist sheep.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) quoted from a letter to a United States congressman, who was asked, "Why do you always vote against the things we want?" Just to answer that I will give another example from the United States. The state of Oregon, which is two states south of British Columbia, had a referendum in which the people were asked if they wanted a means-test-free old age security pension of $50 per month at age 65. Of course the people were for it just like any member of the opposition who does not have to find the taxes to pay for such legislation.
Then there was a second referendum which asked for authority to raise the necessary taxes. With one accord the people said, "No." Then the state of Oregon was stuck with this very desirable thing, a means-test-free old age security pension, but was denied the finances with which to pay it. The same thing is true here. We are presented with many desirable measures which everyone knows would help a lot of people in our constituencies, and the province we come from and the country, but we are of course limited by financial considerations which actually means the real desire of the people of the country to pay as little taxes as possible. It needs the courage shown by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and the treasury board in dealing with borderline cases of very desirable projects which are beyond our ability to pay; otherwise we would have the most fantastic tax bill in the world if every desirable measure put forward by members of the opposition were adopted.
Then a word with regard to my own attitude to the motion before us. Hon. members will recall that some two years ago I stood in my place and I was pretty hot about the

effort being made to cancel Wednesdays and Mondays as private members' days. I had a public bill on margarine which I felt was rather important. A slight extension was then given and my margarine bill had a hearing.
Now I have been ten years in the house and I cannot remember a session in which there has been greater opportunity to discuss private members' resolutions and private and public bills than has been accorded this session. In the last two days we have seen some private members' resolutions go by the board because the hon. members sponsoring them were not ready to go on. That perhaps lends a little substance to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) that some of the resolutions are placed on the order paper only for window-dressing, that members do not really want them to come up for discussion.
As far as the pipe lines bills are concerned, this matter has been so well discussed that I do not need to repeat the stand I take. As a British Columbian I hope that there will be an all-Canadian line. I have said that after they go to the committee where technical experts are available for questioning if it is shown that a British Columbia line is financially feasible then on third reading I would vote against the bills for United States lines. I do not think there is any need for additional talk on the pipe lines because everything possible, for and against them, has been said again and again and again in this filibuster. When they come back for third reading there will be an opportunity to vote on them immediately and after to discuss again those private members' resolutions which are ready to be proceeded with.
I do not know what has been gained by this protracted pipe lines debate which has blocked other private members' resolutions: and other private and public bills. I think the attitude of hon. members and all this parliament toward this protracted debate was shown the other evening when the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) was speaking and it was indicated that there was not a quorum in the house. The fact that he was speaking may have been partly the reason for emptying the house, but I do think it was also because members had heard every argument repeated again and again. The hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth), a Conservative colleague, unkindly drew the attention of the house to the fact that there were less than twenty members who were prepared to listen to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra.
Getting back to the precedence of government business, I was elected as a Liberal

though I received some of my votes on a personal basis. The same would apply to all hon. members elected mainly as supporters of their party policy. I repeat, I was elected as a Liberal, and so was the government. The country expects us now to go ahead with government business which is the business of the country. If the time comes when some other party replaces us that party will have the obligation of going ahead with government business and they too, after a fair hearing of private members, will have to move such a motion.
As I say, so far this session we have had a better break as far as private members' resolutions are concerned than in any of the ten years I have been in the house and so I think we should support the government on this motion. I am deeply grateful to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for finally provoking me to rise to my feet to tell him what I think of the independence of the C.C.F. party-an independence which in this house has only meant slavish adherence to the official party line.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Mr. Speaker, I shall take only one minute in which to object to some of the remarks made by the hon. member who has just spoken. At one time all Canada looked upon the hon. member as being one of the fiery Independents, but in the last year or two no one would look upon him that way. Since he got his parliamentary assistantship, since he got his trip to Europe, he has been one of the best Charlie McCarthys in the House of Commons. I will go so far as to say that he is almost as good as Mortimer Snerd these days.
I want to tell the hon. member that the members of this party are as free to vote as they like as are the members of any other party. I have exercised that right four or five times since I have been in this House of Commons, and I will exercise that right again if I want to. I do not think it is fair for the hon. member who has just spoken to bring up these old red tactics and suggest that in some way the C.C.F. is tied up with the communists. I give the hon. member credit for having more brains than that, although it may be I am giving him too much credit.
I want to say that we in this party are just as free as are the members of the Liberal party to vote the way we want to.


James Sinclair: When?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Just a week ago I voted the way I wanted.
Business of the House


James Sinclair: On a Social Credit amendment. Where is the C.C.F. independence? What other C.C.F. member can recall an independent vote?


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, reverting to the motion before the house, may I say that I feel the Social Cred-iters will have to vote against the amendment because if it passes it will shut off a discussion of the pipe line bills.


Mr. Speaker:: No one has raised the question as to whether the amendment now before the house is in order. I am not going to rule it out of order although I doubt very much if it is in order. The motion before the house proposes to do away with one Monday as private members' day, and the amendment would do away with all Mondays as private members' days. I think such an amendment raises a new question which would require notice. Notice is required under standing order 45; but under standing order 46, under certain circumstances, a motion may be made without notice. Probably it would expedite the business of the house if the amendment were allowed to stand. I should like hon. members to understand, however, that I doubt very much whether it is in order.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is now on the motion. Shall the motion carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the main motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.

Argue
Aylesworth
Balcer
NAYS Messrs:
Beyerstein
Blackmore
Blair

Browne (St. John's
Bryce
Casselman
Charlton
Coldwell
Coyle
Diefenbaker
Fair
Ferguson
Fleming
Fraser
Fulton
Gagnon
Gillis
Graydon
Green
Hansell
Harkness
Harris (Danforth)
Hatfield
Herrldge
Higgins
West) Johnston Jones Knight Knowles Lennard Low
Macdonnell (Greenwood)
Maclnnis
McGregor
McLure
Noseworthy
Pearkes
Poulin
Quelch
Ross (Souris)
Shaw
Stanfield
Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Thatcher
Thomas
Tustin
Wright-50.


Humphrey Mitchell: I was paired with the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth). If I had voted, I would have voted for the motion.


A. Earl Catherwood: I was paired with the hon. member for Kent, Ontario (Mr. Huffman). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.



P. E. I. FERRY SERVICE INQUIRY AS TO SHUTTLE SERVICE DURING THE TOURIST SEASON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. MacNaughl (Prince):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has any decision been made regarding the request that both the S.S. Prince Edward Island and the Q.S.M.V. Abegweit operate on a shuttle service during the tourist season on the run from Borden to Tormentine?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There is no doubt that a double ferry would assist in building up tourist traffic, and the only objection is the heavy expense involved. However, it has been represented by certain individuals that additional revenues would cover expenses. Because of that I am authorizing the Canadian National Railways to arrange for the operation of the S. S. Prince Edward Island as a second ferry from June 15 to September 15 of this year only as an experiment, and I am instructing the Canadian National Railways to maintain records to establish the net financial results of the operation of a second ferry this year, and if the operating costs are not offset by additional revenues it is distinctly understood that the double service will not be authorized in 1951.
Inquiries of the Ministry THE GOVERNOR GENERAL



QUESTION AS TO APPOINTMENT OF CANADIAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask
the Prime Minister if he will tell the house whether or not an assurance has been given to any member or group of members in this house, as reported in the press, that the next governor general will be a Canadian?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I anticipated that someone might have taken notice of a dispatch in the Gazette, which was also referred to last evening in an editorial in the Ottawa Journal. I assume that the hon. member's question has to do with this editorial. The dispatch referred to was as follows:
Quebec members of parliament say they have received government assurances that Canada's next governor general will be a Canadian.
These assurances were given privately after a group of Liberal members of parliament had pressed for a full scale debate on the issue at the present session of parliament.
Plans for the debate have now been quietly shelved.
Well, I am one of the Quebec members of parliament, and no one has given me that assurance, and I do not know of its having been given to anybody else. All I do know is that some weeks ago someone suggested that it might be a good thing to have a debate in the house on this matter, and I said that I did not think it would be a good thing; that I did not think it was a proper matter to be debated in the house. That is all I have heard about it.



IRON ORE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have not given him notice of it. It arises out of an answer he gave me on Monday. I wonder whether he is able to amplify the answer. If he can I shall be very pleased. It has to do with the sale of Bell Island ore. The minister said that at the time he had not received information. Would he be good enough to tell me what information he now has concerning it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The situation is unchanged from the time I last replied to the hon. member on this matter on April 17.

Canadian Wheat Board Act CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT



AMENDMENTS RESPECTING CONTROL OF ELEVATORS AND RAILWAYS, ETC.

Clarence Decatur Howe: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, inter alia, to extend the provisions of "Part II-Control of Elevators and Railways" to August 1, 1953; to extend the definition of "pool period" to include each crop year subsequent to July 31, 1950, and prior to August 31, 1953; to vary the payments by the board to producers selling and delivering wheat produced in a designated area; to extend the provisions of "Part IV-Regulation of Interprovincial and Export Trade in Wheat," to August 1, 1953; and to substitute a schedule of mills and warehouses declared works for the general advantage of Canada for the present schedule to the act.


Major James William Coldwell: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I had understood that the afternoon was set apart for a discussion of this subject. There is a great deal of interest in the country, as I know from my correspondence, as to what the bill amending the wheat board act contains. I had hoped that I could make rather a comprehensive statement on the position of wheat marketing today and a forecast of what we might expect during the marketing of the next crop. However, hon. members have indicated they are not interested in wheat by taking the whole of the afternoon in debating procedure.


John George Diefenbaker: A most improper statement, as usual.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have made the statement.


Gordon Graydon: Very improper, and the minister knows it is very improper.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The position is this. I would like to bring the bill down. There will not be another opportunity for at least ten days, and perhaps not-


John George Diefenbaker: Because you want to go away at six o'clock.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend has made
engagements outside this house, and I have one myself. My hon. friend is absent from this house very frequently to keep outside engagements.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, but I am objecting to any suggestion that we held up any discussion on wheat.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You knew the program. The position is this. If the house would pass this resolution and have the debate on the bill, rather than on the resolution, we would be able to bring the bill down now and make it

public. If not, I will make a part of the statement, and then adjourn the remainder to sometime in the future. I think it would be helpful to those interested in the marketing of wheat to see the provisions of this bill. Therefore I would suggest that the debate be deferred until a later period. I am in the hands of the house.


Major James William Coldwell: There is only one objection to that course. It does give hon. members an opportunity to make suggestions to the minister which may have some influence on the legislation being brought down. That is the reason that we like to get a statement on the resolution.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would like to make it. I am prepared to make it, but unfortunately I cannot be here this evening.


Major James William Coldwell: How long will it take?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The business of the house is planned for tomorrow. Next week we have the budget. After that I have an appointment on the Pacific coast, which I must keep. After that, I rather expect that I may have to go overseas.


Major James William Coldwell: How long will this take? I would make the suggestion that we might sit after six o'clock and give the minister an opportunity to speak, in view of the fact that he will be away on government business.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Very well.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Sit until it is completed.


An hon. Member:: What about unanimous consent?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Do not let me strain the situation. If anyone objects, I shall not go on.


Some hon. Members:: Proceed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, in moving this resolution it may be appropriate to give the house a review of the wheat position as we find it today.
We are now drawing toward the close of the five-year producers' pool and the close of the four-year contract with the United Kingdom, and at this time we find that the Canadian wheat position is essentially sound. The test of soundness is what we have to sell in relation to the demand for it. In this regard we have not had large wheat stocks in Canada since the end of the war. By the date that our contract with the United Kingdom came into operation, our wartime surplus of wheat had been disposed of, and now at the end of four years we are still working with wheat stocks about as small as we had on hand when the four-year contract was negotiated. There appears to be an active demand for the small quantities

that remain to be sold from the 1949 crop. Apart from any other factors in the world wheat situation today, Canada will be entering into a new crop year next August without any burdensome legacy of unsold stocks from our previous operations, which is a sound position for us to be in.
Looking elsewhere about the world, production in Argentina has been declining almost steadily since before the war, and the exportable surplus from the Argentine crop harvested last January will not be large. The Australian crops have been faring better in recent years, following the droughts they experienced during the war, and the goodsized crop they harvested this year is readily marketable within the sterling area. We have heard rumours of good crops in the U.S.S.R. for the past two years, but whatever the results in that country we have not seen evidences of their intention to sell wheat for export outside the Soviet bloc, except in exchange for semi-strategic materials. The United States alone among the export producing areas is beginning to accumulate stocks of wheat, and it is predicted that the United States carry-over of wheat on June 30 next will be in the neighbourhood of 440 million bushels, as compared with 306 million bushels held on June 30, 1949. Ordinarily, 300 million bushels is regarded as a minimum carry-over below which that country cannot go with safety. On the other hand, the current forecast of winter wheat production in the United States is low in comparison with the production of recent years, which offsets the expected increase in carry-over. In the importing countries, wheat production is gradually becoming adjusted to more normal conditions, and the world trade in wheat and flour, which reached an abnormally high level of 975 million bushels in 1948-1949 crop year, is expected to be at a level of about 850 million bushels in the present crop year. Even at its present level, the world trade in wheat is very large in relation to the pre-war levels.
These essential facts should help to dispel some of the opinions loosely expressed these days to the effect that wheat is in a surplus position. We all know that abnormally large harvests in North America, if realized this summer, could contribute to a surplus situation, but unless this actually comes to pass we should continue to operate in a sound position.
Certainly the favourable position in which we find ourselves today has not always, nor has it usually, been the rule. Out of the experience of the early thirties we have had to devise means of handling surplus situations, and it was because of this experience that the Canadian wheat board was established. Up until 1943, the wheat board oper-
Canadian Wheat Board Act ated a voluntary pool, which was supplementary to the open market. Under wartime conditions, futures trading in wheat was discontinued, and since 1943, the Canadian wheat board has continued as the sole agency through which producers might market their wheat. This policy received full and careful review by this house during the 1947 session, when amendments were made' to the Canadian Wheat Board Act which provided for the board being the sole marketing agency for wheat during the lifetime of the Canada-United Kingdom wheat agreement.
The agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom was entered into at a time when the prospects for sound marketing conditions were clouded by many uncertainties as to the way in which our principal customers, who have suffered the ravages of war, would be able to adjust themselves in the immediate post-war period. Although we had seen the effects of the pent-up demand from some of these countries after their liberation, there were no indications that this was more than a transitory situation. Our desire to obtain stability inspired a search for a more dependable basis in dealing with our customers than that of the seller taking all while wheat was scarce, only to be at the mercy of the buyer when surpluses returned. In our past experience, periods of scarcity were of much shorter duration than the periods of surplus.
The first step in the direction of dependable trading was taken when we entered into the four-year contract with the United Kingdom. This contract assured us a market, and assured the United Kingdom of supplies at negotiated prices, for a long period, and in this way served as an insurance policy to both contracting parties against instability, which could hardly have been insured against in any other way. Now that we are drawing toward the end of the contract period and can begin to evaluate the results, it is apparent that the United Kingdom has obtained the bulk of her wheat requirements for three of the four years at prices lower than she would otherwise have had to pay. On the other hand, we should not overlook the fact that if nothing more were to be paid from the five-year pool -and there will be another payment-our producers have had the best returns from wheat .that they have had in any five-year peacetime period of their history.
We should not lose sight of the fact, however, that for the purpose of implementing our quantity guarantees to the United Kingdom under the contract, it was essential that the Canadian wheat board have authority over the direction of our wheat supplies, this authority having been granted first under the

Canadian Wheat Board Act provisions of the War Measures Act, and then in 1947 specifically by way of amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
An important element in our post-war policy on wheat, which was obscured by several factors at the time, was our desire to deal with all our normal customers for wheat on the same basis, as we were prepared to deal with the United Kingdom. Had there been any means of making effective firm guarantees of supplies, we would have been glad to extend the provisions of our contract with the United Kingdom to other importing countries during that period. As it was, in 1946, this government actively sought to get ahead with the negotiation of a post-war international wheat agreement, but could find no concerted view among the other countries at the time that an international agreement should be made. Thus when we entered into the contract with the United Kingdom we did so in the knowledge that no arrangements of an international character could be secured at the time. Notwithstanding, reference to the final clause of the Canada-United Kingdom agreement will remind us that both countries envisaged that an international agreement might be reached, and that if this were accomplished, the terms of the contract would be brought into conformity with the terms of an international agreement.
I need not dwell upon the successive negotiations which took place to bring the international agreement into operation, beyond mentioning that over the three conferences which took place from 1947 to 1949, there developed among the other countries of the world a growing appreciation of the benefits which would accrue to exporters and importers alike if a stabilizing influence could be introduced into the world wheat trade. As a result, negotiation became possible of an agreement which was duly ratified and came into operation last August 1 for a four-year period ending July 31, 1953. This multilateral agreement is not dissimilar in nature to that of our agreement with the United Kingdom, except that a range of prices was adopted rather than a fixed price, and that by pooling together the export potentials of Canada, the United States and Australia, we were able to offer a four-year contract on equal terms to some thirty-six importing countries.
I hardly need to elaborate on what this agreement means to Canada. The agreement received the unanimous approval of this house a year ago. It is recognized as an experiment, which we all hope will succeed. It holds no panacea for all our wheat problems, nor does it settle the problem of exchange. There is no guarantee of its implementation beyond the commitments governments have given to


carry out its terms. We are dependent upon their good faith. The agreement does, however, set a standard for reasonable prices to both buyers and sellers, and assures supplies to the buyers and markets to the sellers. As such it is well worth the best implementation we can give to it.
In the same way that it was necessary for the Canadian wheat board to direct wheat shipments, in order to fulfil our undertakings under the Canada-United Kingdom agreement, it is desirable that the board should retain control over shipments in order to implement our undertakings under the international wheat agreement. This is the reason for the proposal to extend these powers of the board for the duration of the international agreement. Such action on our part could only be interpreted abroad as an evidence of our good faith in carrying out our obligations under the agreement.
I have no doubt that questions will be raised over the need for control over deliveries and sales under the situation that we see ahead for the next few years. I would like to correct the impression, which seems to have arisen, that under this system the Canadian wheat board makes all the sales, and that we are wholly on a governmenttrading basis in respect of wheat, oats and barley. This is a mistaken impression of the board's activities. The board, in fact, uses some thirty-four grain firms as its agents. These comprise all the grain companies interested whose financial capacity, facilities and experience make them suitable for this business. All these private companies are authorized by the board to make ordinary commercial sales of wheat wherever they find an opportunity. Such sales are subject to the confirmation of the board, which is never withheld without cause. All the flour exported from Canada is sold on a commercial basis. In this way we are organized to take advantage of every private trade opportunity which presents itself in the merchandising of wheat and flour.
Mainly as an outgrowth of the war, however, trade in wheat still remains under the control of government agencies in many of the importing countries. During the present crop year we have made wheat sales to thirty-four countries and flour sales to seventy countries, including colonial territories. Including the United Kingdom, eighty-five per cent of these wheat sales have been initiated by government agencies in the importing countries with the Canadian wheat board. Leaving out the United Kingdom, more than half of the wheat sales were initiated on a govemment-to-government basis. Although there are some signs of a tendency to get

back to a basis of private trading, we still find that a majority of our customers prefer to settle their grain problems with an official agency, and if that continues to be their preference, it is obvious that we should maintain the wheat board to deal with them in that way. In any event, the grain companies which are agents of the board carry through with the actual movement of the wheat, and wherever there are buyers whose custom or preference is to deal through the private trade, we have the facilities to deal with them in that way. We should not overlook the fact that our principal competitors, Australia, Argentina and the United States, are set up to deal on a government-to-govemment basis, whether through boards like ours or through other government agencies, although the trend in the United States appears to be toward private trading.
Having the facilities to deal with our customers in whichever way they wish, I think we should also give consideration to the views expressed by representative producer organizations on the way in which their member producers prefer to have their crops marketed. I refer, in particular, to the representations made to the cabinet on February the 8th of this year by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, following their annual convention at Niagara Falls. Their first two recommendations on the subject of wheat are as follows:
1.	Believing in the soundness of the principle of International commodity agreements as exemplified in the international wheat agreement, we urge the government to maintain its active support of the agreement.
2.	The provisions of the Canadian Wheat Board Act of 1935, as amended in 1946, providing for the Canadian wheat board as the sole marketing agency for wheat, expire July 31, 1950. We are convinced a very great majority of the farmers of the prairie provinces have a strong preference for the present system of marketing their wheat. We therefore urge the government to extend the present powers of the wheat board so that it may continue to be the sole marketing agency for wheat.
Thus we have the principal organization of producers recommending that the government continue its active support of the international wheat agreement, and also that the present powers of the board be extended so that it may continue to be the sole marketing agency for wheat.
By renewing the powers which at present expire on July 31 next for wheat, we also make possible the continuation of the wheat board as the sole marketing agency for oats and barley. In this regard, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in its representations of February 8 recommended as follows:
The powers granted the Canadian wheat board (Bill No. 135) to act as the sole marketing agency
Canadian Wheat Board Act for coarse grains expire on July 31, 1950. We recommend that the government extend these powers so that the board may continue to be the sole marketing agency for coarse grains.
It is just about a year since the legislatures of the three prairie provinces concerted their support by way of complementary legislation to the 1948 amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, which had made it possible for the board to act as the sole marketing agency for western oats and barley. These operations were begun with the marketing of the 1949 crop, and the amendments in the proposed bill will give effect to what has been the recently and clearly expressed desire of the majority of producers in this regard.
What I have said so far has had to do with the situation as we find it, and the reasons for recommending continuation of the present powers of the board for another three years. I should now mention that the bill which is based on this resolution will contain other amendments, including provision for single crop-year pool periods for the next three years in the place of the five-year pool period which is just drawing to an end. Annual pool periods were originally provided in the act, and this was modified during the exceptional post-war circumstances when it appeared to be desirable to bridge over the transitional period with a five-year pool. With the termination of this longer-term pool I believe it desirable to revert to the system of annual pools, thereby permitting each crop to stand on its own feet. Provision will be made for setting the initial payment for each crop year, and for making interim payments, and there will be other amendments consequent upon bringing the act up to date and consistent with its effective administration. The details of these amendments may be more readily examined when the bill appears.
In my opening remarks I gave what is admittedly an optimist's view of conditions in the wheat markets of the world. Now that Canada has no long-term commitment from the United Kingdom, covering the larger proportion of our export surplus, it is obvious that the wheat board will find the task of disposing of our future export surplus in foreign markets more onerous than has been the case during the period of the United Kingdom contract. My introductory remarks were intended to show that the fundamental situation having to do with selling wheat in foreign markets will not be abnormal.
There is little doubt that we are passing from a seller's market to a buyer's market, in which there is not likely to be a shortage of supply. The situation will be helped by the international wheat agreement, which is intended to provide both a ceiling and a floor for wheat prices. The agreement has not been
i734

Canadian Wheat Board Act tested under conditions of oversupply, but I for one believe that the agreement will have a stabilizing effect on wheat prices.
One can be either an optimist or a pessimist about the ability of Canada to dispose of her wheat at reasonable prices in the trading world of today. I prefer to be an optimist. In fact, if I were not an optimist at this stage, I would be a poor selection for the minister in charge of our wheat-selling organization. I believe that we can sell our surplus wheat at prices that will return a profit to our farmers in the future as we have in the past. The reputation of Canadian wheat is unquestioned in world markets. Under the trading conditions of today, price and quality are not always the determining factor to the extent that they were in pre-war days, but price and quality still count for much. Canada has established a reputation in world wheat markets for fair dealing, which will stand us in good stead. The deficit countries of the world will continue to require wheat, and I believe that Canadian wheat will continue to find a market in those countries. The Canadian wheat board has demonstrated its ability to handle Canada's wheat marketing problems efficiently, and I have every confidence that this ability will be further demonstrated in the years to come.
Therefore I hope that these proposed amendments to the wheat board act, which are recommended by the Canadian wheat board, will commend themselves to the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members listened with much interest to the report on the wheat situation that has been given by the minister.
I intend to move the adjournment of this debate, but perhaps I might be given just one minute to follow the minister and say I am sure the farmers of western Canada would have been very happy had he been able to announce that the initial price for wheat for the crop year 1950-51, now fixed at $1.40 a bushel, would be increased to $1.55. Having regard to the optimistic statement he has just made, I think such an initial price could and should have been fixed. If I might mention one other matter, I feel the government should give consideration to an interim payment by the wheat board this spring in order to alleviate the situation which is prevalent on the prairies, where drought has played such havoc.
Having said those two things, sir, I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
At six o'clock the house took recess.



COMMONS AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to present a measure to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946, to provide benefits for certain former members of His Majesty's forces other than Canadian and for certain former members of the forces of His Majesty's allies or of powers associated with His Majesty, which forces participated with Canada in wars concluding on or before the 31st day of August, 1921, who have resided in Canada for not less than twenty years, and to provide further for decentralizing the administration of the act.


Mr. Pearkes:: Will the minister make a statement before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is very much I need say at this stage, or at any stage, regarding this resolution except to commend it to the house. Within the resolution are two clear-cut principles which I desire to have incorporated into the War Veterans Allowance Act. The first principle is a further extension of eligibility, and the second principle is a decentralization of administration. The government proposes here an extension of eligibility to include those veterans referred to in the resolution now before us. The veterans in this new group were admitted into Canada as immigrants, most of them between 1920 and 1930; a very few of them came prior to 1920, and not so very many after 1930.
It will be remembered that in the twenties there was a fairly vigorous ten-year period of immigration. The total number of immigrants during those ten years, men, women and children, from the countries applicable to this resolution, was about twice as great as for the next fifteen years, 1930 to 1945. Hon. members may ask how many veterans will become recipients of war veterans' allowance under the proposed amendments. It is very difficult to be exact. Estimates have been made by various veterans' organizations, and the department has done a bit of research work as well. There is no exact record on file as to the numbers of our citizens who are veterans of any particular classification except pensioners, recipients of war veterans' allowances, and others with whom we are in touch by mail. Steps are being taken, however, to get such information in the 1951 census. However, the best estimate that we are able to procure for the

present is that approximately 3,000 recipients may be added to our war veterans' allowance rolls during this year. At the same average as our present recipients, namely $650 per year, this will mean an additional annual cost of war veterans' allowance of nearly $2 million. This will make, for this year 195051, for war veterans' allowance, a grand total of nearly $25 million.
During the fifteen-year period between 1930 and 1945, the total immigration was less than half what it was during the ten preceding years. So if the number of those who may qualify as being in the country now twenty years or more is in the vicinity of 3,000, as I have suggested, then it is reasonable to suppose that approximately another 1,500 veterans may come into receipt of allowances during the next fifteen years.
The members of the new group will be veterans who have actually engaged in fighting in wars in which Canadians also participated. The recipients will be men who were admitted under our federal immigration laws. They will have spent at least twenty years in our country and will have come, I am sure, to consider themselves as Canadians. They will have had a part in both the responsibilities and the advantages of our Canadian life. For one reason or another these new recipients will have fallen upon bad times during their ageing years. They are over sixty years of age. Some of them have reached acute need for help during that ten-year period between sixty and seventy. It has been necessary for local agencies to come to their rescue. By including this new group under war veterans' allowance, it will, to that extent, relieve the local bodies of this financial responsibility.
I look forward to the board which administers the War Veterans Allowance Act executing this change with the utmost dispatch. The legislation, if passed by the house, will go into effect as from April 1, 1950. In other words, applications received after April 1, if approved, will commence on such date after April 1 as may be set by the authority approving the application.
At this point I should like to express appreciation of the high standard of administration set by the members of the war veterans' allowance board since its inception twenty years ago. Its first chairman was the present deputy minister of my department. He set the pace in adapting the provisions of the act to individual need, and the present chairman and his associates on the board have continued and extended that practice. They have done excellent work while the administration of the act has been concentrated here
War Veterans Allowance Act in Ottawa. I believe that the same commissioners will be able to see that even further improvements are brought about by reaching decisions closer to the applicant.
That brings me to the second principle in the resolution, namely, decentralization of administration. I believe that the step contemplated here will assist in shortening the period which must elapse between the time the applications are received at the district office and the time the applications are approved or refused. I have formed the opinion that improvement and economy in the administration of the act can be effected by initiating a measure of decentralization. The number of recipients of war veterans' allowance, now approximately 33,000, is steadily increasing, and it is calculated it will reach a peak in about five years. With increasing numbers of recipients, work in connection with necessary reviews increases proportionately. It is difficult for the centralized administration of the war veterans' allowance board to keep pace with the work without incurring some delay in dealing with applications. This sometimes involves hardship for indigent veteran applicants.
It is proposed by amendment of the act to create district war veterans' allowance authorities, consisting of senior existing officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs in districts, who will be given jurisdiction to award, increase, decrease, suspend or cancel allowances in accordance with the provisions of the act and regulations made with the approval of the governor in council. Awards by district authorities will be subject to review by the war veterans' allowance board, which will also act as a board of appeal and will supervise and control the practice of the local authorities.
I feel confident that the two features which are incorporated in this legislation will meet with general approval.


George Randolph Pearkes: I fear, Mr. Speaker, that the opening words of the minister to the effect that he had not much to say about this act at this time are both ominous and disappointing. I had hoped that he would have a great deal to tell us about much wider extensions that were being granted to the recipients of the war veterans' allowance than those to which he has referred this evening. It is true that the benefits of the act are now to be extended to those men who served in forces other than the Canadian forces in world war I, who have reached advancing years and who have lived in this country for a period of not less than twenty years. When one realizes that the war of 1914 started over thirty-five years ago and that some of the men who will now

War Veterans Allowance Act reap the benefits by this extension oi the allowance will have lived in Canada for thirty years, it seems a little bit ironical that the minister should have referred to implementing the provisions of this bill, when passed, with the utmost dispatch. Thirty-five years is rather a long time to wait to begin to show such determination to lose no greater time.
Not only have organized bodies of the veterans been pressing for this extension over a great many years -but resolutions have been sent forward to this house, to the committee on veterans affairs when it was sitting, and to individual members from the Legion, from the Army and Navy Veterans and from other organized bodies of veterans urging that those men who had served alongside the Canadian forces in an actual theatre of war and had then immigrated to this country should be given the same benefits as the Canadian soldiers, who were their comrades, sharing the same hardships, occupying the same trenches, who were serving at sea together and who were taking part in the air operations of the first war.
Hon. members on this side of the house must be pleased that the extension of this allowance is being granted to the men who served with us in the other forces of the empire. I think it will be recalled that time and time again members on this side of the house have been urging this extension. The delay has been long. Thirty-five years is a long time. Many of the men who emigrated, perhaps in the twenties, and have been out here living in this country, are men who have in every sense of the word proved themselves to be fine citizens of Canada, who have contributed to the economic welfare of this country, who have paid their taxes regularly, who have raised their families and whose sons and daughters fought in the second world war with the Canadian forces. They have had a long time to wait.
Unfortunately, many of those men have passed on to the great beyond, leaving behind them widows and in some cases orphans. It seems but poor gratitude that the government should overlook those widows who would have been in receipt of this allowance had their husbands lived until this date. But unfortunately their husbands have passed on and those widows are not only in the straitened circumstances that occur today but are deprived of an allowance which would have been their due had their husbands lived until now. I cannot understand how the minister can have overlooked those widows of the imperial soldiers, women who have lived in this country for twenty years, women 
whose husbands, had they lived, would have been entitled to this allowance and now are not to have the benefits extended to them. I hope that before the minister introduces his bill, he will take into consideration the pleas which are being made by organized bodies of veterans all over the country, and by me in the remarks that I am now making, and that when this bill is presented a further amendment will be brought in so that it will include the widows of the ex-imperial soldiers, widows who have lived in this country for twenty years and whose husbands would have been in receipt of this allowance had they lived until this date. Many recommendations have been made along those lines. I have received a great many communications, not only from my own constituency but from other parts of Canada. I am going to put on the record one such telegram as indicative of the feeling across the country on this particular point. I quote a telegram that I have received since the Easter recess from the legion in my home city of Nanaimo. It reads:
Would ask your immediate support to have proposed amendment to War Veterans Allowance Act extending benefits of act to imperial veterans further amended before it goes to the House of Commons to provide the benefits of the act to widows of imperial veterans with twenty years residence in Canada but whose husbands died before completing twenty years' residence in Canada.
It is signed by the secretary of the legion. It is typical of many such messages that I have received. The same remarks will apply to the reference to the War Veterans Allowance Act for mothers. Soldiers are entitled to certain benefits under part II of the act exactly the same as the widows are entitled to certain benefits under part II of the act. I would ask the minister to revise the bill which will be brought into the house shortly so that the benefits of the act may be extended to those further groups.
Then again I cannot help feeling that this might have been an opportunity to raise the basic rate of the war veterans' allowance. At the moment the basic rate is less than that paid to the old age pensioners in the province of British Columbia and in other provinces. They may get some other small benefits which perhaps old age pensioners do not get, but the-fact remains that the basic rate is lower than that of the old age pensioners. It is not a condition about which the returned men of this country feel happy, because they believe that their old comrades should have just as good protection as that which is meted out to the aged citizens who did not see service. After all, this War Veterans Allowance Act was introduced to provide the equivalent of an old age pension to soldiers, sailors and airmen who had seen service in an actual

theatre of war and who, because of their service, were presumed to have prematurely aged.
I know these allowances have been increased since they were first authorized, but since the increase was last made the cost of living has gone up. Figures quoted in the house earlier this week indicated that the index figure of the cost of living was now higher than it had ever been before in Canada; that it had risen to 163-7. That is only an indication of how imperative it is to try and assist the aged veterans of world war I.
I know an act was passed a year ago under which additional assistance might be given to the extent of $10 a month in regular payments. But the number of veterans who have received that additional payment in British Columbia is only a very small percentage of the actual recipients of the war veterans' allowance. There are, or there were in February of this year, 6,390 recipients of war veterans' allowance in British Columbia, but only 880 were receiving the additional $10 a month regular payment. I am sure that the experience we have gained in the past year, through the payment of this additional assistance, has borne out the fact in British Columbia that that extra assistance does not meet the situation as it exists.
Again, branches of the legion have been recommending an increase in the basic allowance, and I had hoped-and I still hope-that the minister would see fit to include in the bill, which he will be presenting when this resolution is passed, an additional amendment to authorize an increase in that basic allowance.
Many other recommendations have been made by the Legion that other groups should be included. I am not going to enumerate all of them. I know the minister has received the resolutions which were passed by the Legion last December urging further extensions of these allowances.
Regarding the second principle involved in this resolution, namely, the decentralization of the administration, on the whole the administration has been working satisfactorily; and I think the minister is justified in complimenting his deputy minister and the other officials who have been responsible for the administration of the war veterans' allowances. Whether it is going to be advantageous to decentralize that administration at the present time is perhaps debatable. Anyway, a good deal of further information is required on that subject before hon. members are able to make a firm decision on the matter. Therefore, because of the additional extensions which have been recommended, the uncertainty as to the application of the principle
War Veterans Allowance Act of decentralization, I sincerely hope that the minister will follow the example of his colleagues in other departments and when the bill which he will introduce, based on this resolution, is brought before the house and given second reading, he will refer it to a special committee on veterans affairs.
A special committee on veterans affairs has been asked for by organized groups of veterans for a long time. It has been a disappointment to them that such a committee has not been set up during the last two sessions of parliament. While it might not be the minister's intention to set up a committee similar to that which was in operation previously, I do hope that a committee will be set up so that representatives from the organized groups of veterans may have an opportunity of coming before a committee of members of parliament to give firsthand evidence as to why they feel that further extensions of this allowance are so necessary to meet the situation facing the aged veterans of this country today.


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that we, like the hon. member who has just taken his seat, agree with the principle of this resolution. But again it is one of those cases where we are getting too little too late.
This resolution was recommended in the committee on veterans affairs several times three or four years ago; but it is only now the government has seen fit to bring forward a resolution indicating that a bill will be introduced to take care of these imperial veterans, and other veterans who served in the first great war. This is not only the opinion of members of the opposition, but also that of many members on the government side of the house.
For instance, on the order paper at the present time there is a resolution in the name of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode) in which he suggests that the war veterans' allowances should be increased to $50 a month for single veterans and widows and $85 per month for married veterans and widows with dependent children. Now, however, through the defeat of the various amendments we brought forward today, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond will not have an opportunity to place his resolution before the house at this time.


Mr. Goode:: If I do not speak to the resolution this session, I shall bring it up until I do have a chance to speak to it.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am glad to hear the hon. member say that, because I believe the resolution is a good one. I am sure there are many other members on the government side

War Veterans Allowance Act of the house who would agree with him, because there is no doubt that the present war veterans' allowance of $40 a month is inadequate. It is not even equal to the old age pension being paid in at least four of the provinces of Canada. The result is that when veterans reach the age at which they will qualify for old age pensions, they withdraw from the allowance and apply for the pension.
These are matters which I say should be brought before the committee on veterans affairs. I agree with the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) when he says that when the minister brings down the act he should refer it to the committee on veterans affairs, and have some discussion as to the advisability of even extending the present resolution.
Another matter which I believe is important has to do with the widows of some of the men who have qualified, had they lived long enough to receive the advantage of this new amendment to the act. It is hardly fair that the widow of an imperial veteran or a veteran of one of our allies who may have died in the last year, and therefore never qualified under this amendment, should not be able to qualify for assistance under the act. Perhaps when the bill is brought down it will develop that my supposition is wrong-and I hope it is. It would be only proper to take care of these widows. If they are not provided for, then I certainly think some amendment should be made to the act to take care of them.
With respect to decentralization, I agree that through decentralization the applicants will have their applications heard more quickly. There is one danger, however, in decentralization, and that is that in the administration in the various districts which may be established there may be differences in the interpretation of the act.
The minister has indicated that the war veterans' allowance board will review the cases, and I would hope that in that review they would be able to maintain uniform administration of the act across the country. It has been my experience in connection with various boards of this kind which have been set up, and where administration has been centralized, that in the course of a few years different practices have grown up in different parts of the dominion, with a resulting loss in uniformity.
I believe the war veterans' allowance board has done an excellent job. In the dealings I have had with them-and I have had many-
I have found them sympathetic and efficient, and I have found them endeavouring to administer the act to the advantage of the veteran where it was possible to do so. If there have been difficulties I think they have

arisen out of the act itself, and out of the interpretation by the war veterans' allowance board.	.
I would urge, however, that the minister submit the act to the veterans affairs committee, and that the committee be constituted to deal with it. I think all agree that the veterans affairs committee has been impartial in dealing with veterans legislation.	The hon. member for
Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch), who on various occasions has been chairman of that committee, stated in the house only yesterday that he believed the committee had acted impartially and had done a reasonably good job for the veterans in dealing with legislation brought before them from time to time.
I would, therefore, urge the minister if possible to give further consideration to enlarging the resolution so as to increase the allowance, as suggested by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond. I believe that is a reasonable suggestion and one the government would be well advised to consider.


Mr. Ray Thomas (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, those of us in this group are extremely pleased to see this legislation brought down at the present time. We believe however that this should have been done a good many years ago. Many veterans who have been recipients of the allowance under the act have been waiting for twenty-five or thirty years, as has been pointed out by previous speakers. That is a long time for anyone to wait for something to which he has been entitled all along.
Many of these men have been in Canada for thirty years and have served the country in the role of citizens. Their work in Canada alone should merit recognition, even without the war service they had given prior to coming to Canada.
I would strongly urge that when drawing up the bill the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) consider seriously making it retroactive for at least a year, in recognition of the fact that the government has been too tardy in bringing down the legislation.
The suggestion to decentralize, so as to bring the administration of the act within the control of the eighteen boards across Canada, will result, we believe, in a great saving of time, and bring the authority closer to the applicants. It will make the investigation of cases much more convenient and cause them to go through with a minimum of effort and waste of time.
As I said before, we firmly support the bill, so far as it goes. We do believe however that it should go much further. The present basic allowance is a mere pittance, when one considers the increase in the cost of

living, and especially after consideration of the increased cost of the essentials required for the bare level of existence many of these veterans are forced to put up with. We submit that the basic allowance should be increased, as has been urged by the two previous speakers. This should be increased to the rate recommended in the submissions made by veterans' organizations across Canada, that is, to $50 for the single veteran and $85 for the married veteran. The present allowance of $40.41 for the single and $70.83 for the married veteran is entirely insufficient. As a matter of fact, it is less than the old age pension paid in some of the provinces. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) referred to the old age pension paid in British Columbia and the same remarks are applicable to my own province of Alberta. These amounts are being paid for war services rendered to Canada and that payment should be adequate.
We join with hon. members who have spoken already in urging that a clause be inserted in the bill to take care, not only of widows of imperial veterans but of widows of our own Canadian veterans. It is a shame that a woman should be penalized because her husband dies. During the years that the veteran has suffered because of his war service his wife has shared in those inconveniences and she should be entitled to the same consideration given to the veteran.
There should also be a clause in the bill to provide medical and hospital care for wives, widows and dependents of these veterans. Some of the provinces provide for nospitalization and medical care for those in receipt of old age pensions. It is the right of every veteran, not only as a veteran but as a pioneer citizen, to expect the same kind of treatment.
We join with other speakers in urging the setting up of a special veterans affairs committee so that the leaders of the various service organizations across Canada can give their views on the various matters affecting veterans legislation. I do not think the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) can be blamed for not setting up this committee. In his budget speech the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) said that the estimates would have to be cut down and therefore the Minister of Veterans Affairs was unable to increase expenditures under his department this year. It would be most embarrassing for him if a committee were set up and made recommendations which he was financially unable to deal with.
If this committee were set up now, any recommendations it might make would be ready for the consideration of the house at
20, 1950
War Veterans Allowance Act the next session. If the committee is not set up it means that a year or possibly two years will have to pass-this might bring it just before an election-before any action could be taken. Is that what the government is waiting for?_ We hope that the government and the minister will take under consideration the recommendations that have been made, especially as to setting up a veterans committee.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, if one on this side of the house may be permitted to say a word, which is rather unusual, I should like to say something, but my remarks will be brief and pointed. First of all, I believe the veterans affairs committee should be a standing committee. I happen to have the honour of being a chairman of one of the standing committees, that having to do with printing. In ten years it has sat but once. I have not the faintest idea what that committee is for, and neither have the other members of the committee, because it never sits.


James Sinclair: That is the chairman's fault.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No, it is not. I always get a lot of assistance from one of my young colleagues, but I am making this speech. I know it is not the responsibility of the minister to make this committee a standing committee, but if you consider it from the financial point of view alone you will realize that the country pays out tremendous amounts for the veterans affairs department.


An hon. Member:: Do you want to cut it down?


George Alexander Cruickshank: No, I do not want to cut it down; I want to increase it; but when that much money is involved I do not see why we should not have a committee. I do not intend to make a political speech for Hansard, as
will leave that for one of my junior colleagues.
I urge upon the minister that imperial veterans' wives be treated exactly the same as wives of Canadian veterans. It must be an oversight that they are not. There are not many concerned and the amount involved would not be large, and I submit that this action should be taken. I support other hon members who have urged that the veterans' allowances be brought up to the old age pension rate.


James Sinclair: In British Columbia.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We in British Columbia are glad that we lead the rest of Canada. We are ahead of any other province and were the first province to bring it in. Saskatchewan reduced it, I do not know what government represents Saskatchewan, but that is what they did.
1740	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act
A fund of $500,000 was established last year, but I want to say to the minister that any veteran who wanted to take advantage of that fund would have to go to Philadelphia and then call in this man Cripps as another lawyer to help fill out the forms. It is a most ridiculous sample of red tape. The parliamentary assistant to the minister knows that, and to his credit he did something about it at my request. It is almost impossible to answer the questions a veteran must answer to obtain this $10 increase. They want to know if his great-grandmother had grey or blue eyes. It is just as ridiculous as some of the statements the hon. member for York-ton (Mr. Stewart) made about the pipe lines. I urge the minister to put this whole thing on a more reasonable basis.
I disagree with some hon. members. In my opinion the government of Canada has treated the veterans of this country better than veterans have been treated in any other country in the world. I believe there are at least four thousand veterans registered in the Canadian Legion of my own riding, and I am very proud of the fact that I am one of the few members who have gold pins denoting life membership in the Canadian Legion. I am also proud of the fact that this presentation was made to me by the president of the Legion and Conservative association on June 24, only three days before a very significant event.
I do not want to take more time, but I am going to warn the minister now that he is going to have certain representations made to him a little later on. The federal convention of the Canadian Legion is being held next month. In . my opinion there is no more responsible or reliable organization in Canada. The legion has been advocating an increase in the rates of payment to the war veterans' allowance, and that matter is going to be brought forcefully before this government following that convention. I believe it is only an oversight that nothing has been done along that line; I think it can be rectified, and I strongly urge that such action be taken.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this resolution forecasts two changes in the War Veterans Allowance Act. One will make members of allied forces who served in the first war and have been living in Canada for twenty years eligible for these benefits. The other change is in connection with the administration of the act.
With respect to the first change, I should hope there would be no disagreement in this house. In fact to me it is a great tragedy that the imperial and other allied veterans should have had to wait so long to become eligible for the war veterans' allowance. I need only point out that thousands of those


veterans served in the Canadian forces in the second war. That service did not enable them to qualify for the war veterans' allowance, however, because they were nearly all in the veterans' guard and as we all know very few of the veterans' guard were allowed to go overseas. In addition many of these allied veterans had sons serving with our sons in the Canadian forces during the recent war. Giving them entitlement to the war veterans' allowance is a step long overdue.
In connection with this proposal I urge the minister to make the payments retroactive, at least to the date the announcement was made in this house that the imperials would be given entitlement. His parliamentary assistant made that announcement on December 10 of last year, the last day of the second session of 1949, and at that time I asked whether it would not be possible to have payments made retroactive to that date. I urge the minister to have his legislation provide that payments shall begin as of December 10, 1949, at least.
Then I hope there is no doubt that those veterans who served in the imperial forces during the South African war will be eligible for the allowance after these amendments are made. The minister nods his head. I am very glad to learn that such is to be the case. Another suggestion that has been made by each of the preceding speakers, and with which I agree, is that the widows of veterans who have died should be made eligible. There seems to be an impression abroad that the act is not wide enough to cover those widows. When we make this change, let us do it right and provide eligibility for the widows of these veterans. I do not think anyone in the house would be against extending the act to provide for them.
With regard to the amount of the war veterans' allowance, surely there can be no doubt that the amounts paid are too low. That, of course, is because of the present cost of living. Only a year or two ago the minister's department made a survey across Canada, which disclosed that the recipients of the war veterans' allowance were not getting enough to live on. As a result we had a special vote last year setting up what is known as the war veterans' assistance fund. That survey proved conclusively what some of us have been trying to tell the government for a long time; that is, that the war veterans' allowance is insufficient to enable these men and their wives to carry on. This year the position is even worse, and that assistance fund is to be increased from $500,000 to $750,000, though only approximately ten per

cent of those in receipt of the war veterans' allowance have been able to qualify for this assistance.
That whole picture shows conclusively that the allowance should be increased. At the present time it is $40.41 a month for a single veteran and $70.83 for a married man. In British Columbia a single old age pensioner gets $50 a month, and the wife of a married pensioner can also get $50 a month if she is seventy years of age. In addition they are given free hospitalization and free medical and dental care. We have a case of an old age pensioner who served in the German army in the first war and he and his wife are now drawing $100 a month-and I am not quarrelling with that, since under the law they have a perfect right to it-and within a door or two of where they live there is a veteran who served in the Canadian forces, but he and his wife get only $70.83. That is an intolerable situation. The war veterans' allowance should be increased at least to the amount of the old age pension. I know that everyone in British Columbia is in favour of a change being made which would bring the allowance up to the amount paid by way of old age pension.
Before I continue, I should like to say a word about this war veterans' assistance fund. I should like to read a paragraph or two from an editorial which appeared in the Vancouver Sun on November 12, 1949. The newspaper offices are close to Victory square in Vancouver, in which there is a monument to our dead of the first war. These newspapermen had witnessed the services held there the day before, November 11, and this editorial appeared on the following day. It is entitled "Burnt Out and Burned up". I wish to quote certain paragraphs, which I think neatly sum up this situation. In referring to the burnt out veterans, it says:
They are today in a worse position than old age pensioners. Beth are supported from public funds. Why in the name of all that is reasonable should those who made special sacrifices for their country be subsequently penalized? Surely the least that could be done is set the W.V.A. rate at a figure equal to the O.A.P., even if the former may qualify before age seventy.
The article goes on to list the differences in amounts received by the veteran and the recipients of the old age pension. Then it says:
True, Ottawa at the last session of parliament started a special emergency fund for W.V.A. pur-coses, from which district authorities might make idditional grants in aid in cases of extreme destitu-;ion. Some W.V.A. recipients have benefited under his provision. But extra allowances are subject o a periodical means test, and the funds are limited -which means more penny-pinching by D.V.A. cfficials seeking to help. And winter at hand means 'urther hardship for many.
55946-111!
War Veterans Allowance Act
Some of the wives of older veterans are voluntarily abandoning their $30 W.V.A. allowance to claim old age pension. Obviously, however, only a few of them are old enough to do so.
If the minister checks up, I believe he will find that his own officers are advising veterans who are seventy years of age or over to go off the war veterans' allowance, and get on the old age pension. It is a tragedy that such should be the case, because the veteran is a direct charge on the dominion government, and should certainly receive as much as those people who are at least partially looked after by the provincial government.
I continue reading from the editorial:
Lest we forget! One can understand the pathetic figures who bravely attended remembrance day services yesterday, trying to keep heads high despite anxious hearts. One can forgive bitterness, too.
But one cannot forgive the heartlessness of politicians. A remedy could still be effected this session, and should be effected.
Mr. Speaker, this editorial appeared in the leading Liberal paper in British Columbia.
Public opinion would back the insistent demands of veterans organizations that Ottawa no longer shirk its duty.
Ottawa is shirking its duty as long as it refuses to raise these war veterans' allowances to an amount at least equal to the old age pension.
As for the special assistance, I think it helps out; but it should not be used as a substitute for a proper increase in the allowance itself. The assistance fund should be used for the odd case where there are special conditions, but most of the veterans who are now receiving that assistance would have their needs met if the war veterans' allowance were set at an appropriate figure. The member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) has made some reference to the form that has to be filled out by the applicant for special assistance. Of course, there is a second means test, and the veteran has to go through that humiliation. The dominion investigator has to find out such things as this: Entitlement to assistance from other sources, for example, social assistance, mothers' allowance, old age pensions, family allowance, medical and hospital care. No veteran in Canada should be forced to depend on social assistance in a province; he should be cared for by the dominion.
There is another weakness in this fund, in that it is only provided by annual grant of parliament. There is no legislation behind it. The grant is made for one year and must be renewed year after year. The veteran does not know whether he is going to receive it the next year. There is nothing final about it. It should be provided by way of legislation rather than under an annual vote.
!742	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act So much for the amount of the war veterans' allowance; now let me say a word about the administration of the act. This proposal to decentralize the administration is made because of inefficiency in the administration of the act. Let there be no mistake about that. I am not quarrelling with the change, because I think it is a proper one, but I do not think this act has been administered as it should have been. I realize that the men on the war veterans' allowance board have a difficult job. I am not saying they are trying to do anything but their best, but from my own experience I am convinced the time has come to check the administration of this act, and check it carefully.
The difficulties may be overcome by decentralization, by giving more power to the men out in Vancouver, in Calgary or in Winnipeg, who are in direct contact with the veteran.
I believe they can get a clearer picture of the needs of the veteran than any board here in Ottawa. I believe also that they can get much quicker action. I am, therefore, in favour of decentralization.
Here are some of the ways in which administration has been, in my opinion, faulty. When the veterans affairs committee sat, I think it was in 1948, there was a change in the provision for casual earnings. Before that time casual earnings had been limited to a certain amount. The members of that committee felt that there should be a change; that the veteran should be allowed to get whatever casual earnings he could. Eventually the act was changed accordingly, and I think that was a proper change. Yet I have had
a case___I will give the minister these cases
later__in which a veteran was unable to do
any work; his wife was going out doing housework She was in poor health herself, and when she went to do this housework she occasionally suffered a break-down owing to her poor health. The war veterans' allowance board decided that, because she was earning a little bit of money doing domestic work, these were regular earnings and her husband's allowance was cut accordingly. I believe there was a claim for overpayment.
This trouble was partially the fault of the investigator because he did not talk to the wife herself. He spoke to the lady for whom she worked, and came back with the story that she worked two regular days a week. That was considered to be regular earnings and took the veteran away from the provision for casual earnings, with the results I have already indicated. The facts, however, were that the woman did not work any steady days a week and that for periods of time she had been unable to work at all. If there ever was a case in which earnings
[K'r. Green.]

were casual, this was such a case. Yet that veteran had his allowance cut. There should be a benefit of the doubt given to these recipients of war veterans' allowance just as there is under the Pension Act. I do not believe there is one member of this house who served on the veterans affairs committee in 1948 who would have agreed that this woman's earnings from going out doing that odd housework should be considered as anything other than casual earnings. I therefore suggest to the minister that he have his war veterans' allowance board up on the carpet and inquire from them exactly how they decide what earnings are casual.
Then there are rulings of another type which I think are unfair. They have to do with the question of whether or not a person under the ordinary eligible age is incapable of maintaining himself. The pertinent section of the act is section 5, paragraph (c) (ii) which reads as follows:
is incapable and unlikely to become capable of maintaining himself or herself because of economic handicaps-[DOT]
And I point out to the minister that phrase "because of economic handicaps".
*-combined with mental or physical disability or insufficiency.
This particular case was that of a widow who herself had service. She herself was eligible if she could satisfy the requirements of the act. She is fifty years of age, whereas the eligible age for a woman who has served is fifty-five. Her husband served in both wars. She has a son about thirteen years of age who is asthmatic, a semi-invalid. The woman herself is not well; she has arthritis and other disabilities. Her application for war veterans' allowance was turned down on the ground that she was capable of maintaining herself. Can you, Mr. Speaker, imagine a widow in that position being told that she must go out and get a job? "Actually she went to the employment service where she was told: "Why, you are fifty years of age! What are you coming around here for, looking for a job? We cannot find you any work." Yet just two or three weeks ago that woman was again held by the board to be ineligible. I had arranged for her to go and have an examination by her doctor. I turned in that examination in Vancouver, but for some reason or other it has not reached the office here, and the board did not get it sent back before they made their decision. This case brings up another point on which 1 suggest that the minister check his board.
Another matter is this question of overpayments. It is found that a man has beer getting more earnings than he is entitled tc

while getting his allowance. Far too often, word of those overpayments does not get back to the veteran until months have gone by and then he finds himself suddenly faced with a large debit to be taken off his meagre monthly allowance. In some cases a man will have his pension raised, and instead of that adjustment being made in the minister's department at that time when the pension is raised, the war veterans' allowance board apparently does not find out about the raise for months. The man gets the increased pension, and then suddenly he is faced with a notice that he has been overpaid several hundred dollars war veterans' allowance. That is a matter of poor administration and it should be checked. When these pensions are raised, the adjustment should be made at the same time. There is no excuse for a thing like that happening in the one department.
Another difficulty is this question of deductions while the man is in hospital. He goes into hospital, and a deduction is made from his allowance. I think the figure is usually $15 a month. I suggest that this whole policy of deducting money from the war veterans' allowance while the recipient is in hospital should be carefully reviewed. In many cases I think there is a great unfairness. Mind you, I have drawn several of these cases to the attention of the board, and in most instances some reduction has been made in the amount taken from the veteran. The allowances are so small, Mr. Speaker, that when you take $5 or $10 or $15 off, it creates a serious problem for the wife and the children. I think we might well stop making these deductions at all.
One other suggestion is that the treatment rates should be reconsidered. In some cases apparently the war veterans' allowance recipients are not getting the same treatment rates that they formerly received. There, I believe, is another field for an investigation by the department. Those are some of the things which I think show that the administration of the War Veterans Allowance Act is not what it should be, and I hope that the minister will check the administration.
In conclusion, may I say that I sincerely believe it has been a great mistake not to have a special committee of the house on veterans affairs at this session; in fact, I believe there should be a standing committee on veterans affairs. These problems could all be dealt with efficiently by such a committee of the house. That is the proper way to settle them. The Legion, the Army and Navy Veterans, the Amps., the Canadian Corps and the Canadian Pension Association and all these veterans' organizations which
War Veterans Allowance Act have been so responsible in their approach to the veterans' problems could appear before such a committee and explain their experiences to the members. In my experience they have always done that in an efficient and fair way. We have all benefited as a result of their representations. The officers of the department could be brought before the committee and could give their explanations. With regard to some of the instances I have mentioned tonight perhaps those officers could explain why the trouble has arisen. But that clearing of ideas and that facing of problems can only be adequately done by a committee of this house.
When I asked the parliamentary assistant about a committee on December 10 last year he gave this answer, which may be found at page 3137 of Hansard:
On the other hand, if he means that,-
He was referring to myself because I had suggested a special- committee in the 1950 session.
On the other hand, if he means that, when changes are being made in veterans legislation, the government will continue the practice it has been following since 1936, namely, referring the bill to a select committee of the House of Commons, I should hope that practice would be continued.
The parliamentary assistant has been a member of every veterans affairs committee since 1935, just as I have myself. There was his statement, that whenever veterans legislation was before the house it should be referred to a special committee. Certainly, amending the War Veterans Allowance Act comes within that category, especially when you are changing the administration. This bill amending the War Veterans Allowance Act is of the utmost importance. I repeat, it should be referred to a select committee of the house. I hope that even at this late date the government will agree that such a course could very well be followed.


James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks on this resolution. First of all, I have not been a member of the veterans affairs committee since 1946, when I sat with many other members of the house at that time.
In discussing this last step forward in veterans legislation, I cannot help but think that some word should be said of the very great work done by our former minister from British Columbia, Ian Mackenzie, when the going was pretty rough, on behalf of veterans. I have thought many times that he was not appreciated, because after all Mr. Mackenzie fought the battle that other ministers must have, the sort of thing I referred to this afternoon, namely, the very many desirable projects in this country for which finance has to

War Veterans Allowance Act be found, and can only be found, through taxation. But he fought a brave battle, a battle that, was very successful in the end, and which resulted in the veterans' charter.
I think all of us are very happy to see him succeeded by this gallant soldier, the hon. and gallant member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Gregg), who won his spurs in battle many years ago, and who has continued this sound and solid work on behalf of the veterans of Canada.
I think perhaps one of the best indications a member of parliament can have as to whether or not things are going well in any department is just his ordinary everyday mail. I ask hon. members who were here in 1944, 1945 and 1946, when the problem of rehabilitation of veterans was so keen, to compare the problems they had then with the average mail they get today, when the veteran's problem, the everyday problem is mainly in hand. That does not however remove the fact that all veterans, that all members of parliament, should be constantly vigilant concerning ways and means of improving the lot of those veterans in this country who have not been able satisfactorily to rehabilitate and re-establish themselves.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Do you answer your letters?


James Sinclair: I answer my letters. I am here tonight, in spite of the interruption of my hon. friend, for one of the few times in the last two or three sessions to support what he has said, not only to support the speech he has made but the speech that every British Columbia member, of any party, has made on this matter.


George Alexander Cruickshank: At last you have acquired wisdom.


James Sinclair: Certainly I have not acquired any wisdom from following the speeches of the hon. member for Fraser Valley. Whatever wisdom there may be, I am able to stand on my own two feet and express myself without any help from anybody.
This is a matter of very great concern to hon. members, and it is perhaps of more concern to British Columbia members than to any others, because I think we are much closer to the problem for two or three reasons. First of all, we are very proud that in the last war we had the highest per capita enlistment of any province of Canada so we have more B.C. veterans returning home. Second, our province is especially attractive, except for the last winter, to older veterans, because of what is generally a more equable climate than is experienced in most of Canada. We therefore have a steady


trek of old veterans out to British Columbia. Third, we have a higher concentration of old imperial veterans, because our province has always had a very heavy settlement by immigrants from the British isles. For that reason British Columbia members, whether they be Liberals, Conservatives, or members of the C.C.F., have always been more conscious of the problems of the older veterans.
We have another reason for being exercised. In British Columbia the old age pension, as has been frequently mentioned in this house, is the highest in Canada. The basic $40 a month pension, three-quarters of which is paid by the federal government and one-quarter by the provincial government, is augmented in British Columbia by another $10 with no extra means test. That means in effect that the old age pension in British Columbia is $50 a month.
The intent of the war veterans' allowance has always been, to my mind, a pension paid ten years earlier to those who have been prematurely aged because .they saw service in a combat area. And that immediately brings up this one standard. Should the federal government not be able to match the very best old age pension age by any province, and that is our present standard in British Columbia? No matter what is said, we feel very strongly that the pension paid by the federal government-as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) said, to those pensioners who are an especial responsibility of the federal government, that is the war veterans just as locally the old age pensioner is the especial responsibility of the provincial government-should at least match the most generous old age pension in Canada.
I just want to give an example which was given to me in a village in my own riding, the little village where my mother and father are now retired. Near that village there are a German immigrant couple who actually were in Germany during the first war. No doubt they are very decent people. They came out after the war and now have their twenty years' residence in Canada. They did not attempt to join any company pension scheme, and they may not have been able to make any savings in war bonds, so now that they have reached the age of 70 they get $100 a month from the government as an old age pension. As far as most people are concerned, they are not very interested in the levels of government, whether it is municipal government, provincial government or federal government; they are getting it from the government. This German couple-unfortunately they are still referred to as a German couple-were in Germany during the first war, and they now get $100 a month, and they

live very comfortably on the west coast of British Columbia in a little village on $100 a month. Contrast them with a couple living not very many cottages away. In that cottage is a man who served very bravely in the first war, and who now is prematurely aged, the very thing that this legislation passed by this government was meant to cover. He and his wife live out there on $70 a month. That is the basic federal war veterans allowance, commonly called the burnt out pension. True, by going through an extra means test, which the hon. member for Fraser Valley described, they might be able to get another $10. No matter how well this has worked in the east, it has not worked in British Columbia and the basic allowance remains $70. So, as British Columbians, from whatever party we may come, but especially as British Columbia veterans, we say that the federal government should be able to match for their "wards", which is perhaps an unfortunate word to use, but the comparison is accurate-for their special old age pensioners-as good treatment, as high a pension, as that paid by any of the provinces. That is the first point I wish to make. I think I have expressed the view of every hon. member from British Columbia, because we live with the problem.
My second point has to do with the imperial veterans. I recall that in the 1946 committee-I have been reminded of it many times by Legion branches-I voted against the extension of war veterans' allowances to imperial veterans. There was, however, a vote preceding that vote to extend the war veterans' allowances to Canadians of the first war who had got to England but not to France. In the last war if a veteran got to England he was qualified, as far as service was concerned, for the war veterans' allowance but in the first world war he had to get past England to France. I have always in this house tried to argue that in every service there should be a uniformity of service, whether it is the air force, the army or the navy, a thing which has now been brought about by the legislation sponsored by the Minister of National Defence. I say also that between the first and second wars there should be a uniformity of service. If service in England qualifies a man in the second war for a burnt-out pension, then I maintain that service in England in the first war should also qualify a Canadian veteran for a burnt-out pension. I voted for this in the veterans affairs committee and when that was denied to Canadians who are the proper responsibility of the Canadian government, then I felt I could not vote to give this Canadian pension to men who did not serve
20, 1950
War Veterans Allowance Act in the Canadian forces, and who were not resident in Canada before their entry into the British forces.
We have been very generous in Canada, more generous than any other country I know of, when we build up to Canadian standards the pensions of men who may have lived in this country before the war, but who saw service in other allied armies. When they have come back here we have regarded them as Canadians and built up their pensions to the Canadian standard. The government has now come along and done something further. Perhaps there war a strong moral obligation to these imperials, who came out here after the first war and became good Canadians, to say to them, "All right, we will include you in our war veterans' allowance scheme", as we are doing tonight but there has never been any legal obligation.
I think too, with the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), that, having included them, we should do it right. It is unfair to cut out this one little group, the widows of imperial veterans who may have died. I say that the widow of any imperial veteran who qualified by having resided twenty years in this country should qualify, just as does the widow of a Canadian recipient of the war veterans' allowance.
That is my only complaint about this very generous extension of the war veterans' allowance into a field in which we have no legal responsibility; because these imperial veterans we are covering now did not live in Canada before they fought, and they did not fight with Canadian forces. They came here after the war.
I saw a very interesting sidelight in connection with that in my recent trip to Europe -which was described this afternoon by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) in most unflattering terms-because I had representations made to me on behalf of one of the British branches of the Canadian Legion. They complained bitterly about this proposed extension of the war veterans' allowance to imperial veterans when they, as Canadian veterans in Great Britain, received no such allowances from the British government.
So I say we are taking a very real forward step in veterans legislation. There is one further thing I wish to say however-because I still feel some responsibility in the matter of taxation. Those people who are advocating these extensions should not be too critical about the taxing system which, after all, must find the money to pay for all this. I would like to see some members who are asking for this increased benefit speak in less
1746	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act scathing terms about the government's requests for taxation, and not be quite so vociferous in their demands for bigger income tax exemptions and abolition of the sales tax and the excise tax. These extensions to imperial veterans are increased payments which, while desirable, must be paid for.
I pay tribute to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) because I have the pleasure now and again-not much of a pleasure- to sit in on treasury board which apportions federal revenue to the government departments. No one on treasury board works any harder to get his share of the national revenue for the benefit of the veterans than does the present Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take only a few moments to deal with this most important resolution. I do feel however that I should lend support to the previous speakers who have supported it, and who have expressed their disappointment that other amendments are not included in the proposed legislation.
Before proceeding to my remarks on the resolution let me pay tribute to what I believe has been a most effective and efficient operation of the war veterans' allowance board. I have had some experience in dealing with it, through the local representatives 'in British Columbia, and I must say in all fairness that I have found them most courteous and most anxious in every way possible to use the legislation at their hands and the administrative machinery to the best advantage of the veterans concerned.
I am sure all hon. members are pleased to note that the minister has seen fit to introduce this resolution which will precede the legislation to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act so as to include within the terms of the act imperial veterans who have lived in Canada twenty years or more. Not only will hon. members be pleased, but I am sure the 3,000-odd members of the imperial veterans mentioned by the minister will be gratified indeed.
As I stand here this evening I can think of a good many cases in my own riding concerning men who will be greatly benefited by this legislation. The Canadian Legion and other veterans organization across Canada will be deeply gratified that their long-time advocacy of this legislation and this amendment has reached fruition.
In common with other members who have spoken, I regret the government has not seen fit to include the widows of imperial veterans who at this time will have resided in Canada for twenty years. It is most unfortunate, because I do not think the numbers


are large and the expense to the country would not be great. When the minister tells us that this amendment will cost about $2 million, it seems he has been somewhat parsimonious in failing to include in the legislation widows of imperial veterans who have resided in Canada for twenty years.
I believe the minister said that the total cost of war veterans' allowances to the taxpayers of Canada would be approximately $25 million, including the cost occasioned by this amendment. If we look at this question objectively and fairly in relation to our national income and our total revenue, that $25 million is not a large amount to spend in providing at least a measure of security for those who have served the country so well.
In connection with the suggestion that the legislation should include the widows of imperial veterans who have resided in this country twenty years, I am sure any action taken by the minister to include such an amendment to the bill would receive the widespread support of the Canadian people. I have received resolutions from branches of the Canadian Legion, other organizations and a large number of individuals, and I would say that no one can point to a single occasion when legislation introduced in the House of Commons to improve the position of veterans in this country has not received almost unanimous endorsation from the Canadian people. I do hope therefore that consideration will be given to the suggestion made by previous speakers so as to include in the amendment the relatively small number of widows of imperial veterans thus far forgotten.
Before resuming my seat may I say a word about the special assistance fund. I have no hesitation in saying that in my experience the special assistance fund has been beneficial to many veterans. I have seen this in my own district, so far as individuals are concerned, and I am familiar with the benefit which has resulted. But, in common with many other members, I believe that this is insufficient. While it is a great help, the only fair solution is to accept the proposals of the Canadian Legion and to increase the basic rate to $50 for single men and $85 for married men. That is little enough when compared with the pension to the old age pensioner paid in some provinces of Canada, as has been mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair), the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), and the hon. member for Fraser Valley

(Mr. Cruickshank), who is always a most effective exponent of veterans legislation, and other hon. members.
Previous speakers have dealt with the increased old age pensions paid by certain provinces which are greater than war veterans' allowances. I thought they dealt most effectively with that matter. I was taken with the illustration given by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) of the former German citizen who was residing in Germany at the time of the first world war, who came to this country, and now is receiving, along with his wife, an old age pension totalling $100 a month, whereas the war veteran who was defending his country at that time receives only slightly over $70 per month. We do not question the old age pension paid to the other persons, for no doubt they are good citizens; but I personally cannot see any justice in a situation like that. The allowances paid to our veterans should at least be equal to those received by old age pensioners.
In British Columbia old age pensioners are covered by the health insurance scheme but are not required to pay, whereas recipients of war veterans' allowances are. Just before I left home a few days ago to return to Ottawa I met a war veteran who is in receipt of an allowance. He served in my battalion and the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra knows him quite well. This man's wife has been quite ill and he himself suffers from partial blindness and is thus unable to earn a living. He is an aged man and is now in receipt of war veterans' allowance. He applied for the special allowance of $10 per month, but still finds great difficulty in getting along.
He was confronted with a bill from the hospital insurance commission of British Columbia. He went to the office of the commission and told the officials that he was completely unable to pay the bill. I might mention that he was decorated in the first world war and served with the 54th battalion, one of the finest battalions in the Canadian expeditionary force. Later he received a note that if he did not pay immediately he would be prosecuted. He went to see the official of the hospital commission and told her that he could not pay, that if they desired to prosecute he was ready to go to jail. The official then said to him. "As a matter of fact, our instructions are to get it out of you if we can, but if we realize that it is not possible for you to pay we are not to take any action." Imagine a man who has served our country so well being placed in that position. An amendment to
War Veterans Allowance Act the act would relieve the condition of that man and other veterans to a considerable extent.
The minister mentioned changes to be made in the act to provide for decentralization in administration. That will be all to the good. I am in favour of decentralization in connection with government or other public business because the closer you get your administration to the people, the more sympathetic and efficient it is likely to be. I am sure the amendments proposed by the minister in this connection will further improve the administration of the War Veterans Allowance Act.
Before resuming my seat I want to indicate my support of other hon. members who have urged the establishment of a parliamentary committee on veterans affairs. That is necessary if we are going to tackle these problems effectively and efficiently, to the advantage of the veteran and the satisfaction of the Canadian people as a whole. I urge the minister and his colleagues to give further consideration to the requests that have been made from all sides-I was glad to hear hon. members on the other side speak in this connection-for the establishment of a special parliamentary committee on veterans affairs.


Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wenlworih):: Mr. Speaker, I am thoroughly in accord with practically everything that has been said this evening with respect to this amendment, which I think is long overdue. As one who is not an advocate of repetition in the house, I propose to confine my remarks to one or two matters that have not been brought up this evening. I should like to touch very briefly upon one or two points that have been spoken to this evening. I have advocated before that we should have a standing committee on veterans affairs in this House of Commons and, secondly, I feel that the wives of British-Canadian veterans should be entitled to benefits.
Another matter about which I feel very strongly is the removal of the means test in connection with veterans allowances. Considerable credit has been given this evening to the Canadian Legion, credit which is justly due. I am a past president of the Canadian Legion and a continuing member, but credit should also be given to one or two other gentlemen who have done a real job in connection with the British-Canadian veterans.
In 1946 Stephen Jones, past president of the British-Canadian veterans' federation of Canada, presented a brief. He appeared again in 1948 and presented another brief. George M-'Kav of the British-Canadian veterans, of Hamilton, was with him. In my opinion he

War Veterans Allowance Act presented the finest brief submitted at any time by any organization before any veterans affairs committee of this house. I simply wanted to give credit to a person who has been overlooked this evening.
I agree with everything that has been said about the amendments and the sooner they are enacted, with the retroactive features suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), the better.


Mr. J. L. MacDougall (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, like other members of this house I am in favour of the suggested amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act. I go further and congratulate the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg), who I am sure has the full confidence of members in all sections of this House of Commons. I want to state that I am not going to make a long speech and in saying so I am in direct contrast to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), who said he was going to make a short speech and then spoke for approximately thirty minutes. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) said that this was too little, too late. May I say that it was a Liberal government that brought this act into being originally. When an hon. member speaks about its being too little, too late, may 1 inform the house that since this act was first brought into being we have had administrations led by other than a Liberal government.


Frank Exton Lennard: If the hon. member had been-


John Lorne MacDougall: I did not interrupt my hon. friend.


Frank Exton Lennard: You can interrupt me any time you like.


John Lorne MacDougall: The hon. member can interrupt me all he likes until he is called to order by the Speaker. I do not like to see this sort of thing happening.


Frank Exton Lennard: Do not drag politics into it.


John Lorne MacDougall: I think Liberal members, whether on the rump or on the other side, are definitely selling short the humanitarian aspects of the present government when they assume that the administration is not going to bring into effect the expressed wishes and desires of the various veterans' organizations across the length and breadth of this country. I am convinced that the present administration is quite capable of bringing into effect, and in all probability is anxious to do so, the same type of legislation with respect to the wives or widows of imperial veterans who have been resident in this country for more 

than twenty years as that with respect to the Canadian veterans who also come under the terms of this legislation.
In conclusion, therefore, I say the members of the Liberal party, whether they sit to the right or to the left of Mr. Speaker, are all desirous of having these necessary amendments made to the act. No one in this house, regardless of what party he may represent, stands for a fairer deal for the returned man than we do. I am quite sure, also, that we need not quibble about adopting the resolution now before the house, for the simple reason that the government is as desirous as all other hon. members, no matter in what part of the house they may sit, to see to it that this legislative enactment is carried through with dispatch so that all may enjoy what we believe to be the rights of all good citizens of Canada, particularly those who in the hour of national danger offered their all in defence of freedom, justice and liberty.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I shall attempt to follow the example of the last two speakers and confine my remarks within a brief compass. At the outset I want to associate myself, as they have done, with the remarks that have been made in appreciation of the fact that the minister has seen fit to introduce these amendments enlarging the scope of the act to include imperial veterans. This is being done no doubt as a result of the study he has given the matter, and also I am sure partly because of the extraordinarily reasonable and competent representations that have been made from time to time by the Canadian Legion and other veterans' bodies.
Having said this, I want also to associate myself with those who, while giving due credit for this move, have requested that advantage be taken of this opportunity to complete the good work which will be carried out in the legislation based on this resolution, and not stop short of what humanity, reason and justice dictate; particularly not to stop short of extending these benefits to the widows of imperial veterans. After all, Mr. Speaker, those widows are already so much worse off as a result of their widowhood. I am not seeking here to assess the humanitarian aspects, which goes without saying; but the tragedy and bereavement they have suffered only emphasize the material aspect of it. These widows are worse off and less able to get along in the world because they have lost their husbands. In spite of that disadvantage, however, in this legislation we are only extending benefits to veterans and their wives who in a material sense are so much better off than the widow who has lost her husband. To that extent we are increasing a disparity which already exists if

we extend these benefits to the veterans and their wives and deny them to the widows merely because their husbands died before they had resided in this country for twenty years.
I know the minister is just as open to humanitarian appeals as anyone in the house. I hope he will see the force of that argument and allow himself to be moved by that situation, if I may put it that way, and give the matter further consideration. I know he must have considered it already; I know it has been brought to his attention. In a sense we are not advancing new arguments, but we are asking him to open his mind to the arguments already put forward. I would ask him to bear in mind that if we are unsuccessful in prevailing upon him to enlarge the scope of this legislation, then we are in fact increasing a disparity which already exists and prolonging as well as accentuating a hardship which it would cost so little to remove.
Then, dealing with two or three other details, I want to associate myself with those who have referred to the amount of the basic war veterans' allowance. I know the attitude of the parliamentary assistant in this matter, at any rate, and I presume he speaks for the government and for his minister. His attitude, which is a perfectly proper one for him to take, is that in essence the war veterans' allowance is merely an old age pension payable to war veterans at an earlier date by reason of the fact that, by virtue of their service and the hardships they suffered, they become unable to provide for themselves at an earlier age than the ordinary citizen. Taking that view the hon. gentleman has stated that he would not consider it proper that the amount of the war veterans' allowance should be larger than the basic old age pension or, in other words, more than $40 a month.
While I agree that this is a reasonable attitude for him to take, I cannot agree that his basic premise is correct. I do not believe the war veterans' allowance is merely an old age pension payable at an earlier age. It seems to me, and from my recollection of veterans' affairs committees it has been recognized, that there are two aspects combined. One is the reward for service over and above what the ordinary civilian or non-service man has given. The other is a certain recognition of the fact that by virtue of the service given and the hardship experienced he may become unable to provide for himself at an earlier age than the civilian.
If this war veterans' allowance has a dual aspect, then surely it is not sound to argue that the amount should be exactly the same as the basic old age pension. Even if that
55946-112 i
20, 1950
War Veterans Allowance Act were a sound argument, then I find myself in agreement with the member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair), as well as other members from the province of British Columbia who have spoken, who have stated that if that is a sound argument and the war veterans' allowance should be the same as the old age pension, then surely it should be the same as the most generous old age pension which this country provides. In the province of British Columbia that is $50 per month, and in several other provinces it is $40 per month, by virtue of special supplementary payments made by the provinces.
Whichever way you look at it, it seems to me there is a sound, logical, unanswerable case for increasing the amount of the war veterans' allowance to $50 for single men and $85 for married veterans. Those are the two main aspects of this matter to which I should like to address myself tonight. I wonder if I could mention one detail of the administration.
I fully agree that it is time to decentralize the administration of this act. I have had cases where, apparently with the best will in the world to speed up the investigation and disposition of the case, it has still taken months, in fact nearly a year, to complete a case from the preliminary application to the final disposition. It seems to me that no administration should take from six to nine months to settle a case finally. I cannot help concluding that if there were greater decentralization, if a greater measure of responsibility were given not only to the regional offices but to the investigators themselves, who should be given greater discretion in arriving at a decision as to whether or not the means test, if it is to be continued, should be applied, whether or not in fact the veteran has casual earnings or whether the earnings he receives should form part of his basic income, and if the investigators were given greater discretion to recommend for or against granting the allowance to the veteran, then that, coupled with the decentralization of responsibility, would greatly speed up the disposition of cases.
It seems to me that at the present time the regulations are so ironclad, and the feeling seems to be that we must follow precedent to such an extent that, even with the greatest desire to bring a. veteran within the scope of the act, investigators have to go back and back again before they can satisfy their superiors that the veteran is entitled to the allowance. I hope that along with the decentralization of administration will come a greater measure of responsibility, and the power of recommendation to the investigators in the field. If that does accompany decentralization, and if there is an increase in the
1750	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act basic rate to $50 per month for single men and $85 for married men, as well as the inclusion of the widows of imperial veterans under the act, I feel the minister will then have what I know he wants, and that is a War Veterans Allowance Act which really takes care of the senior veterans in this country.


Mr. John Hunter (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker,
I did not intend to speak on this subject, so I shall only take three or four minutes of the time of the house. 'There are a few things I wish to suggest. First of all, I should like to congratulate the minister on this resolution, which I think is a definite step forward. It shows careful thought and sincerity of purpose.
A number of suggestions have been made by various hon. members, and generally speaking I believe the suggestions have been worth while. They have concerned the type of thing we would all like to see implemented. I have heard very few things mentioned in connection with this resolution which I, personally, would not like to see implemented. I do wish to put forward the definite suggestion to hon. members of this house that this is not a question of spending unlimited funds, and giving all the things we would like to see on the statute books of this country. It is a question of having a certain amount of money to spend, and spending it in the wisest possible way.
The member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) has suggested that the amount of the basic war veterans' allowance should be increased. The same suggestion has been made by other hon. members, and I can find no fault with that; it would be a forward step. But let us face facts. We have so much money to spend, and while these suggestions are worthy, and I think they will be implemented some day when the income of this country is sufficient to pay for them, we simply cannot afford everything we would like. In a sense it is rather a waste of time to place all these schemes before the house, and ask that the minister give them his earnest consideration. The minister is giving these matters his earnest consideration. The minister is not only a gallant soldier but a gallant gentleman, and no one would like to do these things more than he, but he cannot give something he has not got. Putting all these schemes before the house is not only premature, but to be frank I think it is silly.
I wish to try to give the members some understanding of the problems of the government. There is a tendency in all the parties in the house, and I do not blame them, because it is a tendency of human nature, to ask for things which they genuinely feel


everyone should have. Many of these things I should like to see done, but it does seem to be consuming a great deal of time when these speakers, who are intelligent, must realize that there are not the funds available at this time to implement such schemes. I suggest that an enormous amount of time is wasted by certain hon. members, who are sincere, owing to the fact that they feel certain things should be done, even though they realize there are no funds with which to do them. I would suggest to those members, who doubtless mean well, that they should leave these things in the hands of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg), who is highly qualified and who receives expert advice from various sections of his department. Some of these suggestions rather imply criticism of the minister, who I believe is handling these matters wisely and sensibly. Again, sir, may I be allowed to congratulate him on the wisdom of this resolution, and the forward step which is being taken by his department.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, a number of hon. members have expressed the hope that the minister would include in the bill a provision extending the war veterans' allowance to the widows of imperial veterans, and those of members of the allied forces who are being brought under the act by this legislation. I desire to support the plea of those members that this be done, if it should happen that such a plea is still necessary.
I want to point out that on December 10 of last year, when the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mutch) announced that this legislation would be introduced at this session, I asked him this question as recorded in Hansard at page 3139 of December 10, 1949:


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the parliamentary assistant
answer one question about this if he can? Will this legislation include widows of imperial veterans and the other veterans referred to in the statement he made?


Mr. Mutch:: The answer to that question is yes.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: It still is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to hear the parliamentary assistant say that.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I wonder if 1 might be allowed to interrupt the hon. member, Mr. Speaker. I would have interrupted while others were speaking but I thought perhaps each speaker was the last and I would have the opportunity, without interrupting, to make the point. I think it might save time if I clarified that point now, if I have your permission, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Provided I may resume afterwards.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes, and if I may have the hon. member's permission as well. Without going back into history, the veterans' organizations and my department searched for and worked out some common point or some basic starting point for this, and that was the twenty-year residence in Canada. That is a purely artificial figure. Nevertheless, it seemed to be reasonable, fair, and as good as could be done at this particular time, at any rate. So twenty years it was and is. Consequently, with that as a base, this amendment envisages legislation that will put this group of veterans with twenty years' residence in Canada, whether they die before April 1 or are alive after April 1, on exactly the same basis with respect to themselves and their dependents as though they had been born in Canada and were recipients.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want to thank the minister for interrupting and making that point clear. I had hoped and had dared to believe that that was the situation. I find, in fact, that the section of the act that refers to payments to be made to the widows and orphans says that this applies to widows of veterans as defined in section 4 of this act. I take it, therefore, that what the bill will do, when it is brought in, will be to amend the definition of "veteran" in section 4 of the act so as to include the classes of veterans referred to in the resolution. Once those veterans are defined as veterans for purposes of the act, I take it that any widow of any veteran referred to in the act will qualify. I see the minister nodding his head, and I think that clarifies the point. I am glad that he interrupted to do so.
The next comment I should like to make is in relation to the continuing plea for the War Veterans Allowance Act to be amended so as to include the veterans of world war I who got only as far as England. The hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) has already stated the case quite well so that I need not go into it further, but there is just this that I want to say. On March 16 of this year, as recorded at page 841 of Hansard, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs answered two questions of mine which were as follows:
1.	How many Canadian veterans of world war I, not now eligible for any benefits under the provisions of the War Veterans Allowance Act, could qualify for an allowance thereunder if the United Kingdom were declared a theatre of war in world war I for the purposes of the said act?
2.	How many widows of Canadian veterans 'of world war I, not now eligible for any benefits under the provisions of the War Veterans Allowance Act, could qualify for an allowance thereunder if the United Kingdom were declared a theatre of war in world war I for the purposes of the said act?
War Veterans Allowance Act
This is the answer:


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Statistics covering these categories
have never been compiled.
Estimated number of veterans alive today who served during world war I in the United Kingdom but not in an actual theatre of war as presently defined in the War Veterans Allowance Act: 51,000.
Then there is another sentence that I need not bother to give, and another paragraph in that answer says that the estimated number of widows of veterans who got only to England in world war I would be 7,600.
Some who have looked at these figures have said to me that the large number of them seems to be the reason for the government not acceding to our request that they be included under the provisions of the War Veterans Allowance Act. I understand, however, that as to the 33,000 veterans who are on the war veterans allowance, they represent something in the neighbourhood of 15 per cent of the total number of veterans alive today who saw service in world war I in an actual theatre of war and qualify for war veterans allowance if they meet the means test and other provisions. I think it would be fair to assume that the percentage of those who got only to England and the percentage of widows of those who got only to England would be no higher than the percentage of those who got into France. As a matter of fact, I would imagine that the percentage might be a little bit lower.
All I wanted to do in this portion of my remarks was to point out that if you reduce those figures to 15 per cent, it leaves you with about 7,000 veterans-or a little over- who got only to England in world war I who might qualify if England were made a theatre of war for that war. Similarly, the number of widows of veterans of world war I, where the veteran got to England but did not get to France, would probably not be over 1,000. I realize that those figures, 7,000 veterans and 1,000 widows, are more in number than the number being brought in under the provision that is before us in this resolution; but they still are not extensive numbers and they are a good deal less than the estimates that the parliamentary assistant placed on Hansard at page 841.	-
Despite what the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Hunter) has just said, I feel that we are not asking for too much in pressing our point that England should be made a theatre of war in world war I as it is in world war II and that there should be that uniformity of treatment of veterans and their widows. I hope the point will be considered further, and favourably.
I also want to support those who have argued that the time has come for the amount of the allowance to be increased. Excellent

War \ cterans Allowance Act arguments have been made tonight on all sides for this increase; and as the minister probably knows, he will have equally excellent arguments placed before him in a week or so when representatives of the non-pen-sioned veterans' widows come to Ottawa again and seek an audience with him. I was disappointed earlier in the session when he indicated that he was not at that time prepared to recommend to cabinet that the request of that association be given consideration. I hope that in the weeks that have gone by since then further consideration may have been given to the matter and that we may get at least the figures that have been mentioned tonight, the figures proposed by the Legion, the figures that were mentioned in the resolution by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode), of $50 a month for a single veteran, $85 a month for a married veteran, and $50 a month in the case of a widow.
The next comment I should like to make is in relation to something else that was said earlier this evening. I think it is sometimes referred to as the case of a veteran under domiciliary care. It seems unfair that the wife of a veteran in hospital should suffer the reduction in her income that is the case under the regulations as they now stand. It has been suggested to me-and I think it is a reasonable request-that the wife of a veteran on burnt out pension, who has to go to hospital, should get not less than she will get if she becomes a widow. That happens at the present time. The wife of the veteran who has had to go to hospital, a veteran on burnt out pension, may be cut down pretty low in the amount that she will get; but if the veteran dies and she meets the various qualifications, she may get the $40.41 a month that is now being paid, or $50 a month which we hope will soon be the case. I simply put that suggestion before the minister, that in that situation the amount paid to the wife of a veteran in hospital should certainly not be less than the amount of the allowance that is available to a widow under this act.
One other thought, Mr. Speaker, and I shall take my seat. A good deal has been said this evening by way of comparing the burnt out pension with the old age pension. The comments that have been made were very much to the point, and hon. members generally have appreciated their force. I should like to say this. It seems to me that it would simplify the whole business, and would be a lot fairer to all concerned, if we could soon get to the point where old age pension was paid to all without a means test. I am doing my best toward that end. Then the people who are now made recipients of war veterans
[Mr. Knowles.!

allowances could be made recipients of that proper old age pension at an earlier age. After all, that is what the war veterans allowance was thought to be in the first instance; but as it stands it imposes what is sometimes referred to as a social service burden on the Department of Veterans Affairs. The result is you have two separate means test programs now in effect, namely, the one with respect to the old age pension, and the one with respect to the burnt out pension. It seems to me the simplest way to do it would be for the government-this is a problem not only for the Minister of Veterans Affairs; it is a problem for the government as a whole-to get as quickly as possible to a proper old age pension without a means test. Veterans then who are at whatever age has been decided upon for the old age pension would get it in full without any question, and the legislation could include a provision that veterans ten years younger than the age for the old age pension be entitled to draw that pension at that earlier age, because of their service and because of what that service has done by causing them to age earlier. It might be a good idea for the Minister of Veterans Affairs, or his parliamentary assistant, to draw up a brief and come before our committee on old age security and urge that that be done.
Again I am glad to see the Minister of Veterans Affairs nodding his head. And if a motion is necessary to hear the Minister of Veterans Affairs, or his parliamentary assistant, I am sure that the hon. member to my right, the member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), will be glad to join with me in seeing that that motion is put before the committee.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I know that at this late stage of the debate one might be tempted to repeat unduly and perhaps not present the case as well as it has been presented by so many distinguished speakers who have preceded me this evening. Whatever may be the character of the remarks I have to make, I am hoping to make them shorter than anyone who has preceded me in the debate. I have no desire to go over the field which has been so well traversed in this discussion by those who are so familiar with it. I just want to bring to the minister's attention three points. It is not because I am in any way minimizing the importance of other matters which ought to be and have been brought to his attention, but simply that these three points may perhaps be emphasized at this stage.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I think we should have a standing committee on veterans affairs. Second, I think the Canadian war veterans in


world war I who served in Britain ought to come within the terms of the War Veterans Allowance Act. Third, I think the means test with respect to the war veterans' allowance should be abolished. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. T. J. Kickham (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the resolution as proposed by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg). I am in full agreement with the amendment as brought before the house to extend assistance to veterans other than Canadian citizens at the time of enlistment, and especially with the provision which the minister has incorporated in the resolution, namely, to include former members of the forces of His Majesty's allies who have resided in Canada for not less than twenty years. I think that is a very fair provision.
I am thinking, Mr. Speaker, of another group of war service veterans who were Canadian citizens when they enlisted in the Canadian forces. I have had many letters appealing to me to make recommendations on their behalf. They have written to various Legion branches in some instances. I am referring now particularly to returned veterans of Prince Edward Island who fought with the Canadian forces in the two last wars. Many of these veterans have appealed to me on the ground that their appeals and requests for assistance under the War Veterans Allowance Act and the war veterans pension act have been rejected. They feel very keenly that they have not been used fairly. They feel that they have not been used as they should have been used. They also feel, as do many of their fellow citizens who are non-veterans, like myself, that those men should be accorded better treatment by the department than they have received in the past. I am not criticizing the government nor the Minister of Veterans Affairs in this connection; but I believe that many of these marginal cases that are examined by medical doctors should receive the benefit of the doubt. I do not wish to cause any alarm over the situation, but I do wish to say, as the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) said, that the Canadian veteran has been treated as well as, and possibly better than, any other veteran in the world with the possible exception of the veterans who fought with the United States forces.
Yesterday I had a request from a veteran of the first world war. His case is conspicuous. He enlisted and was placed in category A. He was sent to England, and in preparation for training along the English channel he contracted rheumatism. He was sent before the medical officer, placed in category C and returned to Canada. On making application
20. 1950
War Veterans Allowance Act for some assistance under the War Veterans Allowance Act he was told that the expiry date for receiving such applications was in the year 1936. I am not sure of the date, but it is immaterial. This case appeals to me and I have had one or two other cases brought to my attention. One of these, for instance, was where a war veteran had died and the widow did not receive the pension after the veteran's death. I cannot see any condition that should result in such a decision by the board where, after a veteran has died leaving a widow and a small family, the pension should be discontinued.
In closing my remarks may I repeat that I am fully in accord with the resolution extending the benefits to veterans other than those who were Canadian citizens when they enlisted. But I am appealing to the minister and the government to try to satisfy those needy cases concerning veterans who were Canadian citizens when they enlisted. It would be a grave mistake in connection with the administration of the various acts of government concerned with veterans affairs if a shadow were cast over this beneficial legislation because it did not include those cases where veterans have not received what they considered justice, or received what was not considered justice by ordinary citizens.


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that at long last a measure of this kind has been introduced. Since I came to the House of Commons in 1945 veterans' organizations in Canada have been pressing for the inclusion of the so-called imperial veterans under the provisions of the War Veterans Allowance Act. It certainly marks a distinct step forward to have these benefits under the act thus extended.
I am sorry to see that when this is being done the benefits are not at the same time being extended to those Canadian soldiers who served only in England during the first world war. That matter has been discussed at some length already, so I shall not do more than mention it. I am also disappointed that the amount of the war veterans' allowance is not being increased to at least the amount of old age pensions.
I am glad to hear that some members on the government side of the house are in support of the idea that the allowance should be increased, and also that Canadians who served only in England should be included in the act.
I believe it was the hon. member for Park-dale (Mr. Hunter) who spoke at some length about the expense of doing this, and made the suggestion that it should not be expected that these benefits should be extended to a

War Veterans Allowance Act point where expenses would be unduly increased. May I point out to him and to any others who may have similar ideas that it is only as a result of at least five years of constant effort that the present provision has been introduced so as to extend the benefits of the act to the imperial veterans. It is only by talking constantly about these matters and urging their necessity that we make progress.
So far as the expense involved is concerned, I think it has been indicated by some hon. members already that the expense would not be great. Let me add only this, that the amount of money it would cost could be readily saved by the government's cutting out some of its expensive agencies, and the large amounts spent in travelling expenses and the like. Perhaps these decreases would have good results, even in the departments concerned, and certainly it would be beneficial for the veterans.
Let me speak briefly about the so-called increase granted a year or so ago. The general impression that went out to the country was that war veterans' allowances were being increased by $10 a month. That was not the case. As a matter of fact this $10 was a welfare allowance contingent upon a means test. So far as I know, no one in that part of the country from which I come has received the benefit of that $10; no matter how desperate his circumstances may have been, he just did not get it. How desperate people had to be to get that $10, I do not know; but I do know that three or four people who came to me, and whose cases I took up with the department, were not able to get it. How one's circumstances could be much worse than the circumstances in those cases, it is difficult to imagine.
I do not wish to discuss these matters to any great extent, but I do think a point made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) has some bearing in this connection, and that is that the payment of these war veterans' allowances to people who qualify under the new provisions should be made retroactive to the date on which it was first announced it should be paid. Announcements of this kind raise hopes in people's minds when they know they qualify and will subsequently come under the act. It is a bitter thing, a disappointing thing, to have the allowance promised and then to have it delayed, delayed, delayed, indefinitely. Eventually when it does come, having expected it for so long, this hope deferred has a rather bad effect. From that point of view particularly I suggest payment should be made retroactive at least to the first of this year.
I believe the decentralization feature is a good one. One of the difficulties I have

encountered in various cases which have come to my attention has been the high degree of complaint concerning the red tape involved and the length of time it takes to have the matter cleared up. In some cases an allowance is cut down. The length of time it takes to find out why it has been cut, and to have the matter reviewed, and in some cases adjusted, or some satisfactory explanation given, is in many cases quite out of proportion. Decentralization of authority in the hands of local boards who can handle these matters will get away from much of that difficulty, and make the working of the act more humane and more satisfactory to the recipients.
The desirability of having a standing committee on veterans affairs has been urged by several other hon. members, and I shall only mention it at this time. I believe a considerable number of complaints by veterans could be handled readily and with great advantage to the government and the veterans themselves through the establishment of a committee of that kind. Again I would strongly urge upon the government that such a committee be established.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


George Randolph Pearkes: May we have some further clarification regarding the allowance which would be paid to the widows of imperial pensioners? If an imperial pensioner dies before his 20 years' residence in this country has expired, but his widow has continued to live on here and has resided in Canada for twenty years, will she or will she not be in receipt of the allowance?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No; if the veteran died prior to spending twenty years in Canada, then his widow would not be eligible. As I interjected before, there had to be a time somewhere as a base from which to start. That was twenty years' residence in Canada. One can go back and visualize a veteran coming from Scotland in 1920 with his wife and dying the day he arrived in Halifax. That would be an extreme case. Where between that and the 20-year period would you draw the line? In order to bring these veterans into the same position as those now receiving war veterans' allowances the 20-year residence was taken as the basic factor. If a man came to this country in 1920, lived here until 1940 and died, his wife would be eligible to apply.


George Randolph Pearkes: But the veteran himself must live in Canada for the 20 years?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is right.


George Randolph Pearkes: I was urging that the widow of a veteran who had herself lived in Canada for 20 years should receive the benefits of the act.


Milton Fowler Gregg: If she had service in her own right.


George Randolph Pearkes: Then she would be a veteran herself. The representations that have been made to me have been made on behalf of widows of veterans who died before the 20-year period was up. Has the minister made any inquiry as to how many such widows there are in Canada, that is, widows of imperial veterans who lived here for a certain period of time and then passed away before 20 years' residence had been completed?


Milton Fowler Gregg: In connection with this whole matter of war veterans' allowances and pensions, the widow as such has no rights except those from her veteran husband. In the case of old age pensions the widow would be a person in her own right. If she had never had a husband she could receive an old age pension when she reached a certain age. In this case the allowance is provided to the veteran for the wife while he is alive so that he may have more for himself, if you want to take a selfish view. We studied this matter carefully and could not see the equity of treating the widows of this group any different from those who are already in receipt of war veterans' allowances. If we made it possible for widows of veterans of this group who were in the country for only a year or two to qualify, when we were taking the 20-year period in Canada as essential for the veteran himself before he could qualify, we felt that there would be inequity. Twenty years has been taken as the basic period, both for the veteran himself and for his widow.


George Randolph Pearkes: It is not 20 years for the widow; it is 20 years for the veteran. It does not matter how long the widow may have lived here. After all, the widow has been in partnership with the veteran. The widow of a Canadian veteran who was eligible for war veterans' allowances is entitled to an allowance when she reaches 55 years of age.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: Surely the same principle should apply in this case. There does not seem to be any equity about it. Here is a woman who has lived in Canada for 20 years. If her husband had lived in Canada for 20 years she would be entitled to war veterans' allowance. Because he died, is her postiion any better? If her husband dies is her position so much better? Surely she should receive consideration if she has lived in this country for 20 years. She would have received consideration if her husband had continued to
War Veterans Allowance Act live, but if he has died her position will be more pitiful and she is deprived of the opportunity to receive the allowance that she would have got had her husband lived. We hear about equity but I do not think there is any equity about it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am afraid I thanked the minister a little too readily for the interjection he made during my remarks. I certainly did not understand from what he said at that time that the interpretation was such as he has now given to the hon. member for Nanaimo.


Milton Fowler Gregg: It is exactly the same as I gave to my hon. friend.


George Randolph Pearkes: It is not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The interpretation may be the same, but when we get the details spelled out we run into anomalies such as the hon. member for Nanaimo has pointed out and which are going to have to be ironed out sooner or later. Certainly the widows interested in this matter thought that the statement of the parliamentary assistant on December 10 included all widows of imperial veterans that had been here 20 years. I notice the parliamentary assistant shaking his head. I know that some of these widows in Winnipeg certainly suggested that they were quite happy over the statement.
Let me take the cases of two imperial veterans who came from England in 1925, both being married. The one dies in 1944 and the other dies in 1946. I take it from what the minister has now said that the widow of the veteran who died in 1946, who had lived in Canada 21 years before he died, would qualify, whereas the widow of the veteran who had lived here only 19 years before dying would not qualify. Is that correct?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is quite correct. As in everything else where there is a cut-off date there are always borderline cases. Where that cut-off date creates the effect the hon. member has indicated, the inference he makes would be correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It does not answer the situation just to give a technical explanation like that. It does not seem equitable or fair. It is difficult to think up an example on the spur of the moment but I am sure there will be other cases where a widow who has not lived in Canada as long as the widow to whom I have referred will qualify because the husband could have qualified. I notice the parliamentary assistant nods his head again.
Look at the inequity of the situation. You will have a widow who has not been in Canada very long qualifying, and then on the

War Veterans Allowance Act other hand you will have the widow to whom I just referred who has been in Canada since 1925 not qualifying. Some of these widows are mothers of sons who served in the second war and yet there is no provision for them because they do not meet particular qualifications. I think the minister should think this thing through further.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before the minister answers I should like to ask him a question. We have heard a lot about the widows of imperial veterans, and Canada is generous to them.
I should like to know how many veterans of the Canadian armed services are receiving pensions in Great Britain from the British government. To my knowledge the number would be small, but I would be most interested to have some information about it.
While I am addressing you, sir, I should like to make two other observations. The first has to do with the two secretaries of the minister, Colonel Macbeth and Mr. Bosse. They are most helpful to hon. members who get in touch with them, and I take this opportunity to pay my tribute to them. I can tell you, however, that we have many difficulties with the pension commission. If the returned men were fairly dealt with by that commission there would be no need for allowances.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will explain the link between the first and second parts of my argument.
I am perfectly in order in making that comparison between pensions and allowances because a pension is a matter of right, a debt of the state to a man who has served in one of the three branches of the armed forces. On the other hand an allowance is temporary, a sort of gift or donation. If we have allowances to returned men it is precisely because the pension commission has done nothing for them, or has not done enough. Sometimes a little bonus is given by the allowance branch of the department to men already in receipt of pensions because those pensions are too small. This is nonsense. Such cases should be reviewed by the commission and such men should be dealt with as they deserve, as a matter of right. I have had this in mind to say for a long time.
It is surprising how many reasons the pension commission can find for refusing an application on behalf of a returned man. Not only that; in many cases men suffer from disabilities resulting from their service, and undoubtedly are entitled to pension. That is the spirit and letter of the act. Nothing is given them, however, because the pension commission is inactive and serves very little purpose except to refuse applications. Then we have to call upon the allowance board to


redress the wrongs caused by the pension commission. That is pretty hard to think of. The minister has been most fair with me, but he knows I want to have as little as possible to do with the pension commission. I am fed up with them; it is a waste of time.
As to the allowance board, they are supposedly economical, and give allowances with a dropper. It is not an open tap, just a dropper in most cases. I give the minister credit; he has one of the finest war records, and he does his best when any case is submitted to him. But we strike an obstacle at once, and that obstacle is always the pension commission. The men who make up that commission have fine war records, but that is no defence when we have a justifiable claim that is rejected. I know of many men who cannot get justice from this pension board, and I complain bitterly about it as a member of parliament and as a friend of the soldiers. How is it that some cases dating back to the first war have not been settled yet? 1 know some men who were powerfully built. They were in the trenches for many months, sleeping in the mud, suffering from cold-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must ask him to keep his remarks relevant to the subject under discussion.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I finish my sentence?


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon.- member may complete his sentence.


Jean-François Pouliot: While these men apparently were in class A at the time of their discharge, later they were found to be suffering from disabilities due to war service that had not appeared at that time. That is why they were not dealt with at a time when the pension commission was more generous than it is now.


Howard Charles Green: May I suggest to the minister through you, Mr. Chairman, that he give consideration to making the test the date the veteran came to Canada. If he came to Canada twenty years ago, the widow should be eligible. I think that is the idea we all had, but on the basis of the minister's statement no widow whose husband died before 1940 can possibly establish eligibility. None of these imperials came here before 1920. Many of them came after that, up to as late as 1930. If the act is to read as the minister suggests, the widow of a man who came here in 1930 and is now dead has no possible chance of getting the allowance. I do not think the proposal made by the minister meets the wishes of the great majority of the members of this house. 1 think we all feel the same way about it, and I suggest that he try to work out an amendment which will

provide that if the husband came here twenty years ago the widow may get entitlement.


Mr. Applewhaite:: May I ask the minister if there are any widows of Canadian veterans drawing pensions or allowances under the act whose husbands did not qualify for and receive the war veterans' allowance?


Ray Thomas: I want to add my protest to those already expressed. I think this is a case of gross discrimination. I do not believe any widow should be penalized because of the death of her husband. I am sure it was not her fault if she could not keep him alive for twenty years, and the chances are that she did not contribute in any way to his death. I believe this matter should be considered more fully, because after all these widows have contributed their share toward the welfare of the country even after the death of their husbands.


Milton Fowler Gregg: There are just two points I desire to mention. First, I should like to thank hon. members for the constructive suggestions that were made, and I shall attempt to deal with them later. There are two points I want to make with regard to what has been said latterly. First, in response to a direct question asked by the member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), I may say there is nothing equivalent to the burnt-out pension or war veterans' allowance granted by the British government to Canadians resident in England.
20,	1950
War Veterans Allowance Act


Frank Exton Lennard: That is not what was asked. The member asked about pensions.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I understood he was speaking about pensions. The other point regarding widows, I am not going to discuss at length. The basis of this whole legislation is that it is for veterans. It is for that reason we have taken it that twenty years' residence in Canada would bring benefits to these veterans and their dependents equal to those who had served in the Canadian forces, and who are now in receipt of a war veterans' allowance.


George Randolph Pearkes: Can the minister give an answer to the question I asked concerning the number of widows?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I have not that information before me, but I shall try to get it.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we shall spend the day on estimates, first the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and then veterans affairs.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister whether it is the intention to go right ahead with the estimates of the first department until they are completed?


Alphonse Fournier: We are ready to go ahead if nobody stops us.
It being five minutes after eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Friday, April 21, 1950