1952-04-29

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. B. McCulloch (Piclou) presented the third report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
-REFERENCE TO AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE
Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, before motions are proceeded with, and in view of the discussion we had yesterday, I should like to make a suggestion to the house. I have before me a motion moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) which was passed on March 12 and referred to yesterday. This reads as follows:
For a copy of all communications that passed between veterinary officials either provincial or federal and the federal Department of Agriculture, together with all records since the 17th day of November, 1951, relative to the cattle epidemic of vesicular stomatitis or foot-and-mouth disease in Saskatchewan, also all certificates or statements of analysis showing the results of the chemical examination of suspected specimens of either of said cattle diseases.
I should like to say to the house, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the first part of the motion, "for a copy of all communications that passed between veterinary officials either provincial or federal and the federal Department of Agriculture", cannot be acceded to because I have not been able to find any such documents on the record. Then the motion goes on:
. . . together with all records since the 17th day of November, 1951, relative to the cattle epidemic of vesicular stomatitis or foot-and-mouth disease in Saskatchewan . . .
There is some doubt in my mind as to whether there is very much in the way of records in connection with this matter. There are on the files of the department, either here or at Regina, but mostly here, communications between the officials of the department. That is to say, one official would say to another, "we are doing so and so," and suggest to him 55704-107
what he should do. I submit that that kind of record has always been considered to be privileged, provided that the minister desires it should be privileged. This has been the general practice, and I think one can easily understand why it should be so. I am not going to refer to Beauchesne or Bourinot in connection with the matter, further than to say it is indicated in many places that unless that were the general rule it would be difficult to carry on government as a government should be carried on. I quite agree with that.
That has been the general practice. As a matter of fact, shortly after I came into this house no less a parliamentarian than the late Lord Bennett gave me a lecture on it which I have never forgotten. I think it has been generally admitted that kind of thing is privileged.
I realize that this is a rather unusual situation in that everybody has been more or less stirred up over the fighting of foot-and-mouth disease and is naturally interested in it. If the house agrees, I am quite prepared to table what is looked upon as privileged- that is, to table all the communications which are on the file. There is nothing in any of them that the government need be concerned about making available. They are the usual communications that pass back and forth between officials when they are administering anything in any department. I am quite prepared to table them all, but I should like to suggest to the house that it might approve a motion which I should like to move without notice. I know that the rules of the house require that I give two days' notice.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: To alter the order, I presume.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not to alter the order at all. I am prepared to accept the order in spite of the fact that it is poorly drawn.


John George Diefenbaker: It was drawn well enough to cause the minister trouble.


James Garfield Gardiner: I now move:
That the subject of the prevalence of foot-and mouth disease in the province of Saskatchewan and its attendant ramifications be referred immediately to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: A nice cover-up.


James Garfield Gardiner: Again I say that I know I require the unanimous consent of the house. If I have not unanimous consent, then I should
1682	HOUSE OF
Foot-and-mouth disease-Documents like the house to take it as a notice of motion and we can discuss the matter at a later time.
I think it should be recognized by the house that the officials of the department have some interest in this kind of thing. It is all very well to say that we in the house have an interest in it. We have, but men who have made their lifework the work of a department have some interest in it too. Because of the discussions that have taken place here, I assume that the meetings of the standing committee on agriculture are going to be more or less of a trial of the individuals responsible for the administration of the health of animals branch of the Department of Agriculture. In fairness to these men I think I should not place on the table of the house documents which will be a part of the evidence-practically all the evidence that will be produced -before the country and put the officials in a position where they will have to wait three or four days or a week and listen to the discussion of these documents throughout the country and see it in the press without their having any opportunity to be heard.
I think it would be helpful if we could permit this matter to be dealt with immediately by the committee. The committee is meeting tomorrow morning. It was being called to consider the wheat board report and to organize for that purpose. Instead of doing that it can occupy its time by going immediately into this question. My suggestion is that by unanimous consent the house should agree to the committee going immediately into a discussion of the question tomorrow, with the knowledge that I am quite prepared to put all the documents on the table of the house, whether privileged or otherwise, and leave them in the hands of hon. members.


Mr. Coldwell:: May I ask the minister a question? Perhaps I should address the Minister of Justice. Do these documents include the report I asked for yesterday, namely, the report made by "F" division, C.I.B., Regina town station, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, dated March 20, 1952, with respect to the Animal Contagious Diseases Act?


Mr. Garson:: Replying to my hon. friend's question, I may say that in the administration of the mounted police we cannot permit the production of confidential police reports of this kind. If we do, we destroy the whole value of securing them, for reasons which I explained yesterday.


Major James William Coldwell: I understand there is no security involved in this case.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The position is that when police reports are prepared upon any matter at all they are prepared upon the assumption that they are confidential and are not going to be produced anywhere. A lot of information is put in them on that basis that would under no circumstances be put into a document which was not prepared with that in view. Therefore for many years the department has resisted the production of such documents, and we must continue to do so. For that matter I do not think they would' shed a great deal of light upon the question in any event, because what should be concerned here is largely a matter of people speaking about animal diseases who are qualified experts in that field.


Major James William Coldwell: I understand the report
discusses the quarantine and the manner in which it was carried out. It seems to me that is of as much importance to the committee as any other document.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: With respect to the last point raised by my hon. friend, if he is concerned about establishing the facts as to the quarantine there is no reason why he cannot establish them by having the policemen called who were in charge of establishing the quarantine and having them give their evidence orally to the committee. That would be much more satisfactory than reading a report with speculation and the like in it.


John George Diefenbaker: To
begin with, I want to say that the minister's explanation today is merely an exculpatory method of refusing to carry out the will of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: An order was passed by the house on March 12 with the minister's consent and approval. Time has gone by. On April 7 an inquiry was made about the matter, and the same course of procrastination and postponement was followed then. The minister now says: I will comply in my own way with the order of parliament. That is an added affront to parliament. No one can atone for his failure to give the full record to parliament by simply saying: I am not going to do it in the way parliament orders; I have my own alternative which I now offer.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: There is no alternative.


John George Diefenbaker: This matter is a serious one. Unless members of parliament can rely on records being brought down when parliament so orders; unless parliament can rely on the fact that the records possessed by the departments will not be selectively reviewed,
1683,

with the ones that can cause no difficulty being produced and the rest concealed, then an order of parliament means nothing.
Yesterday the minister made this unusual statement, as found at page 1649 of Hansard. He said:
There are some documents-as a matter of fact, I did not know this one was in existence and I do not know how the hon. member found out about it. The only document that was mentioned is the one which I think the government official who sent the message should be in a position to deal with.
I ask that the minister table these records in parliament.


Mr. St. Laurent:: He said he would.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask that he do not make them subject to what a committee may decide or consider proper.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: He has; offered to table them right away.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask that they be tabled in the house. That is the only way for the house to be satisfied that the order has been carried out. I hope that what took place yesterday will not be repeated. As to consenting to proceeding with the motion the minister has introduced, my personal submission is that I can see no reason for the house to give such consent. There is only one way in which to comply with an order of the house, and that is to table the record. What I requested yesterday was that the record and documents the minister has should be tabled. That was voted down when I tried to secure action on the part of the government. It was then that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) might very well have risen and said to his minister: Produce the documents.
I ask that these documents be tabled now, and that no subterfuge be adopted whereby parliament must submit to a committee the right to say what parliament shall have.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: In view of the hon. member's intimation as to what I should have done yesterday, may I remind him that the request he made yesterday was that Mr. Speaker make an order in the exercise of his powers. Mr. Speaker decided that he had no power to make such an order, that it could be made only by the house itself. It was against that decision that an appeal was taken and a vote registered, not at all upon the question whether any special document should have been laid on the table.
The hon. member does not appear to have been any more attentive to what was being said today than he was to what took place yesterday, because today the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said that in spite 55704-107J
Foot-and-mouth disease-Documents of the fact that in his view it was not usual to table certain of these documents, he was quite prepared to lay the whole file on the. table. He merely added that because of the; understanding from the very first day this house met that this matter would be referred to the select committee on agriculture, he proposed doing today what in my experience has always been done and what was done no later than yesterday, when by leave of the house there was a motion by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to refer to a committee the reports he had tabled.


John George Diefenbaker: These are not reports.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is something which in my experience is current practice; but if there is objection to its being done without notice, the hon. gentleman or any other hon. gentleman has only to say he objects and it cannot be done without notice. Then notice will be placed in Votes and Proceedings and the motion will be called when the forty-eight hours have expired.
There have been complaints within the last few days because this matter has not yet got to the committee on agriculture, but apparently when a move is made to have it brought before the committee a technical objection is raised. It is the right of any hon. member to raise such an objection if he. thinks the public interest or any other interest will be served thereby, and I am-sure His Honour would not put this motion until he had satisfied himself there was no such objection.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask one question to get this clear in my mind? I understand that the minister now proposes to do what he refused to do yesterday, namely, table the documents in question, but that he is making that conditional upon the house accepting the motion to refer the matter to the committee.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No.


Major James William Coldwell: The Prime Minister says
that is not so. What does the minister say?.


James Garfield Gardiner: I thought I made it very plain that if it is the wish of the house, as I understand it is, I am quite prepared to table all the documents, but I want to go on record as saying that I am tabling documents which are usually privileged in this house. In other words I do not want to be presumed to be committing anyone in future to what I am doing on this occasion. I am quite prepared to lay on the table of the house all the documents that by any stretch of the imagination can be brought under this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

Foot-and-mouth disease-Documents


James Garfield Gardiner: I am prepared to lay on the table all those I think ought to be there and all those anybody else might think should be there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just wait until I get through. I am prepared to lay on the table all those anybody might think should be there, and there are no others in the record. They will all be laid on the table.


Major James William Coldwell: May I suggest to the minister that he table the documents and then move his motion referring the matter to the committee, because apparently there is confusion in the house.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is one thing I would like to impress upon everyone here; whether or not it has any effect upon the hon. member for Lake Centre I must say it anyway. Yesterday the worst case of foot-and-mouth disease we have yet had broke out. We should not have officials who should be out fighting this disease down here before a committee any longer than is necessary, and I think it is most important that these proceedings be started tomorrow. I am not making that as a condition in connection with the tabling of the documents; I am prepared to table all the documents unless the house should say I must not do so in order to protect something or other. I am quite prepared to table them.


An hon. Member:: Table them.


James Garfield Gardiner: All right. My hon. friend says I refused to table them yesterday. I did not refuse to table them yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Garfield Gardiner: Let us get this thing straight. A little laughing is not going to help it any; this is not a laughing matter. I said yesterday that these documents would be available at what I thought was the proper time. Perhaps it was not the proper thing to say but I said they would be available. The only thing I have in mind is that civil servants ought to have some rights in connection with a matter of this kind. I am not going to try to be the defender of the civil servants in connection with this matter. I am going to listen to their evidence, and I presume every member of that committee will do the same thing. Then when they have heard all the evidence they will make up their minds. But I am sure the hon. member for Lake Centre will agree that there never has been a case brought before any court in which it has been a good thing to prepare the public for a decision in a certain direction before the evidence has been heard.
I think we should start in tomorrow morning hearing the evidence. I am not making

that a condition, but I believe it should be done. If the house will not agree to that, then I ask-I said this before, but I want to repeat it-that what I have said today be considered as notice so the question may be brought up forty-eight hours hence. I repeat that I do not think forty-eight hours should be taken up in that way. Already, I have had to order one of the officials who should be out in Saskatchewan to remain here so he would be available any time this matter came up, in order that hon. members might question him. I think we should expedite that hearing as much as possible, and that is the only idea I have in mind. We have nothing to be concerned about in connection with this, any more than any other members of the house. For that reason I am quite prepared to lay these documents o.n the table; and I now do so. You can deal with them as you see fit, but I still think we should have the committee meet tomorrow.
I now move:
That the subject of the prevalence of foot-and-mouth disease in the province of Saskatchewan and its attendant ramifications be referred immediately to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister having properly and graciously complied with the order of the house, certainly that is all we want. Let me say to the Prime Minister, however, in reply to his gratuitous remark as to whether the public interest or any other interest is served, that the interest of parliament must be served; and that was the purpose of bringing up this matter on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The house has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Motion (Mr. Gardiner) agreed to.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:: That a select committee be appointed to consider a bill respecting allowances for war veterans and their dependents, and to consider such other matters relating to veterans affairs that may be referred to the committee; with power to send for persons, papers and records; to print its proceedings, and report from time to time to the house; that the provisions of section 1, standing order 65, be waived in respect to this committee; and that the said committee shall consist of the following members:	Messrs. Balcer, Balcom, Bennett, Blair,
Brooks, Carter, Corry, Croll, Cruickshank, Dickey, George, Gillis, Green, Harkness, Herridge, Hosking, Jutras, Langlois (Gaspe), Larson, Lennard, Mac-Dougall, McWilliam, Mott, Mutch, Quelch, Roberge, Ross (Souris), Thomas, Tremblay, Weaver, White (Hastings-Peterborough).


Mr. Brooks:: Is the minister going to give us an explanation?


Hugues Lapointe: I hardly think this resolution calls tor any lengthy explanation. It is the usual resolution setting up a committee to study the legislation which will be introduced following the other resolutions now on the order paper.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am extremely pleased that the minister is setting up this committee. The only regret is that it was not set up sooner. I understand that there is a rush now to get through these resolutions before the house so that we may set up the committee and hear the views of the veterans within the next few days. This rush is just a further argument for a standing committee of this house on veterans affairs. This is a matter which has been brought before the house on a number of occasions, not only by me but by other members as well.
I do not think there is any more important subject with which this house has to deal than that of veterans affairs. There are quite a number of standing committees, and many of them never sit at all. Year after year they are set up and simply exist on paper, but the veterans affairs committee is one that could and should sit every year. Since 1935 when I came to this house we have had almost yearly veterans affairs committees. We had a committee last year, one in 1948, one in 1945, and one in 1946. This is an indication that the veterans affairs committee should be set up as a permanent institution of this house.
As I said a moment ago, veterans affairs are most important and are becoming increasingly important. After the first war we had only the first war veterans with which to deal. Today we have the veterans of the second world war, and we shall have the veterans from the Korean war. It is difficult to estimate how many veterans we may have in the future. A standing committee on veterans affairs has also been urged by all the veterans organizations across this country. They have made their recommendations to the cabinet. Therefore I ask that this matter be given favourable consideration by the government.
We may think that we have veterans affairs fairly well settled, but the changing conditions in the cost of living and in the manner of living in this country make changes necessary in this type of legislation. Just a few days ago I noticed that in the maritime provinces the officials of the Veterans Land Act were meeting. They were very much concerned over the fact that many of the young men who had been placed on the farms were
Committee on Veterans Affairs now leaving them. They found it impossible to carry on under the regulations which had been issued. I do not see any mention of that matter in any of the resolutions which are on the order paper today.
I might refer also to the number of members on this committee. Today it is thirty-one, the same as last year when we criticized the small number on the committee. In 1945, for instance, there were sixty members of that committee; in 1948 the smallest committee we had was thirty-five. There are a large number of veterans in this house, and I think we could easily increase the number on that committee. I am not going to press the point, Mr. Speaker, because it is not as important as the setting up of a permanent committee on veterans affairs, nor is it as important as another matter to which I should like to refer for a few minutes.
The terms of reference of a committee are, of course, the most important part of the resolution setting up the committee. We may ask ourselves whether our present terms of reference are broad enough. In my opinion they are not. The terms of reference in 1945 and 1946 were entirely different from those which we had in 1951, and different from the terms of reference which we have before us today. In 1945 we were permitted to consider all the legislation passed since the commencement of the war with Germany with regard to pensions, treatment, re-establishment, hospitalization, and so on. The committee was given very broad scope. In 1946 the terms were broad enough to consider nearly all veterans questions. Last year and this year, in my opinion, the terms of reference have been very narrow. For instance, in 1951 we considered them so narrow we tried to have them amended in the house to include the War Veterans Allowance Act. This motion was voted down, but repeatedly in the sessions of the committee we asked that this matter be referred back to the house so that the terms of reference might be broadened to include what we considered the most important matters concerning veterans.
I consider that last year the committee's hands were tied, and the results indicated that our terms were not broad enough to consider the matters which we all agreed should have been considered. I really think it is not unfair to say that last year the committee was an abortive committee, and that it did very little that was of benefit to the veteran. Some good matters came before the committee. For instance, the widows receive the full orphan rate for children. There is an allowance for children, continued up to the age of 21, where they are making educational progress. But these were not the broad

Committee on Veterans Affairs matters which the veterans across the country-wished to have considered. The two important matters which should have been before that committee last year were an increase in the basic rate of pension and an increase in the war veterans allowance. Most of the time of the committee last year was taken up not in considering matters which were referred to the committee but rather in considering matters which were not, but which we considered should have been, before the committee at that time.
Time and time again veterans organizations appearing before the committee emphasized the fact that they considered that the reference was too narrow and that these two important matters, namely, the basic rate of pension and the war veterans allowance, should have been before the committee for discussion.
I might say that one good result of the committee's work was that the opposition members and the veterans organizations across Canada put up such a strong argument for an increase in the basic rate of pension that at the fall session last year this matter was considered-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: -and it had to be considered) 'by the government. At that time an increase was made in the basic rate of pension. But the other matter which also should have been considered at that time, the war veterans allowance, was not considered. The veterans had to wait many months for an increase in the basic rate of pension-


An hon. Member:: By-election.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: -and now they have had to - wait almost a year for an increase in the war veterans allowance. My hon. friend can have the opportunity to speak, If he wishes to do so; and if there is anything I say which the facts will not bear out, I should like the hon. member to get up and point it out. He cannot do it.
As I say, the war veterans allowance should have been considered. For nearly a year, hardship has -been forced upon the old veterans of this country. They were made to wait another year. They were made to wait during a time when the cost of living was continually increasing. There has been considerable suffering. I will venture to say that there is not a member of this house who has not received many letters from war veterans across Canada pointing out the suffering and the injustice to which they have been subjected over this last year, because,


as I say, we were not allowed to consider this most important matter in the veterans affairs committee a year ago.
These letters speak about the reduction in the war veterans allowance, for instance, and count on an increase in the pension. When we put through in this house legislation giving old age security allowances to men and women to whom it was not financially necessary to give assistance, these war veterans-a segment of our population which needed assistance perhaps more than did any other people in this country-were denied this right.
As I have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, there are two matters which should have received more consideration from this house in connection with veterans affairs. One is the question of setting up a permanent standing committee on veterans affairs which could take up yearly these matters which, of necessity, must come before it. The second is the broadening of our terms of reference so that when veterans matters arise we as a veterans affairs committee will be in a position to deal with them.
I do not intend, sir, to labour this matter any further. In view of the fact that the terms of reference are again, in my opinion, too narrow to include, for instance, this matter of the Veterans Land Act and other matters I could mention, I should like to move the following amendment:
That the resolution be amended by striking out the word "such" in the third line and substituting the word "any," and in the fourth line striking out the words "that may be referred to the committee."
The resolution would then read as follows:
That a select committee be appointed to consider a bill respecting allowances for war veterans and their dependents, and to consider any other matters relating to veterans affairs, with power to send for persons, papers and records;-
And so on. The rest of the resolution is the same as it appears on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: There is a rule to the effect that the powers of a committee cannot be enlarged by an amendment. I ruled on this point before. The pertinent section of Beauchesne's third edition is citation 546, the second paragraph of which reads in part as follows:
When the house is considering a motion, of which notice has been given, for the appointment of a select committee, a member cannot move in amendment that the committee be given wider powers than those which were set down in the notice.
I would think this amendment gives the committee considerably wider powers than those which are set down in the notice. Accordingly, I cannot allow the amendment to stand.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Possibly the minister would accept the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, I think what has just taken place in the house points up the necessity for a standing committee on veterans affairs. We in the opposition try to get references to these committees widened in order to deal with matters which are constantly being brought up in our constituencies and in the country generally, but the government, by the terms of reference to the committee, limit our ability to represent the people who really want to have their cases put before the house.
We in this house passed a veterans charter. It was fairly broad in its terms, and was a reasonably good act, but to say it was a reasonably good act does not mean that it cannot be improved upon. It does not mean that difficulties in administration do not necessarily arise from time to time. With regard to the regulations under the veterans charter, the Veterans Land Act and various other acts, I am sure that hon. members on the government side have had brought to them problems which indicate that there is need for constant supervision, revision and scrutiny of those acts and of the regulations made thereunder.
After all, when we enact a law it is fairly general in its provisions; it is the administration of the act, and the regulations which are passed under it, which make it either effective or ineffective. We have had reasonably good administration; nevertheless hon. members who are going out to their constituents between sessions, meeting them and discussing their problems with them, have a better idea than any other group of how these regulations are affecting veterans in the different parts of the country. Therefore there should be a permanent veterans affairs committee of the house.
I have a resolution on the order paper to that effect. It is No. 11 on today's order paper, and reads:
The following proposed resolution: That standing order 63 be amended by inserting therein immediately after subsection (1) the following new subsection:
(m) On veterans affairs, to consist of 35 members, 10 of whom shall constitute a quorum.
Unfortunately, private members' days are being curtailed from now on, and we shall not reach this resolution on the order paper. The motion which is now before the house to set up this committee points out the necessity of a permanent committee, because at least in every second session of parliament
Committee on Veterans Affairs we have to set up a veterans affairs committee to deal with these things. Why not have a permanent committee to which could be sent references wide enough to deal with all the veterans problems that are constantly being brought before us?
I do not want to go into the details of this matter at this time, because there are various resolutions on the order paper having to do with the amendments which the government is proposing at this session. The amendments which are to be brought in under these resolutions may be good, or they may not. We have not a copy of the legislation yet. Unfortunately the legislation will be confined to certain specific amendments of specific acts. We shall not be able to deal with the other acts in the veterans affairs committee. I would urge the minister and the government to give serious consideration to setting up a permanent committee of the house to deal with veterans matters so that year by year, as we meet here in parliament, the committee can be called together, and we, as veterans of the house, can get together to discuss these problems and improve the veterans charter which the government, rightly, I think, was quite proud of when it was adopted. Surely the government should be prepared to do that; surely it should be prepared to give an opportunity to hon. members to place the problems of their constituents and the veterans in their constituencies before the committee regularly, and to suggest amendments that should be made to keep our veterans charter up to date.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, we in this group are glad to support the resolution to set up a special committee to consider amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act. But we also regret that the terms of reference have not been widened sufficiently to make it possible for that committee to deal with any matter that it may consider it should be allowed to deal with. In spite of the way in which the resolution is worded, I hope that the government will see fit to allow discussion on any matter that the committee may consider should be discussed.
For instance, we all know now that last year, as a result of the curtailing of the terms of reference to exclude any discussion of the War Veterans Allowance Act, a lot of hard feeling was caused in that committee; not only hard feeling in that committee but hard feeling in the various veterans organizations throughout the dominion. As a result, last year we did not have the same degree of harmony in the committee as was usually prevalent in former committees.

Committee on Veterans Affairs
I do not want this to be interpreted as a criticism of the way in which the chairman of that committee, the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch), conducted the hearings. I have always had a very high appreciation of the way in which that hon. member has acted in his capacity as chairman of the committee. I have always felt that that hon. member has a very keen desire to do everything in his power to advance the interests of this country.
I do think that the government should give consideration to making the veterans committee a permanent standing committee of this house, and that it should adopt the practice of referring to that committee the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs in exactly the same way that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) refers the estimates of his department to the external affairs committee. Such action would make it possible for us to keep up to date on the operations of the various functions of his department, and it would also help to expedite the passing of his estimates.
This is a large department; it handles a great deal of money, and it is very hard for hon. members to keep up to date on the various activities of the department. In view of the fact that this is only a special committee, and not an annual committee, I hope that the minister will, this year at any rate, when the briefs of the Legion and of other organizations are presented before it, allow a full discussion on any matter that is brought up that the committee feels should be discussed in full; otherwise a lot of bitterness will be engendered in the committee, in exactly the same way as happened last year.


Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: I should like to add my voice to that of those advocating that there be a permanent veterans affairs committee, and that the committee meet annually to consider the affairs of veterans of this country. May I remind hon. members that if it had not been for the veterans of 1812, 1898, 1914 and 1939 there would be no houses of parliament sitting at Ottawa today. The veterans of the recent war and of previous wars have defended this country and this parliament against aggressors with mighty armies who were determined to stop this parliament from functioning.
When certain Liberal members of this house interrupt a veteran of the 1914-18 war who is pleading on behalf of the veterans of Canada, I think it is a disgrace. I think it is a disgrace for any man to interrupt a plea on behalf of a veteran or of any group of veterans.

The veterans affairs committee should be a permanent standing committee; it should be available at any time to meet the demands, requests and considerations that are made necessary by the changes that occur from time to time. Today we have advertisements prominently displayed in newspapers and various weeklies across this country asking the young men to join the air force, join the infantry, join the navy. What we are really saying to these men is this: Offer your lives, offer your arms, offer your health; offer yourself to become permanently disabled in the defence of your people and of this country. That is what we are asking these men to do, and it certainly does not behoove any member of this House of Commons to speak flippantly or to interrupt a veteran who is pleading on behalf of veterans.
There is a war on today, and it is not the last war. Hon. members know that in their hearts. The number of veterans is increasing, and their demands are increasing. It will be an honour for any man to sit on that committee, a great honour to serve to the best of his ability, to be fair and just to the men who have given their all in defence of this parliament and in defence of the people of Canada.


Mr. G. S. While (Haslings-Pelerborough):: I wish to concur in the remarks made by the previous speakers. I regret that the minister indicated so readily that he would not agree to or approve of any extension of the terms of reference. If that is an indication that we are going to have the same type and kind of veterans affairs committee that we had in the first session of 1951, then I regret it very much, because I would point out to the minister that the effect of that committee is still felt throughout the country. When you go home you find that -the veterans cannot understand why certain matters in which they were keenly interested were not discussed. The veteran cannot understand why his member was not allowed to bring those matters up before the veterans committee. It is no good trying to explain to a meeting of the Legion the details of parliamentary procedure, terms -of reference and things of that nature.
I suggest to the minister that he adopt the method followed when the late Right Hon. Ian Mackenzie was minister of veterans affairs. I can remember him dealing with a similar resolution and telling us that the -committee would be wide open and that any matter pertaining to the welfare of the veteran would be open for discussion. I notice that there is -a bill on the order paper referring to pensions, and the order paper indicates the three thing-s the bill will cover. I assume that when that bill -comes before

the committee our hands will be tied as far as the Pension Act is concerned except as it relates to those three items.
I would like to hear the minister say right now that the committee will be permitted to discuss any matter referring to the Pension Act. Another matter that I know hon. members will want to discuss is the Veterans Land Act. A case came to my attention only a short time ago where a veteran who had not taken up his reestablishment credit wished to purchase a farm, but he found that that was impossible with the amount of his credit. I think the minister will be the first to admit that farm values have increased greatly, and that veteran found that the $1,200 he was entitled to was totally insufficient. There are many other matters that members of the committee and of this house would desire to have brought before this special committee on veterans affairs.
We probably will not have a committee set up during the session of 1953. I appeal to the minister to say now that any matter pertaining to the welfare of the Canadian veteran can be brought before this committee for discussion.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks are going to be short, sharp and to the point, because I should be upstairs right now at a committee meeting. This matter of setting up a permanent committee on veterans affairs is not new; it has been discussed on several occasions and I am in agreement with the suggestion. In fact I advocated it four years ago.
One of the things I am concerned with is the terms of reference of this committee. Rather than being a committee on veterans affairs, it is being set up as a legislative examining committee. The only prerogative the committee is to have is the right to examine any legislation the government may send to it. There are four bills on the order paper and the committee is to have the right to examine that legislation.
I do not know what the Legion has in mind. The only representations I have seen so far in their publication is with regard to the amendments to the Veterans Land Act. That may be all that they have in mind at the present time. There is one aspect of the Pension Act which I should like to see opened up for discussion. I refer to decisions that disabilities are of pre-enlistment origin. I think there is considerable room for the examination of that type of decision. I know it is based on medical evidence and the attestation papers, but I have seen cases
Committee on Veterans Affairs where the decision was not what it should have been even based on that evidence.
I do not intend to carry on a prolonged discussion. I have always felt that the time to raise arguments of this sort was on the second reading of the bill. I believe the committee should examine the legislation and when it comes back for ratification if we consider there is anything wrong we can argue accordingly.
If the terms of reference of this committee are to be held down, as is indicated, friction and trouble and difficulty will be created. I think the minister would be well advised to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), but should insist that the first order of business of the committee should be to deal with the bills now on the order paper. Then if there are other matters which the committee want to discuss, it would be free to do so.
I am a member of this committee, but I believe that a permanent committee should be set up to examine legislation from year to year. I believe also that the terms of reference of this committee should be broadened so that we may discuss other matters once we have completed the business sent to the committee by the government. That would prevent a lot of friction and difficulty and wrangling in the committee and in the final analysis would save considerable time.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, I have advocated the setting up of a standing committee on veterans affairs to deal with problems affecting the veteran. Some years ago when the veterans charter was evolved we thought that that was fine legislation for the veteran, but changes have occurred since that time and there is a great variety of problems that now face our veterans. I am quite satisfied that the terms of reference of this committee as set forth in the resolution are not broad enough. I think that is most unfortunate. When a committee was set up a year ago the Legion presentation of May 17, 1951, had this to say:
Therefore, the Canadian Legion cannot be satisfied with the legislation before this committee. There are no recommendations for improvement in the basic rate of pensions nor is there any mention at all of war veterans allowance, the two principal problems affecting veterans today.
They go on in that vein. I am happy to think that as a result of the efforts of the council of the Canadian Legion and the public as a whole the government were forced to amend the basic pension for veterans during the last session. They did that despite the fact that the terms of reference of the committee of that time did not provide for a discussion of that particular item.
1690	HOUSE OF
Committee on Veterans Affairs
I think the terms of reference should be made broad enough so that we might be able to discuss all veterans problems. I know that many of the veterans of the present war are finding some difficulty in getting rehabilitated. The Veterans Land Act has been referred to. This act is absolutely inadequate. It was niggardly enough at the time it was brought into being, but with the present increased cost of farm machinery, livestock, land, production and other items it is absolutely impossible for a young man to be set up under that act.
During the past few months a survey was conducted in Ontario to find out what was necessary to set up a young man, not a veteran, on a farm. It was found that it required approximately $15,000. The necessary legislation was introduced into the legislature whereby any young man with the necessary qualifications who has been a resident in the province for three years can be established on a farm with a maximum outlay of $15,000, of which he must supply $3,000.
That is evidence of the total inadequacy of the Veterans Land Act. There is no provision to discuss that act at this particular time and therefore we will not be able to discuss many of the problems facing the veterans of past wars and of the present war. I am sorry the minister has not accepted the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) that any provision of the Veterans Land Act may be discussed by the committee.
Again may I repeat that I should like to see a standing committee on veterans affairs constituted which could consider veterans affairs at each session of the house. I hope the minister will see that the chairman has some latitude, and that we will have broader terms of reference than are provided in the resolution before us so that we can adequately discuss the various problems pertaining to the veterans of this country.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), I am going to make my remarks short and relatively sweet. I must say that personally I am very pleased to see that the government and the minister have decided to introduce this motion providing for the re-establishment of the veterans affairs committee. However, I most wholeheartedly support the pleas of previous speakers as to the necessity for a permanent committee on veterans affairs. Veterans affairs are of such growing magnitude and importance that they require a standing committee to review veterans legislation


constantly and to take note of changing situations and circumstances. A very good illustration was given by the hon.. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) when he mentioned the completely inadequate terms of the Veterans Land Act in some respects so far as settling men on farms under present prices and conditions is concerned. In the second place, the new conditions are creating great difficulties in connection with administration and the giving of satisfactory effect to the terms of the small holdings section of the Veterans Land Act. A great deal of other veterans legislation is constantly affected by changing conditions and circumstances.
I also support the pleas that have been made for wider terms of reference. I think there is no question that the resolution gives the committee wider terms of reference than the motion placed on the order paper at the last session. However, I think the suggestion of members that we should have an opportunity to examine any matter of concern to veterans of this country is sound. I notice the minister is listening most carefully. I hope he has listened most sympathetically to the representations of members on this side of the house with respect to the particular things they have been concerned about this afternoon, the necessity for a standing committee of the house on veterans affairs, and the widening of the terms of reference contained in the motion.


Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have been requested by the local command of the Canadian Legion in Essex county, zone 1A, to present their recommendations to this committee. Since I am not a member of the committee I wish to take this opportunity to present their views. Their recommendations are:
1.	That the basic principles upon which war veterans allowance is allowed and paid be unchanged.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the house feel that these representations should be presented to the house? Is not the committee being set up so that representations may be made to it?


Mr. Green:: Surely the debate on this resolution is wide open. I should think the hon. member is in order in bringing forward these suggestions.


Mr. Speaker:: The debate on this resolution should not be wide open. Strictly speaking there is no reference in the motion to setting up a standing committee. It has nothing to do with a standing committee. The motion before the house is to set up a select committee. What has been debated has been the

question of whether we should set up a standing committee. No objection was taken, so I did not object. However, if the house feels that the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown) should be allowed to present these representations now I will not object.


Donald Ferguson Brown: I want to bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I am not a member of the committee and probably will not have an opportunity of making a presentation to the committee. Similar representations may be made by other commands of the Canadian Legion. Of that I am not certain, but I have been requested by my local command of the Canadian Legion in Essex county, zone 1A, to present these recommendations. They are as follows:
1.	That the basic principles upon which war veterans allowance is allowed and paid be unchanged.
2.	That war veterans allowance be increased from $40 single and $70 married to $60 single and $120 married.
3.	That the total ceiling be raised to $1,200 single and $2,000 married.
4.	That Canadians who served in England only in the first war be entitled to war veterans allowance.
5.	That widows of imperial or allied services with twenty years' residence in Canada be entitled to war veterans allowance regardless of the date of death of their husband.
6.	That home exemption be raised to $9,000.
I am not making any recommendation personally on behalf of the Legion as to these matters but merely placing them on the record so they will be before the committee.


Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I merely rise to say that as a member of different veterans affairs committees in the past I have always advocated the establishment of a standing committee on veterans affairs. I am disappointed with the limited terms of reference of the resolution. As we ail know, there are certain weaknesses in various acts dealing with veterans affairs. Some of these weaknesses have been drawn to my attention during the past few months, but under these limited terms of reference I will not be allowed to bring up one of these matters before the veterans affairs committee. For that reason I most strongly urge the minister to enlarge the terms of reference.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the resolution under debate merely mentions one bill, namely, a bill respecting allowances for war veterans and their dependents. I think we all realize by now that there is great need for changes in the
Committee on Veterans Affairs War Veterans Allowance Act. As a matter of fact an attempt was made in the spring session of 1951 to have the question of the War Veterans Allowance Act dealt with, but we were refused an extension of the powers of the committee when the debate took place in the house. Then when the special committee was set up and a motion was moved for a reference back to the house requesting extension of powers so that war veterans allowances could be dealt with by the committee that request was voted down by the government members on the committee.
It was perfectly obvious at that time that there was a need for an increase in the war veterans allowance just as it was obvious that there was a need for an increase in the pension. I hope the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) and his parliamentary assistant have benefited from the trouble into which they hurled themselves last year.


An hon. Member:: What trouble?


Mr. Mutch:: Trouble? What do you mean?


Howard Charles Green: They should have brought
in terms of reference containing wider powers for the committee. There is no reason at all why the committee should not be allowed to deal with any matter affecting the war veterans of Canada. It is quite apparent from the minister's reply to the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) that the government will not agree at this time to an extension of the terms of reference, but I should like to have a statement from the minister with respect to whether or not it is the intention of the government to refer to the special committee the other three bills, resolutions for which are on the order paper. For example, order No. 9 on today's order paper is a resolution preceding a bill to amend the Veterans Benefit Act, 1951.


Hugues Lapointe: All three will be referred to the committee.


Howard Charles Green: Order No. 10 is a resolution preceding a bill to amend the Veterans Insurance Act, and order No. 17 is a resolution preceding a bill to amend the Pension Act. I am glad to hear from the minister that it is his intention to have all these bills referred to the committee.


Hugues Lapointe: In my opening remarks I stated that all the bills would be sent to the committee.


Howard Charles Green: The minister's opening remarks were so short and sweet-


Hugues Lapointe: The more reason you should have understood and remembered them.


Howard Charles Green: In fact I do not think he said anything. If he did he was merely mumbling, and I did not hear what he said.

Committee on Veterans Affairs


Hugues Lapointe: I do not usually mumble.


Howard Charles Green: I would also ask for a statement from the minister as to whether or not it will be permissible to discuss the problems which have arisen under the Veterans Land Act. If he says those problems can be discussed I have no doubt the committee could put through a request to the house for an extension of its terms of reference in order to deal with them. Someone said here this afternoon it was a great pity that the Department of Veterans Affairs is not now taking the attitude that was taken when Right Hon. Ian Mackenzie was minister, namely, that each special committee on veterans affairs should have power wide enough to enable it to consider any question affecting the veterans at that time; and that this was the proper course for the government to follow. I should hope we would get back to that procedure, rather than limiting the powers of the committee each year.
That brings me to the other point which has been stressed by every member who has spoken from the opposition side of the house; namely, that there should be a standing committee on veterans affairs. Incidentally if there were such a committee it would be able to consider any problem arising in connection with the veterans of Canada, and that is as it should be. We have several standing committees of the house, and I would leave it to the good judgment of hon. members whether any of the committees for which provision is now made have any more importance than a committee on veterans affairs would have. First of all there is a committee on privileges and elections; then a committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines; third, a committee on miscellaneous private bills; fourth, a committee on banking and commerce; fifth, a committee on public accounts; sixth, a committee on agriculture and colonization; seventh, a committee on standing orders; eighth, a committee on marine and fisheries; ninth, a committee on mines, forests and waters. Incidentally, I do not believe that committee has met in the sixteen years I have been a member of this house.


Mr. Knowles:: It meets once a year to
appoint a chairman.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: That is no recommendation for setting up another committee like it.


Howard Charles Green: A committee on veterans affairs would be different. Then there is the committee on industrial relations, the committee on debates and the committee on external affairs. In addition, of course, there are the joint committees made up of the members of the Senate and the House of Commons. I


believe veterans affairs questions can be compared very reasonably with those having to do with external affairs. There we have a committee which considers the estimates of that department and reports to the house, but there is still opportunity in committee of the whole house for a discussion of each item.
There may have been some excuse for not having a standing committee on veterans affairs when we had only the veterans of the first world war to consider. The problems facing them were largely of a pattern and had been considered for many years in the house, and not many changes could be contemplated. Now, however, we have hundreds of thousands of men and women who served in the second world war, and the problems which have faced and will face them are different from the problems which faced the men and women of the first world war. In addition we have the men who served or are now serving in Korea. Their service will bring up problems different again from those arising out of the second world war.


Hugues Lapointe: That can be considered by the committee under that resolution.


Howard Charles Green: I think it would be far wiser and more businesslike to have a standing committee which could follow these problems from year to year. Then we have the men serving in Europe, whose conditions of service are different again, and finally we have thousands of young men and women serving right here in Canada. Our whole defence system has been changed. We have many more people serving in our defence forces than ever before in peacetime and questions are coming up such as whether they should qualify for pensions in the same way as those who have seen active service. Incidentally, I believe the law is too strict now in regard to pensions for those Canadians who have been able to serve only in the defence forces at home. I do not think they are getting adequate consideration.
However, there are all these different conditions which did not exist a few years ago, and the probability is that they will be changing from year to year as time goes by. These problems will certainly be before parliament for many years. It is going to be a long, long time before the last Canadian veteran is off the scene, far longer than anyone in this house will survive. So I do suggest we should give very serious consideration to putting our method of dealing with veterans affairs on a better basis by setting up a standing committee. When the minister closes this debate I hope he will assure the house that this special committee will be permitted to consider whether or not there should be a standing committee on veterans

affairs. That question is one of the most important to be dealt with at this time, and I hope that this special committee will be given the privilege of recommending whether or not a standing committee should be set up.


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: I would like to join briefly with the others who have spoken, to express the hope that the terms of reference of this committee will not be limited to the comparatively narrow compass which the resolution would seem to indicate. If that is done I think there is no question but that the committee cannot do a proper job. In addition, I am very much afraid that a good deal of the time of the committee will be taken up discussing whether matters which may be brought up come properly within the terms of reference. We have had a great deal of experience with that in some committees in the past. If we are going to be so circumscribed that some of the questions now considered pressing by various veterans organizations across the country cannot be discussed in this committee, then to a large extent the work of the committee will be stultified. I should like to say also that I think the real answer to this problem is a permanent committee such as a number of us have been requesting for a number of years, and I would hope such a committee might be set up.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Hugues Lapointe: I shall be very brief in closing this debate, Mr. Speaker. Great stress has been laid on the fact that no standing committee on veterans affairs exists. The suggestion has been made that if such a standing committee were set up, it would provide the solution to all problems concerning veterans welfare. To hear some of the hon. members in the house one would think that the mere fact no such standing committee exists prevented hon. members from airing their views or making suggestions concerning veterans affairs. I believe that the debate which has just taken place on this resolution is good evidence to the contrary.
During the course of this debate we have heard hon. members referring to certain problems and expressing their views. All members have the same opportunity on the debate on the address and during the course of the last session I believe they took considerable time, as it was their right to do, to discuss and put forward their views on veterans affairs. The same privilege is accorded in the debate on the budget which is taking place at the present time, during the
29, 1952
Committee on Veterans Affairs course of which members may present their views. Further opportunity is presented when the detailed estimates of the department are discussed, because then every aspect of veterans affairs legislation is open to consideration. When my predecessor was in office the policy was established of setting up the veterans affairs committee whenever the government contemplated important changes in the legislation.
It has been stated that the terms of reference are too narrow, and the committee should be given the same terms of reference as it was given in 1945. The situation in 1945 was completely different from the situation today. During the course of the second world war the government had legislated by order in council concerning the welfare and rehabilitation of veterans of that war. I believe there were some 52 or 53 orders in council which had been passed, and the minister of that day asked the committee to consider all those orders in council and consolidate them into legislation. From that consideration the veterans charter emerged. I submit that the situation today is quite different, and that it is my responsibility- which I am willing to assume and have assumed before-upon the advice of the officers of my department, to introduce the necessary changes to the various parts of the veterans charter. Last year I introduced amendments to the Pension Act, and at that time I undertook to set up this committee. I undertook to introduce during the course of this session amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act, and the resolution setting up this committee is in compliance with my undertaking to this house and to the veterans organizations throughout Canada. Those organizations will come I am sure- they have been invited to come-and state their views to the committee, just as they have in the past.
Furthermore, I want to point out that it is not only when a parliamentary committee is sitting that an opportunity is afforded to organized veterans bodies of this country to present their views to the minister or the Department of Veterans Affairs. Once a year at least, and last year twice, they met with the members of the cabinet, and the door of the office of the Minister of Veterans Affairs is always open to them. I can assure my hon. friends, although it may surprise them, that the members of the executive do exchange views with the minister, and many of the solutions which are found for veterans problems are the result of those exchanges of views. I believe we can proceed with the setting up of this committee to which

Inquiries of the Ministry will be sent not only the legislation conceiving war veterans allowances but various other amendments to legislation mentioned in the resolutions on the order paper. Possibly there will be other legislation; in fact I know of one other bill which is being prepared at the present time.


Howard Charles Green: What about the Veterans Land Act? .


Hugues Lapointe: The matter has not been considered, but at this time the whole matter of the Veterans Land Act is being looked into by the officers of the department at my request.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister in a position to tell us what is the subject of the other bill which is being prepared?


Hugues Lapointe: The hon. member will find that out when it is brought before this house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Will the minister take steps to investigate the complaint of the Vancouver Building Trades Council (A. F. of L.) that United States workers are being allowed into Canada to fill jobs which Canadian workers could do, more particularly on the very large projects in British Columbia such as the Alcan project, the smelter expansion at Trail, the Capilano dam construction and the oil pipe line project from Edmonton to Vancouver?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I am grateful to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, for drawing this matter to my attention. We have not had any complaints up to the moment, but as he has said there are some we shall investigate immediately and I shall advise the house.


Howard Charles Green: I shall send the minister the clipping if he wishes.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: I have two questions to direct to the Minister of Transport. He is not in his seat, and I have

been informed by his parliamentary assistant that he has had to attend a meeting. I should like, however, to put the questions so that he might answer them tomorrow.
The first question is:	Was radio station
VOUS, operated by the United States air force at Pepperrell air force base, St. John's, Newfoundland, compelled or requested to cease broadcasting?
The second question is: What is being done to take care of the freight congestion at Halifax of freight destined for St. John's, Newfoundland?



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Francis Higgins: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. A recent radio address by the minister on a fisheries development program for Newfoundland was described as "Bradley's boatbuilding bunkum" by the minister of fisheries in the Newfoundland 'legislature. Is the minister prepared to comment on the statement?


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. I have read the report of Mr. Keough's remarks in one of the St. John's papers. If he is reported correctly, it is quite apparent that he is singularly lacking in knowledge of the facts.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, I had a question I wished to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). He can take it as notice and answer it later. It is as a result of a press report in the Winnipeg Tribune of April 23, to the effect that packing house executives state that they cannot take the financial risk of paying floor prices for cattle when Ottawa gives them no guarantee against loss. As a result of the unsatisfactory market conditions with regard to cattle and hogs prevailing in the Winnipeg stockyards, will the minister state what steps the federal Department of Agriculture proposes to take in order to assure the producer these floor prices as announced?



WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE ACT


Hugues Lapointe: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend and consolidate the legislation respecting war veterans' allowances; for increasing allowances and permissible income; for assisting veterans who may be employable to some degree; and also to provide for the salaries of members of the war veterans allowance board.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister not going to make a statement?


Hugues Lapointe: I can make a statement when we get into committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think it would be preferable if it were made now.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: We have three other resolutions that we want to proceed with; you have four chances to speak.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Hugues Lapointe: I will make the statement first, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Are you playing hard to get?


Hugues Lapointe: I have never known the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to be so anxious to hear me speak.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Conscience.


Hugues Lapointe: As I mentioned in my previous remarks today, this resolution comes forward as a result of an announcement I made last year, during the course of the last session, at the time when I announced that the Pension Act would be amended. At that time I stated that the government was considering amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act; and that this question was much more complex than that with respect to the Pension Act, where the amendment simply consisted of a percentage increase of the basic rate. It was felt this question would be more conveniently and adequately dealt with by the select committee on veterans affairs and that such a committee would be set up during the course of this session. I also stated that action taken as a result of this procedure would be made retroactive to January 1. That is, any benefits accruing to recipients of war veterans allowance would be made retroactive to January 1.
War Veterans Allowance Act
As hon. members will see, after this resolution has been adopted and the bill is distributed, they will be presented with a completely revised statute, a bill entitled the "War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952" which will replace the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946. In other words, the bill which is to be presented is not merely one containing amendments to certain sections of the act as it now stands, but is a complete revision and consolidation of the War Veterans Allowance Act. It was thought advisable to do this, because, as hon. members know, since it was first enacted in 1930, the War Veterans Allowance Act has been amended on many occasions; in fact, I believe it was amended five times, namely in 1936, 1938, 1946, 1948 and
1950.	It was felt necessary to make some rearrangement of the act so as to present its provisions in a more logical order for the greater convenience of those who have to refer to it.
I wish to point out immediately, Mr. Speaker, that the basic principles of the act have not been changed and that any changes of substance in the bill which will be presented have been made only to render it a more flexible instrument for providing assistance to those veterans and their widows who, in their old age, are unable to maintain themselves or who have no other resources, or whose resources are extremely limited.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister a question?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: What does he mean by the basic principles of the act?


Hugues Lapointe: I mean that there is no change as to the conditions under which veterans can qualify under the act.


Howard Charles Green: You mean that the means test is to be retained?


Hugues Lapointe: I mean that the present provisions concerning the conditions under which benefits may be obtained are to be retained. Of course, Mr. Speaker, the most important matter which will be dealt with in the bill is the basic rate of allowances. It is proposed to make a substantial upward revision in these rates. At the same time it is proposed that ceilings for allowable income be also raised in order to bring them more in conformity with the ceilings now existing under the Old Age Assistance Act and the Blind Persons Act. As hon. members are aware, this would allow increases to some pensioners with low disability pensions and others having income other than the war veterans allowance.

War Veterans Allowance Act
A third element is being introduced by this bill. Over the years experience has shown us that a considerable number of war veterans allowance recipients, especially those who are granted entitlement because of having reached the age of 60 without being completely physically disabled, are from time to time able to find some employment of a temporary or a seasonal character, for instance. I think everyone will agree that those who can find such employment should be encouraged to do so. The provisions of the War Veterans Allowance Act, as it now stands, sometimes make it impossible to avoid penalizing the veteran who takes employment in that manner. It is proposed now to deal with such veterans whom we may class- and I think those are the words used in the resolution-as marginally employable, and who meet the other conditions of entitlement under the War Veterans Allowance Act by paying them the allowances on a monthly basis when they are actually unemployed and unable to find suitable employment. Without going into the details of this proposal, which hon. members will be able to study when the bill is before them, I might say that the general effect of this proposal would be to exempt their earnings from the operation of the annual income ceiling. There will also be other improvements in the bill, such as the benefits which will be payable to a veteran or his spouse during the twelve months succeeding the death of either of them, and it is also proposed to increase the rates paid to orphans under the War Veterans Allowance Act.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Will any consideration be given to Canadians who served only in England during the first war?


Hugues Lapointe: I do not think I am expected to give the details of the bill at this stage of the resolution.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You have been giving them, and that is why I asked the question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that this is a measure which all of us in the house welcome; in fact it is one that we have been awaiting for a considerable period of time. The extent to which we will welcome it will of course depend upon the precise terms of the bill, or in other words, upon the extent of the improvements forecast by the resolution and by the remarks which the minister has just made.
In the first place, we are glad to learn ;hat there is to be an increase in the amount of the war veterans allowance. I take it there will be an increase both in the rate paid to single veterans and in the rate paid to married

veterans. I regret that the minister did not see fit to indicate in the resolution that is now before us what the new amounts will be. I had hoped that-


Hugues Lapointe: It is improper to do so, I believe, in the resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister interjected to say that he believed it is improper to do so.


Hugues Lapointe: In the resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest the very opposite. Now that this point has come up, Mr. Speaker, I feel I must express my regret that over the past number of years a practice which was followed for decades in this parliament has been allowed to disappear. It disappeared not without my protest on a good many occasions; but the government seems to have been able to get rid of the practice of including in the resolution preceding a bill statements as to the maximum amount of money involved in that bill.
I could take the time, but I will not, to go over bills like the original old age pensions bill, the original family allowances bill, and many others down across the years of the parliament of Canada. In all cases, with very few exceptions, down until 1947, the amount to be provided in the bill was spelled out in the resolution. It was not until 1947 when the old age pension amending bill of that year was before the house that the amount was not included in the resolution preceding any important legislation. Some hon. members will recall the interesting time we had on that occasion. Since then the government has repeatedly brought in resolutions of this kind. I do not think it is fair. However, when resolutions are worded in this way we should be accorded by the rules of the house the right, under citations 439, 445 and 486 of Beauchesne's third edition, to move to increase these amounts when we get into committee on the bill. Whether or not we shall attempt to exercise that right will of course depend upon the provisions of the bill.
This is like a good many other things that happen in parliament, Mr. Speaker. Practices long established are altered on some particular occasion. That change is confirmed by a majority of the house, and in succeeding years we find that we cannot get back to the practice that we thought had been clearly established. At any rate, in addition to the procedural and technical objections that I have now voiced, I express my regret that we have not yet been informed what the amounts are to be.
When I was speaking in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne on March 10 of this year, I urged

that the amount of the war veterans allowances should be not less than $60 a month for a single veteran and not less than $120 a month for a married veteran. Those figures compare with the present inadequate rates of $40.41 for a single veteran and $70.83 for a married veteran. So far as I know, the Canadian Legion has not yet officially changed its request of a year ago for amounts of $50 a month single, and $100 a month married; but I believe that, in view of the increase in the cost of living and the difficulties facing our veterans, the Legion is considering changing that request and asking for higher figures. As a matter of fact, I have before me a letter which I received from Mr. A. Cairns, provincial secretary of the Manitoba and northwestern Ontario command of the Legion, which was dated March 15, 1952. This letter was written to me by Mr. Cairns after I had made the speech in the house which I referred to, the speech of March 10, in which I suggested that the amounts should be not less than $60 a month single, and $120 a month married. Mr. Cairns comments on that in this paragraph:
We feel that the single allowance should be increased to $60 a month and the married allowance to not less than $110 a month which, in our opinion, is the least amount on which the veteran can possibly live in any decency. There is no reason on earth why recipients of the war veterans allowance should be compelled to live in slums. Surely they are entitled to better than that.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the figures which I suggested-and which I suggested on my own-are very close to the figures suggested in that letter by an official of the Canadian Legion in my own city. I earnestly hope that when we get the bill it will have in it figures not less than the figures suggested in Mr. Cairns' letter; I personally still think they should not be less than $60 single and $120 married.
Some hon. members may say: Let us get through this debate and get the bill and find out what is in it. The answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is that the purpose of this debate on the resolution prior to the introduction of a bill is to give hon. members a chance to express their views, and to give the government the benefit of those views, in the hope that the government might look at the bill and see whether it is all that it should be. My hope is that if figures such as I have suggested are not now in the bill, the minister, after listening to the debate that takes place at this stage and in committee on the resolution, will reconsider those figures and raise them, as I say, to not less than the figures suggested in the letter from which I have just quoted from the provincial secretary of the Manitoba and northwestern Ontario command of the Canadian Legion.
War Veterans Allowance Act
As I have said on other occasions, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter in which there is tremendous interest on the part of the Canadian people. That interest is to be found not only among veterans themselves, but among Canadians in all walks of life. People who themselves may have no direct connection with veterans nevertheless feel that Canada should do a lot better for our burnt-out veterans than we are doing at the present time.
I was interested in an exchange that took place a few moments ago while the minister was speaking, when the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) interrupted him. We had hoped, many of us in this house at any rate, that when the War Veterans Allowance Act amending bill came before us at this session it would include, if not the complete elimination of the means test, at least very drastic modifications of it. I take it from what the minister has said that although this is a brand new bill which will take the place of the old one, it will be the same in substance in that the war veterans allowance will still be based upon the same principles already in effect.
There are a great many veterans in this country, seventy years of age and over, who are finding it very hard to believe that the means test has really been removed from old age pensions. I have the capacity to explain it in technical terms, but that explanation just does not answer the question in the minds of a great many veterans and a great many widows of veterans. I refer in particular to those who are 70 years of age and over. Since January 1, 1952, they have been drawing old age security pensions. They get the full $40 old age pension because there is no means test on that pension, but they have had their war veterans allowance or their widows' allowance under the War Veterans Allowance Act cut by virtue of the means test that still exists in the War Veterans Allowance Act.
The standard case is the one that has been drawn to my attention by so many persons that I am sure others have had the same experience. It is that of a war veteran who was formerly drawing $40.41 per month but when he started drawing his old age pension of $40 his war veterans allowance was reduced to $10.83 per month, so that his total income would be $50.83 per month, which is within the statutory ceiling of $610 a year.
I should like to hear from any hon. member who has found it possible to explain to a veteran treated that way that he is not under the means test. It cannot be done. You can explain to him for hours on end that the means test does not exist under the Old
1698	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act Age Security Act, but he will come back at you and say that it is there under the War Veterans Allowance Act. He insists that he is under a means test, whereas many other Canadians seventy years of age and over are receiving old age security without having their other income reduced. I contend that this is unfair to our burnt-out veterans.
If the bill does not deal with that problem pretty drastically, if there has not been an examination of the whole relationship between war veterans allowance and the Old Age Security Act, I hope the minister will have that done before he presents the bill to the house. I would remind the minister that the Department of Veterans Affairs has had considerable time to study this matter. As a matter of fact the minister's predecessor and his parliamentary assistant appeared before the special committee on old age security, the sessions of which were held nearly two years ago. It was either in May or in June of 1950 that they attended before that committee so that it was nearly two years ago.
Although nothing definitive came out of the discussions on that point while they were before the committee I think it was made clear to those who appeared on behalf of the Department of Veterans Affairs that the relationship of war veterans allowance to old age security was one that called for exhaustive study and perhaps some brand new basis of treatment. As I say, that was nearly two years ago.
Nearly a year ago-in June, 1951-I urged the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) to have this matter studied during the summer of 1951 so that it could be dealt with in the fall session of that year and so that a new relationship between the war veterans allowance and old age security could be devised and brought into effect prior to the date that the means test would be removed from old age pensions payable to those seventy years of age and over. I was bitterly disappointed last fall when we came here for the fall session to discover, whether or not any study had been given to the problem, that no proposals were forthcoming.
As a matter of fact, hon. members will recall that when we came here last October there was no indication that anything was to be done at the fall session with regard to veterans legislation. In due course, after considerable debate on the floor of this house, we did have the introduction of amendments to the Pension Act with regard to disability pensions, but we were told that war veterans allowance matters would have to wait until the 1952 session. I dared to hope that even with that further delay-as


I suggested it adds up now to nearly two years-we would have an overhaul of the relationship between war veterans allowance and old age security, but from what the minister said today apparently there is to be no change in principle. We are still to have the means test, we are still to have a ceiling on what is called permissible income. Although we have not been given the figures, the minister said that they would be brought more into line with means test provisions of the Old Age Assistance Act and the Blind Persons Act.	.
We shall have to wait until we get the bill to see what those figures are, but I might point out that the ceiling under the Old Age Assistance Act for a single person is $60 per month or $720 per year, and for a married couple, $100 a month or $1,200 a year. I submit that if the new bill provides for ceilings at those levels on the war veterans allowance there is going to be a great deal of disappointment both on the part of veterans who are receiving the allowance and their comrades who are not. There will also be disappointment on the part of Canadians in general that the means test has been continued with the harshness that is apparent with ceilings of that description.
I was glad to hear the statement that veterans over the age of sixty years who can obtain some employment will be treated on a slightly different basis. I take it that their financial position is to be considered on a monthly rather than on an annual basis and that they will get some advantage out of that position. But it is still a means test. The veteran is to be told that in the month he is earning money he will not get his war veterans allowance but that in the month he earns no money and is without other resources he will receive the war veterans allowance.
It has taken a long time in this country to get across to the government at any rate the fact that the people of Canada do not like the means test idea. We have won that point with respect to old age pensions for those seventy years of age and over; we have won it with respect to family allowances. It does seem most unfair that the place where it still remains is with respect to our burnt-out veterans.
I know the kind of problems that arise when you ask for the straight elimination across the board of the means test under the War Veterans Allowance Act along with its elimination under the old age security legislation. I need not go into those problems at this point, but my submission to the government is that it has not tried to find some other relationship that would respect to the extent which they

deserve it the dignity of those whom we refer to as our burnt-out veterans. Surely if there has to be a test of some kind, if there has to be some qualification, if some kind of a line has to be drawn, let us do something that is more dignified, more humane and more Canadian than apply the means test which apparently the government is retaining in the War Veterans Allowance Act.
As I said a moment ago, we welcome the fact that the act is being completely redrawn. I think that is good from the standpoint of administration and of those who have occasion to refer to the act. It has been amended so often that it is difficult to know just what its provisions are without a considerable amount of research. But is not this a golden opportunity to make some of those changes that are so basic?
During the discussions we had, particularly last fall, with respect to the War Veterans Allowance Act the minister did give the assurance that veterans who had been on the allowance, but who lost it on receiving old age security by virtue of the means test in the War Veterans Allowance Act, would not lose any hospitalization or treatment rights which they previously enjoyed. I hope that point will be covered in the bill. I hope that not only will such persons not lose any hospitalization or treatment rights they previously enjoyed but that it will also be made clear that veterans in similar circumstances, who might not be able to qualify for any actual allowance under the War Veterans Allowance Act because of their other income, will nevertheless be entitled to hospitalization and treatment benefits.
Once again, along with others who have made the point by interjections if not in other ways, I want to urge reconsideration of the section of the act which denies the burnt-out pension to veterans of world war I who did not get beyond England. That applies still to a great many veterans, although their number is dwindling, and it applies to quite a number of widows of veterans. These veterans and veterans' widows find it difficult to understand the discrimination against them, particularly when it was no fault of the veteran that he did not get to France in the course of world war I. In world war II England is accepted as a theatre of war but not so in world war I. I feel that change should be made at this session when the act is being rewritten in this way.
It is a good many years now since a former parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs indicated to a group of widows who were here making representations-and I was present when he did so- that he believed that change would be made
War Veterans Allowance Act at the next session. We are still waiting for that change. It would not affect a great many people. Certainly it would not involve many dollars so far as the treasury of the country is concerned, but it would mean a great deal to those affected.
I hope too that consideration will be given, if it has not already been covered in the bill that is to be presented, to the change made a few years ago with respect to imperial veterans who come to this country, and more particularly with respect to their widows. We know that the provision now is that an imperial veteran who has had twenty years residence in Canada qualifies under the War Veterans Allowance Act if he meets the other conditions. His widow, however, does not qualify, no matter how many years she may have lived in Canada

even though she may have been born in this country-if her husband did not himself have the full twenty years residence in Canada before he died. Again the number affected is not great, but it does seem basically unfair that that line should be drawn. I earnestly hope that consideration will be given to this matter.
Members opposite may suggest that one is raising too many details at this time, but I suggest this is the time to do so because of the minister's announcement-it was not clear from the resolution-that we are now getting a brand new War Veterans Allowance Act. That means that each and every one of these points will be before us, and I hope that such debate as may take place now will persuade the minister that if there are weaknesses in the bill in the form in which it is now drafted he should improve upon those weaknesses before it is presented to the house.
A few days ago I directed a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs regarding recoveries where there have been alleged overpayments since January 1, 1952. I had in mind a particular case the details of which I have since sent to the minister. It is the case of a veteran's widow, a lady past 80 years of age, who prior to January 1, 1952, was receiving the widows' allowance under this act, namely, $40.41 a month. That was her total income. She applied, as was her right and duty, for old age security and commenced receiving it in January, 1952. For some reason, which has not been made known to me, the Department of Veterans Affairs did not catch up with this particular case until the month of March. In other words, this lady's war veterans allowance cheque was sent to her in full for the months of January and February. During these two months she got what most of us would like to see all these old people get, both her

War Veterans Allowance Act cheques, the one that she had been getting for years under the War Veterans Allowance Act and the old age security which is now payable to everyone.
In other words, she got a total of $80.41 a month in January and again in February. But when the war veterans allowance board caught up with the case they of course had to point out to her that under the legislation as it now stands she was not entitled to the full $40 old age pension and with it the full amount of the war veterans allowance. It was pointed out to her that her war veterans allowance would have to be reduced to $10.83 a month. In other words, as I said a moment ago with respect to these cases generally, this woman is not under a means test so far as her old age pension is concerned. She gets that $40 in full. But because of the means test in the War Veterans Allowance Act she can have only $10.83 of the so-called burnt-out pension.
In this particular case the war veterans allowance board not only reduced her cheque forthwith, starting with the month of March, to $10.83 so that her total income would be under the statutory ceiling, but they also said to her: Because you have been overpaid in January and February we will have to recover that overpayment. Therefore we are going to take $5 a month off your $10.83 cheque until the amount that you were overpaid in January and February is recovered. So she is now getting only $5.83 where she was formerly getting $40.41. I think it was vicious to do it at all but particularly vicious and unfair in view of the fact that the Minister of Veterans Affairs had announced in the house last fall that any changes made in the War Veterans Allowance Act would be made retroactive to January 1, 1952. If that is done the result in this particular case will be that a little later on this woman's case will have to be reviewed and something will have to be given back to her for January and February of the amount that they are now taking away from her.
I submit that, bad as it was to reduce the amount of the cheque at all, it was adding insult to injury to make a further reduction in lieu of that so-called overpayment. I hope in that particular case-as I say, I sent the details of it to the minister-that the making of that recovery will be discontinued and that the practice will be suspended in all these cases that are brought about in this way until the legislation respecting the War Veterans Allowance Act has been enacted. I think I need say no more at this time. I want to impress upon the minister and the government how strongly Canadians generally feel


about this matter. The burnt-out pensioner is a person whom people in all walks of life feel should get the best possible deal. I hope we will get out of the government a better bill in terms of principles, in terms of the amount of allowance, in terms of the arrangements for other income, than I suspect is coming in view of what the minister has said.
Some time today, perhaps, when we get into committee I hope the minister might also deal with the last clause of the resolution now before us, which reads:
[DOT]-and also to provide for the salaries of members of the war veterans allowance board.
These members are on salary now, of course. I would like to know if the phrase simply means that in the new act provision is to be made for their salaries to be continued, or whether it means there is to be an increase in their salaries. The minister raised a procedural point a few moments ago, and I think he may run into some difficulty if he is suggesting an increase, in view of the fact that the wording of the resolution does not provide for any increase at all. I think at some stage of the game today the minister should tell us what the salaries of the members of the board are now and what changes, if any, are proposed.
In closing, however, I say that the important aspect of the legislation now before us is that we fix the amounts of the war veterans allowance at reasonable levels, that we establish a more dignified relationship between war veterans allowance and old age security than is provided by the means test that is still being applied to the recipients of war veterans allowance, and that we accord the fullest measure of respect and dignity to these deserving fellow citizens to whom we refer so often as our burnt-out veterans, to whom we are so heavily indebted.


Victor Quelch: My remarks will be brief, Mr. Speaker, because I think we will be in a far better position to discuss this matter after the bill has been brought down. However, I should like to say that we in this group are very glad that a measure to increase the amount of allowance and raise the ceiling has been brought in even at this late stage. I think it would have avoided a great deal of confusion and discontent if this legislation had been brought down in the first session of 1951, before the unemployability supplement had been introduced and before the increase in pensions had been initiated, because, as the

War Veterans Allowance Act
minister knows, there is a great deal of confusion and discontent in connection with this matter, and I believe this legislation will help remove most of it.
This legislation proposes to increase the amount of the allowance and to raise the ceiling; then it provides for assistance to veterans who may be employable in some degree. I was rather puzzled by that, though I suppose it will be easier to understand just what it means when the bill is brought down. Even with the minister's explanation, however, I do not quite understand. I should have thought it would be the other way around, that additional assistance would be provided those veterans who are unemployable. That is what the Legion asked for, because those unemployable veterans cannot take advantage of the casual earnings and make any additional income. This legislation apparently provides for additional assistance to those who can work. It seems to me that is the wrong way around, but as I say it will be better to wait until the bill is brought in.
I also regret that no mention has been made of the declaration of England as a theatre of war in world war I, and apparently no provision is going to be made for the payment of the war veterans allowance to the widows of imperial veterans who have resided in this country for twenty years but whose husbands died before that period of residence had been completed. However, since this is going to be referred to the veterans affairs committee, where I am satisfied it will get a thorough going over, and since I am a member of that committee, I will wait and take up these matters later.


Mr. Graydon:: I am going to make the shortest speech in this debate, and ask the minister to remove the means test from the war veterans allowance.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Howard Charles Green: I would like the minister to explain to the committee what is to be done concerning what is called the war veterans allowance assistance fund. For a few years now a vote has been brought in each year-


Hugues Lapointe: It is going to be continued.


Howard Charles Green: -under which a maximum of $10 a month could be paid to a single recipient of war veterans allowance if he had no other income, and a maximum of $15 per month to a married recipient with no other income. In effect payments out of that fund were subject to a second means test, because the veteran had to establish that he had no
other income. I wonder whether that plan is to be continued or whether it has been consolidated with the regular war veterans allowance payments. I notice a vote in this year's estimates for the fund, but I would ask the minister whether it has been consolidated with the regular act.


Hugues Lapointe: That fund is being continued, and the same principle will be followed.


Howard Charles Green: The same principle is to be applied?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes, in general.


Howard Charles Green: Then I think the committee is entitled to know the conclusion reached by the government as to the relationship of old age security payments to war veterans allowance payments. That question, of course, was brought up on different occasions last year, and now I think we are entitled to know what decision has been reached and what action is to be taken in that regard.


Hugues Lapointe: I regret that I do not understand too well what information my hon. friend wants. When the matter came up last session I did explain that we were considering the whole question of the war veterans allowance and its relationship to old age security payments, and that the government would introduce legislation this session as a result of that study. This is the legislation which I am attempting to introduce, and when my hon. friend looks at the bill he will be able to see whether or not it meets with his approval. I do not know just what else the hon. gentleman wants, unless he wishes a long discourse on social security, which I do not think would be proper at this time.


Howard Charles Green: Is the amount of the war veterans allowance to be reduced by any old age security payments a veteran may receive?


Hugues Lapointe: This bill changes nothing in any way in regard to old age security payments. It was made very clear last year, by myself when I discussed the matter and when the Old Age Security Act was discussed in the house, that for all purposes old age security payments are considered income. By this legislation nothing is done to change what is in the Old Age Security Act.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Would that not depend on what ceiling is put on?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes, within limits.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That will be set out in the bill, of course?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes, the amount of the ceiling is mentioned in the bill.


Howard Charles Green: The resolution reads:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend and consolidate the legislation respecting war veterans allowances;

War Veterans Allowance Act
What other legislation, in addition to the present War Veterans Allowance Act, is to be consolidated in the new act?


Hugues Lapointe: It is only to include all the amendments which were introduced into the act within the last few years. As I explained in my opening remarks when introducing the resolution, we have rearranged the act and put it in more precise and orderly form for reference purposes. It is more easily understood.


Howard Charles Green: It is really just a revision of the War Veterans Allowance Act itself, and there are no other acts being consolidated?


Hugues Lapointe: Including the amendments which are being brought forward.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: A few moments ago I asked the minister whether those serving in England would be included in this act. The minister suggested that I might ask that question when we were in committee.


Hugues Lapointe: I suggested to the hon. member that he would see the details of the bill when it was distributed.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is an answer that the minister can give to any question.


Hugues Lapointe: It certainly is an answer that the minister can make to any question seeking detailed information. Unless my understanding of the procedure that takes place during the debate on the resolution is wrong, the detailed information is given in the bill. I understand that is the practice which is being followed, and I am sure the hon. member would not like to depart from any established parliamentary practice.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The minister himself has departed from it, and that is why I am asking for the same treatment. The minister might have given the same answer to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra or any other member. I should like him to accord me the same courtesy he has shown to them.


Howard Charles Green: I submit the minister is not following out the proper practice. If what he now contends is correct, there is no use at all in having any questions on the resolution preceding a bill. All the minister needs to do is to say "Wait and see the bill." The question asked by the member for Royal is in order, and I submit the minister should answer it. Last year we had the Minister of Justice declining at first to give us the amount of salary that was to be paid, I forget whether it was to judges or some other public servants, but finally it was decided he would have to give the figure. Certainly, we are entitled to have an answer to the question asked by the member for Royal. We are entitled also to know the

ceiling which is proposed, and the amounts by which these allowances are to be increased. All that information is relevant. When the minister answers by saying that we have to wait and see the bill, he makes a farce of this stage in dealing with legislation.


The Chairman:: Is the hon. member rising to a point of order?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member did not say that, but merely expressed his views that the minister was not right in his interpretation of the practice in committee. It was for that reason I did not rise immediately to comment on the remarks made by the member for Vancouver-Quadra. It appears to me that members on all sides of the house ask questions of the minister, and the minister who is in charge of the resolution gives replies. It is not for the chairman to direct the type of reply that is to be made. The only rule which I must enforce is that the questions must be relevant to the resolution which is before the committee. I would say that so far the questions which have been asked by the hon. member for Royal and the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra appear to have been related to the resolution.
When the minister says certain precise information is contained in the bill, what I believe he has in mind is that he would prefer that the information be given when the bill is being discussed clause by clause; that is his own position. It is not up to me to instruct him as to how he should reply to questions directed to him by any hon. member in the house. I think the hon. member will agree with me.


Howard Charles Green: Your Honour has held that the questions which we asked were relevant to the resolution, and I submit we are entitled to have answers to them.


Hugues Lapointe: I believe you stated, Mr. Chairman, that it was not up to you to give instructions as to the type of answer that the minister has to give.


Louis-René Beaudoin: That is quite correct.


Hugues Lapointe: I have no objection, but I wish to point out that we are now discussing a resolution which reads:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend and consolidate the legislation respecting war veterans allowances; for increasing allowances and permissible income; for assisting veterans who may be employable to some degree . . .
What is discussed at this stage is whether it is expedient to introduce such legislation, and not the specific details of that legislation. It seems to me it is absolutely improper to go into the details of the bill at the present time.

The question which the hon. member brings up concerns something which would be contained in a clause in the bill. If we are to go through that procedure at this stage, then we would be having repetition when the bill was introduced and was again before the committee.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman, might I-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Just a moment. I have listened very carefully to the remarks made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs in which he further clarified his understanding of the practice. I am at the moment considering citation 439 which appears in Beauchesne's third edition, which I think perhaps I might read to the committee:
The object of the resolution recommended by the crown is to give the house a first opportunity to discuss the advisability of making certain expenditure. The details of the projected measure are not then disclosed and debate is confined to the resolution which should not be lengthy . . .
I think that both hon. members are quite right in their contentions. According to this citation, the minister is quite right when he says he is not going to divulge the details of the bill at this stage. There is no objection to that. There is no objection, either, to members asking questions about details, so long as those questions are relevant to the resolution.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: If he gives the details, we shall not need the bill.


Gordon Graydon: If the Minister of Public Works is answering me before I ask a question, that is an innovation.


Alphonse Fournier: I am not answering you; I am answering the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra.


Gordon Graydon: I believe that on reflection the minister will realize he is establishing something new in the way of procedure, and something which is not in accordance with long established practice so far as this house is concerned. In a case of this kind I have never known such a thing to occur. Well, yes, I have known it because ministers are never anxious, in most cases, to be giving information gratis to members of the opposition.


Hugues Lapointe: That is extremely unfair. I have always given all the information you wanted, but at the proper time.


Gordon Graydon: I want to say to the minister that in my opinion and, I think, in the opinion of the house generally, this is the proper time for the giving of information of the character of that asked for by the hon. member for Royal. All these things are a matter of common sense as well as of rules. It seems
War Veterans Allowance Act to me that the minister would facilitate and expedite the debate considerably if he would answer the question asked by the hon. member for Royal. It is not, I should think, a particularly difficult question to answer. If it is answered, it will give him some idea as to the prospective legislation that is before the house.
According to the rules, as I understand them, this resolution is for the purpose of discussing, before the bill is brought in, these various matters which the government has in mind so that if, after the debate has taken place, the government then feels that there should be an amendment to the bill, that amendment can be proceeded with. I do not think that you can just close the door entirely on questions in committee by saying: Oh, no; you have to wait until the bill comes. It has not been the regular practice here to do that.


Hugues Lapointe: It has been the practice.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, if it is a point of order, may I say that I have been here as long as the hon. member who has just concluded his remarks, and I remember at least two occasions last year when, in introducing a bill, the minister began discussing some of the clause-byclause items in the bill and was called to order by the Chair. I have forgotten what bill it was-


Howard Charles Green: That was on second reading.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: It was not on second reading; it was on the resolution. More than that, when these bills are prepared and are first printed, what is the practice of the house? They are marked "personal and confidential", and those bills are handled by those people only who are sworn to maintain secrecy with respect to them. There is no distribution of them, except to responsible officials, until after they have first reading in the house.


Howard Charles Green: Does that include parliamentary assistants?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Yes; I have one. I think I have responsibility to maintain secrecy. If the hon. member has any information with respect to it, he has not obtained it from me. To say that it is not the practice to do as we are doing is just asinine. The staff of the house, as well as our own officials, are sworn to secrecy with respect to these bills. Personally, I cannot see that it makes any difference one way or the other. We always get three debates on these things anyway: one or two at the right time and then one or two semiofficial ones. As to saving time, I do not think

Veterans Benefit Act
it makes any difference. But it is the practice and it has been the practice at least for the twenty sessions that I have been here.


Gordon Graydon: This is not a secret session.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Let us not enter into a prolonged debate on procedure. A question has been asked. The minister has replied in accordance with his own interpretation of the rules. Upon reflection, if one looks at the citation which I quoted a moment ago, namely citation 439, it would appear as though the minister is right. I cannot say that the hon. member who has asked the question has not asked a relevant one. But let us not enter into a prolonged discussion on procedure. Certainly this resolution is before hon. members for the purpose of discussing the advisability of making a certain expenditure, and I would imagine that the incident could be considered as closed.


Alphonse Fournier: Before we close the whole thing, Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that we bring this question before the special committee on rules and standing orders. It will have a meeting this week.


Mr. Sinnoil:: Mr. Chairman, I think that the hon. member is losing sight of the fact that it is the government that is introducing this legislation.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The hon. member must not speak on the point of order. I have already given my ruling, and my ruling is not debatable.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Lapointe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 181, respecting allowances for veterans and their dependents.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



VETERANS BENEFIT ACT


Hugues Lapointe: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Veterans Benefit Act. 1951, to provide that the act shall expire on the last day of the first session of parliament in nineteen hundred and fifty-three in lieu of the last day of the first session of parliament in nineteen hundred and fifty-two.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Will the minister give us a short explanation?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes. I do not think it is necessary, Mr. Speaker, for me to say much at this stage with regard to this resolution. This

is an annual bill which is being introduced to provide for the veterans benefits to be given to members of the Korean fighting forces. The Veterans Benefit Act, 1951, enabled the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide for the members of the Korean forces benefits similar to those which were granted to veterans of world war II. As hon. members know, the majority of the veterans benefits, as we know them, are made available to Korean veterans by order in council under that act. It has been the practice, since the forces in Korea were constituted, that such orders in council are drafted following a close study of the veterans legislation that can be made applicable to Korean veterans by an interdepartmental committee which submits its recommendations to me and, through me, to council. Section 9 of the Veterans Benefit Act, 1951, provides that this act shall expire on the last day of the first session of parliament in 1952. Through this bill it is proposed simply to amend the 1951 act in order that the act shall expire on the last day of the first session of parliament of 1953 and to continue the authority to grant, by order in council, the various veterans benefits to members of the Korean forces.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It is the same bill as you had before the house last year except that the date is changed?


Hugues Lapointe: That is right; it is exactly the same bill except for the date.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Does it include the forces in Europe or does it apply only to the Korean forces?


Hugues Lapointe: It only includes those forces, I believe-and I am subject to correction- which are in a theatre of war or in what is defined as a theatre of war. I do not believe that Europe is a theatre of war or that the 27th brigade, to which my hon. friend refers, is in a territory which is considered to be a theatre of war. In other words, the bill applies only to Korean forces at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Howard Charles Green: As I understand it, this bill is of a temporary nature, designed to meet a situation until it is possible to bring in permanent legislation to deal with these benefits.


Hugues Lapointe: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: When does the minister expect that it will be possible to provide for these benefits by legislation rather than by orders in council?


Hugues Lapointe: The procedure which is
followed, as my hon. friend knows, is the

same as was followed during world war II. I believe that last year some of the orders in council, which were passed under the act, were put into statutory form. The Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act was so amended; so were the Pension Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act to replace what used to be out-of-work benefits under the old veterans charter during world war II. As the situation becomes clearer it is intended to put it into statutory form and get the approval of parliament of some of these various orders in council.


Howard Charles Green: Are there any benefits at the present time for the men who have served in the 27th brigade in Europe, or who served in Canada?


Hugues Lapointe: There are some benefits, yes. They enjoy the benefits of the Pension Act; they enjoy the benefit of the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act; and they enjoy the benefit of the Unemployment Insurance Act that I mentioned before. All of the benefits of world war II have not been extended to them.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Lapointe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 182, to amend the Veterans Benefit Act, 1951.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



VETERANS INSURANCE ACT


Hugues Lapointe: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Veterans Insurance Act so as to provide that in certain cases the estate of the insured may receive the full amount payable under the policy contract.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May we have some information from the minister?


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, this is simply to permit the introduction of a bill to correct an oversight which took place last year when we amended the Veterans Insurance Act. There was in the bill sent to the committee at that time a clause to amend section 11 of the Veterans Insurance Act. The section provided that:
Where, under this act, the insurance money falls into and becomes part of the estate of the insured, such estate shall be entitled to receive only the reserve under the contract at the time of the death of the insured.
We wanted to take away that restriction, and make the full amount of the policy
Veterans Insurance Act payable to the estate. But in the same clause, as hon. members with recall, it was prepared to introduce a war clause into new contracts. It was all in the same clause of the bill. When the bill was referred to the select committee on veterans affairs, the introduction of the war clause was not approved. And the whole of the clause was deleted, so that the old section 11 now stands as it was. In order to correct that situation we are proposing to introduce an amendment to the insurance act this year and make it conform to the returned soldiers' insurance act.


Howard Charles Green: Will it be retroactive?


Hugues Lapointe: It does not matter, that I can see.


Howard Charles Green: Will it be retroactive? In other words, will it cover any cases of veterans dying in the meantime?


Hugues Lapointe: No, it will take effect as from the date the legislation is passed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Hugues Lapointe: I am afraid I did not make myself clear. There was no war clause. We wanted to introduce a war clause; as we were repealing old section 11, we decided to use that number for the section to introduce a war clause. This was objected to in committee, and as a result there was no war clause. But the old section stood, and we want to correct that now, and make the full amount of the policy payable to the estate.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I remember the Legion objected, and I objected to section 11 being amended as proposed in Bill No. 352 last year.


Hugues Lapointe: That is it.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: We cut off too much.


Hugues Lapointe: We cut away more than we intended to.


Howard Charles Green: Will the position not be that in the case of an insured who died in the intervening twelve months, his estate will suffer unless this amendment is made retroactive?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Just in the same way that every person suffered prior to the proposed amendment last year. It has the effect of delaying the amendment one year. The position will be just the same as that of any insured who died previous to the introduction of that clause a year ago, which was deleted.


Howard Charles Green: If this was a mistake in the committee, surely there should be no suffer-

Canadian Wheat Board Act ing because a veteran has died in the intervening twelve months. Surely provision could be made to cover the last twelve months.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I suggest you make that argument in the committee. From past experience,
I think it would be a good thing to do.


Percy Ellis Wright: Will you call it six o'clock?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: No; we are almost through.


Percy Ellis Wright: I want to ask questions with respect to this. It is now six o'clock. If this were the last bill I certainly would say let us finish it. There is another bill. We cannot finish the other bill.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, may I say that at eight o'clock we will have private and public bills and orders. Then we shall revert back to these veterans motions. I do not know, if we do not take the whole of the evening on that, whether the house would agree to proceed with the motion setting up a committee in the name of the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters). It has to do with setting up a committee to go into national film board activities.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker, I think we should proceed with what the minister announced last night, in view of the fact that certain hon. members have proceeded on the assumption that we were going to follow that order.


Alphonse Fournier: Then it will be the discussion on the budget after these bills.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935 (payment for farm storage).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this time to move the second reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, payment for farm storage. The provision permitting the wheat board to pay farm storage was placed in the Canadian Wheat Board Act some years ago. The section of

wheat board shall pay storage if directed by regulation. This bill merely deletes the words "if directed by regulation". If the bill is approved by the house it will make it compulsory on the wheat board to pay for farm storage.
However, I would point out that even with the amendment as proposed by this bill the wheat board would still have the power to set the period during which farm storage would be paid. Even the way this bill is now drafted it would not be mandatory upon the wheat board to pay farm storage for a full twelve months period, but it would establish the principle that the Canadian wheat board shall in each year make provision for the payment of storage for grain held on farms.
In case hon. members representing constituencies outside of western Canada may think that this bill is asking parliament to pay from the national treasury the western wheat farmer farm storage, I would point out that that is not the case. The bill merely provides that part of the farmer's own money which has been obtained by the Canadian wheat board shall be used for the payment of farm storage. This is not an entirely new principle as farm storage was paid during the early years of the war. The mechanics of paying for farm storage are quite simple as the wheat board need merely to increase the initial price paid for wheat by the present storage rate paid to the elevator companies, namely, one-thirtieth of a cent per bushel, per day.
The first point I wish to make therefore is that this bill is not asking the federal treasury to pay the farmer anything; it is merely asking that a certain proportion of the farmer's own money already held by the wheat board shall be paid out in a given way. Over the last few years the difficulties experienced by farmers in marketing their grain in the fall, the fact that there is a growing inventory of wheat being held by the wheat board, indicate that something should be done to ease the situation.
Some farmers find that they do not have the same opportunity as other farmers to deliver wheat to market in the fall. While the country elevator system is spread throughout western Canada, that system along with the annexes and storage space is not distributed in such a way as to give the same market facilities to all farmers no matter at what delivery point they may wish to deliver their grain. The payment of farm storage would assist, in a material way, farmers who are unable to market their grain in the fall.

Certain policies followed in the last few years by the Canadian wheat board have meant that farmers at various points have had little opportunity to market their grain. I do not wish anything I say to be interpreted as criticizing the wheat board, but last fall in particular it adopted the policy of taking short-haul grain to the head of the lakes and to Vancouver terminals first. That meant that in the fall grain was moved first out of Manitoba and Alberta and farmers in certain other areas in Saskatchewan were forced to store grain for longer periods.
The secretary of the Alberta wheat pool points out that it has been the practice in the past for grain to be moved first to the head of the lakes from short-haul points, which meant that Alberta farmers had the greatest difficulty marketing their grain. The payment of farm storage at the rate of one cent per bushel per month would compensate those farmers who have to build additional storage for grain because of the policy adopted by the wheat board or because of non-availability of elevator and storage space.
Another policy followed by the wheat board, and again I am not criticizing it, has resulted in certain farmers having the opportunity to market much of their grain, if not all, much more quickly than others. This was due to the policy adopted by the wheat board of removing quotas for a certain period of time on the higher grades of wheat. Consequently the farmer who had threshed his grain and was fortunate enough to have milling grades of wheat was able to market it in the fall and receive payment for it while other less fortunate farmers had to bear the additional cost of storing grain on their farms.
From my observations with respect to farmers harvesting and delivering grain in the fall I would say that certain farmers, usually the well-to-do ones with modern hauling equipment such as a two or three ton truck, can market larger quantities of their grain, particularly when the quotas are lifted for a period of time, than can the small farmer who must depend on someone else to haul his grain or must use a team of horses or a small farm truck. Farmers who have modern combines and up-to-date machines are also able to harvest their grain earlier than some of their neighbours who are smaller farmers and must depend upon the custom combine or on equipment of their own which is in many cases obsolete.
The payment of farm storage would mean that a farmer who must store his own grain would get a payment of one cent per bushel per month. He would not make a fortune 55701-108J
Canadian Wheat Board Act but he would receive a sum of money which would in part compensate him for the additional trouble of handling that grain three times, once out of the combine, once into the granary and once out of the granary, before it gets to town. I believe it would provide the farmer with additional money to go toward the cost of providing storage on his own farm. It is not a case now of whether or not the wheat board shall pay storage on grain. It is a case of whether we should ask the wheat board to make farmers along with elevator companies eligible to receive the regular storage rate.
I believe the payment of farm storage would also make it possible for a great many farmers to haul grain to the elevator of their own choice. I know that if I belong to the wheat pool organization, as I do, and if I care to, as I have in the past, I can store my grain on the farm even though there is room in a line company elevator and wait until finally there is room in my own wheat pool elevator. In the fall a great many farmers need money right away, and when they find the wheat pool elevator plugged to which they would like to haul their grain they are forced to haul to the line elevator company. If the farmer were paid farm storage he would at least have some small compensation for the trouble of handling his grain two additional times and he would then be in a position to patronize his own co-operative elevator company at a later date.
I believe it might be a good thing-and I ask the minister to give this point consideration-for the government to formulate a policy directed toward keeping on every farm a minimum quantity of grain at least until the middle of the summer. I believe the history of western Canada shows that in one year out of three there is a large area of crop failure. If the farmer in any crop failure area had on his own farm from 500 to 1,000 bushels of wheat he would have in that form some crop insurance and protection against crop failure. I want to point out again that the bill would allow the Canadian wheat board to vary the time over which farm storage could be paid. If there was a crop failure and the wheat board needed all the wheat that farmers could deliver, then of course the farm storage period could be greatly reduced. I doubt very much whether the wheat board is going to have any serious difficulty in the next year or two in obtaining grain to sell. The difficulty that the wheat board may well face is difficulty in being able to dispose of the grain offered for sale.
I believe that if farm storage were paid to farmers it would mean less clamour for available elevator storage space. The little fellow, who is now pushed to the wall in the

Canadian Wheat Board Act fall and cannot get his grain out in competition with neighbours who have modern equipment, would get some compensation, and perhaps at a future date within the crop year elevator storage space would be more readily available. I brought up this subject on December 14, 1951. I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) at that time if he and the government would give consideration to the payment of farm storage. The minister levelled quite a blast at me at that time. I am going to omit quoting that part of the proceedings now, but the minister had this to say-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was the Christmas spirit.


Hazen Robert Argue: -as found at page 1979 of Hansard for December 14:
My hon. friend is practically suggesting that when delivery of grain is made, say in March, instead of getting $1.20, which probably would be due on No. 1 Northern wheat, the farmer would get $1.24. All right, that is 4 cents he is ahead there. But when he gets his final payment he is going to find that 4 cents is deducted. All he gets is 4 cents a little bit earlier. If we changed the interim payment and made it 24 cents instead of 20 cents the result would be practically the same.
I have been attempting to make the point that farmers who must bear the additional cost of storing grain on their own farms should receive compensation. The minister says that all farmers are paid and should continue to be paid the same price for grain irrespective of whether or not they must store it on their own farms. But the minister does not follow that policy with respect to paying storage to elevator companies. He does not say: We will pay all the elevator companies the same storage fee irrespective of the length of time they store the wheat or the quantity they store. On the contrary, storage to elevator companies is paid as it should be in greater amounts to those elevator companies that store larger quantities of wheat for longer periods of time. Just as it would not be fair to pay each elevator company the same storage fee irrespective of the quantity of wheat that the company stores, it is not fair to pay each farmer the same price for a bushel of wheat irrespective of whether or not the farmer must store his wheat for a long period of time. The minister has said that it would not help the farmers at all. I admit that the main result of the bill would be a reallocation or redistribution of farmers' money amongst the farmers. But it does mean that those farmers who must bear the additional cost of storage for a considerable length of time because there is a lack of elevator space or because there is a shortage of box cars or because the wheat board is taking the short hauls first and has removed the delivery quota, would receive some compensation.

Farmers are now paying storage on grain to elevator companies whether they like it or not. The carry-over last July 31 was greater than in the previous year, and there is no doubt the carry-over this year will show a further increase. That being the case, the elevator companies are likely to go on building more and larger annexes. In other words provision is going to be made for the storage of larger and larger quantities of wheat; the farmer is going to pay for that storage, and somebody else is going to get the benefit.
I do not suggest that we should stop paying storage to elevator companies, but I do say storage should be paid to farmers. If that were done I do not imagine the elevator companies would go on increasing the number of annexes so they could store larger quantities of wheat. Last year western farmers, through the wheat board, paid the elevator companies over $17 million. In my opinion the amount paid for elevator storage is likely to increase this year. But I believe it could be held at the present figure of $17 million if farm storage were paid, and any additional storage that might subsequently be needed for grain in western Canada built on the farms so the farmers would receive the benefit.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: How much was that per bushel?


Hazen Robert Argue: One cent per bushel per month. The attitude of any western member to this bill should, I believe, depend to a large extent on whether the farmers of western Canada want farm storage. Before I deal with that point I think in fairness I should say that in the correspondence I have had with various farm organizations I have not had strong support for this bill from the farmers' elevator organizations such as the Manitoba wheat pool, the Saskatchewan wheat pool or the Alberta wheat pool; but in the correspondence I have had with these organizations I can say they have not raised objection to this legislation. I think I can fairly interpret their correspondence by saying that for the most part their position was neutral.
On the other hand I have had correspondence with the Manitoba farmers' union who informed me, over the signature of their secretary-treasurer, that they have requested farm storage and are supporting the payment of farm storage; and they point out that they have a membership of over 22,000. Then I come to the Saskatchewan farmers' union, a grass roots farm organization that is strong and active at the present time. Year after year that union has consistently passed resolutions favouring the payment of farm

storage. As a matter of fact just a few weeks ago the Saskatchewan farmers' union presented a brief to the Canadian wheat board, and under the heading of farm storage it had this to say in part:
Another plan to relieve elevator congestion both at local and terminal points and ease pressure on quotas, etc., is a plan of compensation to farmers for grain stored on the farm, especially for grades or kinds of grain not required for immediate marketable positions . . . We would again urge the board to seriously consider implementing a farm storage plan for grain for the new crop year. Such a plan could and no doubt should provide for cancellation of farm storage at any stated date on any given grade or kind of grain required for immediate sale.
Resolution No. 14 at the last annual convention of the Alberta farmers' union reads as follows:
Resolved that this convention go on record as being in favour of the wheat board paying farm storage on undeliverable grain, at the same rate as elevator companies receive.
These statements and resolutions are couched in somewhat different phraseology but I believe those three farm organizations would support wholeheartedly the bill I am presenting to parliament tonight. I might add that at an executive meeting held in Regina on August 29 the Saskatchewan federation of agriculture adopted the following resolution:
That this meeting of the Saskatchewan federation of agriculture request the wheat board to institute a system similar to that in effect in 1941 and 1943 of storage payments on grain stored on the farm.
There we have the farmers' unions of the three prairie provinces, together with the Saskatchewan federation of agriculture, advocating and supporting the payment of farm storage.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, this bill would provide for the reallocation of a small proportion of the farmers' own money. It would provide some compensation to farmers who must store grain on their farms for a longer period of time and consequently must pay an additional cost with respect to storage. The farm organizations I have mentioned support this proposal. In travelling through my constituency and discussing this matter I can say the farmers themselves are almost unanimously in support of it. I believe it only fair that farm storage be paid directly to the farmers themselves, and if that were done we might need even less elevator storage than we now have. So I say the bill I am presenting tonight is in the interests of the farmers and in my opinion is supported by the rank and file western wheat producer.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: As a farmer I would like to ask the hon. member a question, for the sake of information. How much would the administrative costs be in this connection?
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Hazen Robert Argue: I think that question might be better directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), but it would seem to me that the administration cost would be low. It would merely mean that the wheat board would increase by one-thirtieth of a cent a day during the storage period the payment for any particular grade of grain which the wheat board purchased. The minister told us at one time that there were over 300 grades of wheat. I do not think that the addition of one further factor by which the price of wheat will be varied would cost the Canadian wheat board very much in the way of administration charges.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The hon. member for Assin-iboia (Mr. Argue) has given, Mr. Speaker, a well reasoned argument in favour of farm storage. He said that I blasted him on another occasion. I certainly never intended to blast the hon. member. I consider him a hard working and capable member who is well posted on the wheat situation in western Canada. The section of the wheat board act that the hon. member proposes to amend was enacted in the spring of 1940 and applied to the 1940-41 crop as well as to the 1941-42 crop. The circumstances that caused the amendment of the act were that war had broken out in 1939; transportation to the old country was badly disrupted, markets were disorganized and Canada was receiving very few offers for her crop. At that time it was important to induce farmers to hold grain on their farms to the fullest extent they were able to do so. The clause is, in my opinion, still a valuable clause to be applied in any year that promises to be a year in which wheat does not sell readily. Nevertheless, I cannot agree with the hon. member that it is a clause which should be invoked every year; even when there may be an active market for wheat and when, as this year, wheat can be sold if it can be delivered at seaboard.
I am sure the hon. member will agree with me that no impediment should be put in the way of getting saleable wheat delivered to the wheat board and delivered by the board to ocean ships as rapidly as the market will absorb it. We all know that the successful marketing of wheat and other grains is primarily the marketing of a crop in the year in which it is grown. 1 have been around western Canada for some forty years, and I am well aware that the calamities in the past, involving a sharp fall in the price of wheat, have been caused by

Canadian Wheat Board Act accumulated unsold surpluses from previous crops. It is that situation which I believe should be avoided above all others.
The hon. member has said that no taxpayers' money is involved in his amendments. His proposal is that all the producers of western Canada who market wheat, oats or barley, shall pay to certain producers, who carry their wheat, oats and barley on their farm for a period, storage rates as set out in the bill. I think such payment can only be justified on one of two grounds. The first ground would be: is it to the benefit of all the producers that this should be done? In other words, will all the producers benefit from the money that will be paid to those who collect storage on farm stored grain? The second ground would be that the present system is inequitable, and would there be greater equity as between producers if farm storage were paid?
Now, we will examine the first point: will it benefit all the western farmers if certain wheat or oats or barley is held back on the farms? I see nothing to indicate that that would be the result. As I have said we have today, and have had for several years, a very active demand for Canadian grain. Last year, and again this year, the sales of wheat, oats and barley were limited only by the quantities of those grains that could be delivered in a marketing position at the proper time. Surely, no inducement should be held out to any producer which would induce him to avoid delivering his grain when that grain is needed by the wheat board. The board has to sell wheat well in advance of loading at seaboard, and it can only sell wheat, oats or barley when it is assured that the grain being sold is in a position to permit the carrying out of the contract entered into by the wheat board. With the international wheat agreement, the situation in regard to wheat is not as difficult as it was when wheat was being sold on the open market or to individual customers. The board can have reasonable assurance that the wheat which it sells will be delivered, and it can proceed in its selling with a good deal of confidence, for it knows the selling price of wheat before the season opens, and it also has some reasonable assurance of the quantity of wheat that will be delivered.
Let us take a case that is easier to examine. Let us examine the sale of oats. Now, the active period for selling oats is in the winter months. I have here the prices and sales of oats for the crop year 1950-51, the last full crop year of which we have record. We find that in September, 1950, when deliveries of oats commenced, 7-3 per cent of the crop was delivered and the average price was 88J
'Mr. Howe.]

Canadian Wheat Board Act of grain in western Canada, or more detrimental to the best interests of the producer, than to make mandatory the payment of storage on the farm during every year, regardless of marketing conditions.


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, in days gone by I have had a great deal of fun in supporting farm legislation; and when good legislation is introduced at the present time I will be just as energetic as anybody else in the house in advocating it, because I believe the farmers need all the help they can get; and no one is in a better position to give them some help in straightening out some of their injustices than is the minister who has just taken his seat. If he will only ask the Canadian bread eaters to pay the proper price for the farmers' wheat, I for one will be much better satisfied than I am at the present time with our contracts.
With regard to this bill, the main thing it asks for is the striking out-from subsection 2 of section 21, I believe-of the words "if directed by regulation". If the wheat board find it advisable or beneficial to the wheat growers, they have all the power under the present act that is asked for in this bill. Personally, I can see arguments for and against this change. I do not see sufficient advantage in passing this legislation to make the change asked for. I can see that a farmer who is financially able can hold back thousands of bushels of his grain and draw storage on the farm for that grain. On the other hand, I can see a number of the little fellows who have perhaps 500 bushels or 1,000 bushels of grain of their own contributing to pay that storage to the man who is in business in a big way. Therefore while this legislation provides benefits in some ways, it will create injustice in other directions.
Since the act as it stands at the present time contains everything that is asked for in this bill, it is not my intention to support the bill. It has been stated by the mover of this bill that the farm organizations, or the western wheat pools, are neutral. In this instance I believe they are right. I could also be neutral and not vote for or against. I realize that when farm organizations, or any other organizations, meet in convention and have a resolution presented to them-it may be presented by somebody who has not thought the matter all the way through, and he may very easily get that convention to vote for something about which they know very little, or to which they have given very little thought-they may pass it without knowing what they are doing. Perhaps that is what happened with regard to some of the organizations that voted for this out west.


I do not feel that anybody will be injured by our not passing this legislation tonight, because, as I have stated already, everything asked for in this legislation is already contained in the wheat board act as it stands at the present time.


Mr. G. M. Ferrie (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on this bill also with regard to farm storage. It seems to me that the wrong attitude has been taken with regard to this farm storage. In the first place, the elevator companies take in the grain and get it out to market as fast as they possibly can, in the fall of the year. The farmer does exactly the same thing. He wants to get it to market as fast as he can get it there. The man who is forced to do that is the man who has to sell his grain, the small man, the small farmer who has to sell 500, 600 or 1,000 bushels to pay his debts. He has to sell it at that time.
Let us take the big man, and calculate this on an interest basis. Threshing starts in August. We have August, September, October, November, December, and then January, February and March. Up to February he has six months at 6 cents a bushel for storage. Tell me of any good common-sense farmer who has an amount of grain who would not keep that grain in the granary for 6 cents a bushel for storage? Any rich farmer will keep his right in the granary for 6 cents a bushel for storage. Why should we pass this legislation and allow the rich farmer to receive that gain?
I will agree that the man with 1,000 acres or 2,000 acres down in the southern part of the province of Saskatchewan can afford to do it, but the farmers that I represent certainly cannot afford to do that. They try to get their grain out, and they get it out as fast as they can. Here is another thing that would happen. March and April come along. What would happen is what happens in the fall. Manitoba floods out everything. If we were to have the farm storage proposition we would have that happen in April because all these men down there would naturally keep their grain if they could get that large amount for storage.
Take the situation as it stands today. The minister has told us that he can sell this grain as fast as he can get it. The man in the country who is going to get 6 cents a bushel for storage on his grain is naturally, beyond any shadow of a doubt, going to keep that grain. Why would he keep it? He would keep it because there are two things that he will get out of it. In the first place he is going to be sure that he has a crop. If he does not, he keeps that grain. In the second place, he is going to be well paid for it, and

we, the smaller farmers, are going to have to sell our grain in the fall of the year, or during the winter months, and then we are going to have to pay the rich farmer, too. It is all going to have to come out of that amount.
If you are going to sell an article you have to put it in the place where you can sell it. We have not got enough transportation in western Canada to draw even 40 per cent of the crop in the last two months of the year. I am sure that if we had the transportation to do the work, which we have not, in the final analysis, we would bog down because of the large surpluses that would be built up, owing to the amount that was being paid for that storage. The farmers would not think about storage; they would think of the dollars that they were going to get out of it. I am sure that the majority of farmers in the eastern part of the province of Saskatchewan certainly do not want farm storage.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: What about the man who feeds livestock?


Mr. Larson:: I have two or three things that I should like to say on this subject, but I should like you to call it nine o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and I shall adjourn the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I call it nine o'clock?
On motion of Mr. Larson the debate was adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: The house will resume the business which was interrupted at six o'clock.



VETERANS INSURANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Lapointe-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Veterans Insurance Act so as to provide that in certain cases the estate of the insured may receive the full amount payable under the policy contract.
Percy Ellis Wright: When the house rose at six o'clock I was about to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs a question with regard to this resolution. I am just wondering whether this resolution means at least what I interpret it to mean. It says:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Veterans Insurance Act so as to provide that in certain cases the estate of the insured may receive the full amount payable under the policy contract.
I have had communications from certain veterans who carry this insurance who wish to have it placed to their estate on their death but under the contract as it stands at
Veterans Insurance Act the present time it must go to the next of kin. In some cases the veterans are desirous that it should go to their estate rather than to the next of kin. I am wondering about this amendment which is being suggested here, which states that under certain circumstances the insurance may be left to the estate.
Cases were placed before the board which indicated how unfair it was when a veteran had to leave his insurance to his next of kin. In one particular case the next of kin were living in Great Britain and had had no interest whatsoever in the veteran or his welfare. In that case the veteran would have preferred to have left his insurance to his estate and then to have disposed of his estate by a will to people who had been friendly to him during his lifetime. I am just wondering whether the minister has explained whether that would be possible under the proposed amendments.


Hugues Lapointe: Before we rose at six o'clock I endeavoured to explain the purpose of this legislation. I believe the cases to which my hon. friend has referred will be taken care of by this amendment. The Veterans Insurance Act provides for certain classes of beneficiaries. When taking out a contract the veteran specifies the beneficiary to whom the policy will be payable in the event of his death. There was a restriction in the Returned Soldiers Insurance Act which was eliminated last year and but for the error which I was explaining at six o'clock a similar section would have been eliminated from this act.
Under this amendment we will now be able to pay the full amount of the policy instead of only the reserve as is the case at the present time.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Lapoinie thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 183, to amend the Veterans Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PENSION ACT


Hugues Lapointe: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to amend the Pension Act (a) to adjust the allowance for excessive wear and tear of a pensioner's clothing, when he wears a prosthesis, to correspond to the increase in the basic scale of pensions; (b) to make more adequate provision when there are two
1714

Pension Act
dependent parents of a deceased member of the forces; and (c) to provide for some administrative changes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Will the minister explain?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hugues Lapointe: I had no intention of saying anything until the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) asked me to explain. The amendments which are contemplated in the bill to follow this resolution will provide for an increase in the allowances paid to veterans for wear and tear on clothing as a result of an amputation or the wearing of prosthetic appliances.
It is also intended to increase the amount payable on behalf of a second dependent parent when there are two dependent parents involved. This award of dependent's pension where there is a second parent is, at present, $15 monthly and will be increased.
The other amendment was suggested last year during the course of a discussion on the bill to amend the Petition of Right Act. I believe it was the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) who questioned the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) on the application of that act as a result of a decision rendered by the exchequer court a short time previously. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that an applicant whose claim is based on accidental injury or death due to negligence of a servant of the crown shall not be placed in a better position than an applicant whose claim is based on disability or death due to enemy action.
To illustrate what I am trying to say: It would not permit anyone drawing a pension under the Pension Act as a result of injury or death of a soldier while on service to also claim against the crown before the courts of this country for damages over and above the pension being received. A similar section was placed in the Government Employees Compensation Act following a judgment that had been rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada, and I believe a similar section is to be found in all provincial workmen's compensation acts.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on this resolution. First of all may I thank the minister for the explanation he has made. I am particularly interested in the resolution because it proposes certain amendments to the Pension Act which have not been the result of, shall I say, strong representations or pressure by any organization or group. That indicates to me that these amendments possibly result from the close observation of the officials charged with the administration (Mr. Lapointe.]
of the act with respect to omissions in the legislation as a result of the amendments last year and the effects of changing conditions and circumstances. If I am correct, I think that is very much to the credit of those who are administering the Pension Act. I tried to listen carefully to what the minister was saying but the debate on the farm storage of wheat was progressing to my rear. Therefore I could not hear very well and I did not hear all the minister had to say. Fortunately that debate has now been adjourned to the lobby.
The resolution before us is divided into three sections. The first reads as follows:
(a)	to adjust the allowance tor excessive wear and tear of a pensioner's clothing, when he wears a prosthesis, to correspond to the increase in the basic scale of pensions.
I am sure every member of the house realizes that is good and to the advantage of the pensioners concerned. I am very pleased to see this amendment proposed because I presume that the number of people affected is relatively small, and it is most agreeable to this group to see that even the needs of this relatively small number are being given consideration by this amendment. The second part of the resolution reads as follows:
(b)	to make more adequate provision when there are two dependent parents of a deceased member of the forces.
I am not quite clear on what is meant because I did not hear the minister's explanation very well. However, from what I heard I would say that this provision is good as far as it goes. When we are in committee I should like the minister to explain whether this also means that consideration is being given to removing the means test from the compassionate pension under section 35. I understand that is the section concerned in this proposal. I should like the minister to explain that further because when we were amending the act last session I, in association with several other members, brought this matter to the attention of the house. It has been brought to my attention on quite a number of occasions by those who are directly concerned with the administration and effects of section 35 as it now stands. I hope that when consideration is being given to this amendment the minister will be persuaded to amend the act further so as to remove that means test. The third part of the resolution reads as follows:
(c)	to provide for some administrative changes.
There again I did not hear clearly what the minister had to say. That was not his fault, but did he inform the house of all the administrative changes proposed when he was speaking?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes.

The Budget-Mr. Wylie


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I must say that, although Resolution reported, read the second time this resolution covers a rather limited scope, and concurred in.
it is of great importance to at least a small Mr. Lapointe thereupon moved for leave number of people, and I am very pleased to intro<juce Bill No. 184, to amend the to see the government proposing these pension Act. amendments to the Canadian Pension Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first Motion agreed to and the house went into time, committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I want to ask the minister one question. Clause (a) of the resolution refers to adjusting the allowance for excessive wear and tear of a pensioner's clothing so as to correspond to the increase in the basic scale of pensions. The purpose of clause (b) is to make more adequate provision when there are two dependent parents of a deceased member of the forces. I should like to ask the minister why there is not an increase when there is only one dependent parent of a deceased member of the forces. Why should it only apply when there are two? Subsection (a) speaks about an increase in the basic scale. Why should there not be an increase for one dependent as well as for two to correspond with the increase in the basic scale?


Hugues Lapointe: As my hon. friend knows, in the case of pensions paid to dependent parents there is what I might call a means test. My hon. friend is aware of that. They are not pensions that are paid as of right like the pension paid to the disability pensioner or a widow. I believe there is a ceiling in the act, and consideration must be given to the circumstances of the dependent parent within that ceiling. There also was a ceiling in the case of two dependent parents. The amount was limited, and we are intending to amend the act to increase the amount in respect of the second parent.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not understand yet why it is not intended to increase it for the first.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: There is power under the legislation as amended a year ago to deal with one dependent parent but there was a fixed ceiling in the legislation which placed a limit on the total amount payable to the two of them when there was a second parent, and the proposal is to increase that joint sum.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The ceiling?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: The sum of the two. Under this proposal it can be higher than it was possible for it to be before.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the ceiling being raised when two are involved?


Hugues Lapointe: That is right.
55704-109J



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, April 25, consideration of the motion of Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. W. D. Wylie (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, when this debate was adjourned last Friday evening I was about to deal with family allowances and old age security. Since that time we have had a debate on the Family Allowances Act, during which much useful information was disclosed. However, the fact remains that the payments made under that act today are not what they were when it was enacted in 1944. They do not have the same purchasing power; instead of being the payments they were, they are considerably reduced. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) discussed this subject very thoroughly, and I admired his courage and the way he put forth his views. He praised the Liberal party for bringing in family allowances, and said it was the first party in this country to think of them. I suggest that the Social Credit party in Alberta was the first party to suggest that dividends be paid to the people of this country, and without a means test.


Mr. Byrne:: But you never paid them.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: It is true that the Liberal government has come a long way toward meeting our requirements. It is also true that we do not agree with the way they collect the money with which to pay these allowances. The fact is that the Social Credit party of Alberta was the first party in Canada to suggest a dividend.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: They suggested it, but they never paid it.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I will handle you in a minute. I agree that any time we add to the purchasing power of the common people we are doing something good. If in 1930 or even 1937 or 1938 we had suggested that $322,150,000 be distributed, you know what would

The Budget-Mr. Wylie have happened. They would have said that was inflation; that we would be giving the people something for nothing, and we would ruin everyone. If that money had been distributed in those bad years-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Where were you going to get it in those years?


William Duncan McKay Wylie: The same place we would get it today. If that had been done we would not have had the suffering we saw in many parts of this country. Perhaps the hon. member who is interrupting me did not go through that. I doubt if he did. He looks very well fed, and I imagine he was well fed in the thirties, from the way he talks. When we did suggest the distribution of a dividend in 1933 and 1934 and up to 1937, they said it could not be done, that we would have inflation. Well, I would sooner have inflation any time than deflation. When we have inflation, within limits, people have money; but in those tough years when we had deflation no one had any money. The trouble was that we produced so much everyone had to starve. I remember that I was employed by the Alberta government as an agricultural field man on relief work. The dominion government shipped in carloads of cheese, beans, creosoted fish and everything else to be distributed by the mounted police among the recipients of relief. At the same time people running stores in those towns and villages were going broke because they had too much of those goods on hand and could not sell them. Is that the way you want to live? I don't. I saw what happened, and we do not want that to happen again.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It won't, under a Liberal government.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Under a Liberal government? Surely you do not want me to start in on the Liberal government. If you do I can do it, and I can tell you plenty. Talk about the poor prices being paid for cattle today. Think what the Liberal government did back in 1937 and 1938, when they bought our cattle for a cent a pound. Don't ask me about the record of the Liberal government in the purchase of cattle. I had no intention of getting into this, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. member asked for it and I gave it to him.
In connection with old age security, together with the other members of this group I was very happy to see the means test removed at the age of 70. One thing we did disagree with was the amount paid. Today Liberal members get up and praise the Liberal government for removing the means test. That was done by unanimous consent of the house. Having had eight years of


experience in handling old age pensions over a very large area, I knew what conditions were, and I was glad to see the means test abolished. It enabled some people to receive the benefits who otherwise would have been disqualified. But the dominion government has done one thing by paying only $40 per month. It has forced every provincial government to use a means test in connection with any supplementary pensions. I know that is the case in Alberta, where we pay one of the highest pensions in Canada to our aged citizens. We pay $10 a month plus all medical and health benefits, but that comes under the means test. We render the same assistance to the people from 65 to 69. Not only that, but in Alberta we pay a pension of $40 per month to widows who are between 60 and 65. What other province pays a pension to widows? Certainly the federal government does not but the government of Alberta does.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: How many widows?


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I am sure that if you lived in Alberta there would be another widow.
Mr. Speaker, those are the facts, and that is what Alberta is doing; but we are forced to do it under a means test. I am sure that Saskatchewan and British Columbia use the means test on their supplementary payments. Perhaps Ontario does, too.


Mr. Hellyer:: Ontario does not have a supplementary payment.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Hellyer) says that they do not have a supplementary payment in Ontario. In other words, the old age pensioner must get along on the $40 per month. I am sure there are plenty of Conservatives from Ontario here who could correct that statement if it were wrong. In Alberta, we do have a supplementary payment, because that province is one of the top provinces so far as provision for old age security is concerned.
The other evening I listened to a very interesting speech delivered by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Weaver). It was a very enlightening speech. He showed us what could be done in that northern part of Manitoba, and what can be done in northern Manitoba can be done in Saskatchewan and Alberta. Those areas hold untold wealth. We know there are many thousands of acres of agricultural land and thousands of acres of minerals that have not yet been explored. While I listened to the hon. member I could not help but think about the southern and central part of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and the development that we could have in

those areas. I am going to speak about Alberta, because I know more about that province than any other.
In Alberta we have three large irrigation schemes that are being developed. There is the St. Mary's-Milk river, the Bow river project and the Red Deer river diversion. If those three projects were fully developed, and we hope they will be in the very near future, they would bring into the irrigation area close to 900,000 acres with a potential for the establishment of perhaps 10,000 or 11,000 farms. This area is well served by railroads, highways and other services which must be taken into consideration in developing communities. In the southeastern part of Alberta we consider every year a dry year. Last year was an exception, and we had an abundance of rain. As a matter of fact, we had so much rain we could not get our crops harvested, which is very unusual for that area. However, over the years the people of the drought area expect every year to be a dry year. This year the area is starting with an abundance of subsoil moisture. As a matter of fact, there is from four to five feet of subsoil moisture which is more than we have had for thirty years. It does not mean that we are going to have a crop. The southern portion of the province is subject to these Chinook winds which will dry up a crop in about five days. As a matter of fact I have seen a crop standing four feet high, and within one week it has been wilted to such an extent that you could see the rows in which it was seeded right across the field. It is for that reason we need these three irrigation projects, and that is why we must continue to work in spite of the floods we had this year.
I might say that Medicine Hat experienced this year one of the worst floods it has had since 1918. A thousand people had to leave their homes. I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is not here, but it does seem to me that the P.F.R.A. should use its power to establish dams in that area so that the water could be stored. One of the main causes of the flood at Medicine Hat was the dam on Seven Persons creek. While the dam did not go out the spillway did, and the results are the same.
What happened with regard to the Ross creek project? P.F.R.A. administration had all the supplies in there in order to put in head gates on the canal and to divert the creek into the canal, but they were moved away before the diversion was completed two years ago. The result was that a year ago this spring the main highway leading south to an important farming district was flooded to a depth of several
The Budget-Mr. Wylie feet of water. The farmer's yard where the diversion is located was washed out to a width of about 20 feet, with water to a depth of 14 feet. This year the P.F.R.A. administration had to repair that damage. It has cost them thousands and thousands of dollars to do what they should have done in the first place, namely, to put in proper head gates in the canal. At the present time the head gates are not in the canal. This means that our reservoir is not full because we could not turn the water in.
In this house we talk about saving money in the estimates. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) mentioned many ways in which this could be done. I mention this one tonight. When we have the goods on the job, let us use them and finish it. But they were moved away. I would not venture to say that .they were playing politics by moving them away but I believe that is exactly what happened.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Did you ask them?


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I did. That is what happened. The job was not completed. The storage of water in southeastern Alberta is extremely important to that area.
Another matter that must be looked into is another storage dam on the Bow river. That is of great importance. The farmers of the eastern irrigation district are worried lest they will not have enough water when a dry year comes along. They have a right to be worried, because when we put another 400,000 acres under water on the Bow river development project it is certainly going to require all the water that we can store. There is only one solution, namely, to build another dam on the Bow river. The more we do in that line, the more we are going to save for the people of Canada.
We want more people out west. Certainly we do. There is only one way in which we are going to get them and that is by developing our natural resources. Alberta is today doing a good job in developing her natural resources. I do not have to tell hon. members that, because they all know it. But we must have more development in the way of irrigation and we must have more people to settle on the land. In that way they will be producing something that will be of benefit to Canada.
We as members of parliament must have not only a provincial but a national outlook. Too many Canadians today do not believe that anything which benefits one part of Canada benefits the remainder, but it does. Let us work together so that we can develop this country from one end to the other.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I should

The Budget-Mr. J. A. Ross first of all like to refer to a statement made by my colleague the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell). As reported of page 1474 of Hansard he stated:
. . . there is not much satisfaction to many of our taxpayers to hear these millions and billions bandied about-they do not live in a world of millions and billions; they live in a world of fives and tens, and less than that. It is the ordinary taxpayer that I am interested in, and it is the ordinary taxpayer that this house exists to protect.
I think there is a great deal of food for thought in that statement made by the hon. member for Greenwood. I believe that important fact is all too often overlooked in this chamber.
This has been a huge budget, one of approximately $4-5 billion, that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) left with us to discuss and to debate in this chamber while he departed to the south for some days. We have been rather accustomed to the phraseology of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to the effect that we might save a million dollars, but what is a million nowadays? I am afraid that has become rather the mental attitude of the government of the day in taxing the people and in the expenditure of our money.
A great deal of this budget is for national defence. Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to an editorial in the Globe and Mail of April 26. It is headed "$18,000 Per Man" and reads as follows:
If money is the sinews of war, Canada's armed forces should be the most formidable the world has ever seen. They are certainly the most expensive the world has even seen. Never before in history has a nation's armed forces cost it more than $18,000 per man. Even today, no nation comes close to that figure-including the United States, which is supposed to be the most extravagant in its military spending.
It is a matter of simple mathematics. Canada's defence budget, exclusive of foreign aid, is $1-7 billion. Our armed forces number 94,000. This is just over $18,000 per man. The U.S. defence budget, exclusive of foreign aid, is $51 billion. Its armed forces number 3-5 million. This is just under $15,000 per man.
How about Britain? During the present fiscal year, that country will spend $3-9 billion on defence. She has 850,000 men under arms. Thus, her cost per man is just over $4,500. Australia's defence budget this year is $300 million. With forces of 50,000, her cost per man comes to $6,000. Belgium's forces total 140,000, with a defence budget of $460 million; slightly over $3,000 per man.
It is true, of course, that the emphasis in Canada's defence program is on the air force-most expensive of all services. Our cost there runs around $25,000 per man. But Britain seems to manage it on slightly under $5,000 per man. As for the army, Britain gets 440,000 men for her $1-4 billion-slightly less than $3,500 per man. Canada gets 48,000 men for her $532 million-slightly more than $11,000 per man.
It is also true that Canada labours under the handicap of her relatively small population; and hence her relatively small armed services. A nation numbering its troops in the thousands will natur-
IMr. Ross (Souris).]
ally have a higher per-man cost than one which numbers them in the millions; which has the advantage, so to speak, of mass production.
But the fact remains that our per-man cost is markedly higher than the American; three times as high as the Australian; four times as high as the British; nearly six times as high as the Belgian.
This newspaper does not argue that a per-man cost of $18,000 is unjustified. It can be justified- but only in one way. We are only justified in having the most expensive troops in the world if they are best-trained, the best-equipped in the world. We are only justified in paying the top price if we get the top return from it. Are we, in fact, getting the top return? Are we getting our $18,000 worth?
The fact is that we are not. We have none of the tanks which make the British divisions the hardest hitting force in western Europe today. The best we could put into western Europe, or into Korea, was infantry-well-trained, and efficient, but not expensive. The story of our air force does not need repeating. Whatever may be the deficiencies of the British, the Americans, even the Belgians, they are ahead of us. These being the facts, what has been done with our money?
That is very indicative of the thoughts of many of the taxpayers of Canada today.
It has been pointed out also by the hon. member for Greenwood in his discussion of the defence department that there was an item of some $4,890,000 for telephones, telegrams and communication services in a year. That seems out of all proportion. There are huge sums spent on government travelling and removal expenses, and many millions are spent on the publication of departmental reports and general publicity in that way.
The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sinclair) spoke to the house, and is reported at page 1530 of Hansard as having said:
Where, in the world today, is there any country whatsoever with a sounder economic position, a better fiscal policy, better development, or a higher level of employment than this country of Canada under the present Liberal administration?
He implied that everybody should be very happy in this country. Well, Mr. Speaker, I, like many other people, for many months past, have been very worried and concerned about the general plight of agriculture from coast to coast in this country of ours. I can tell you that many of these farm people are greatly worried, and in my opinion have reason to be so worried. In many cases the beef producers are without a market, and with the announced floor of from 7 cents to 10 cents a pound below the market of some few months previous many people are now out the value of feed and labour during the winter months, along with a further loss of cattle values.
This has been a very serious business in respect to them. They have been greatly aggravated by the disastrous outbreak of foot-and-month disease. I am sorry to hear of the recently announced outbreak in various

other areas. It is certainly playing havoc with the beef industry of this country and with our general economic situation.
The Winnipeg Tribune of April 23 carried the following:
City packing house executives state that they cannot take the financial risk of paying floor prices for cattle, when Ottawa gives them no guarantee against loss.
This was written some days following the announcement of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that these floor prices were now in operation throughout this country. I can tell you that there were several very unsatisfactory days in the St. Boniface stockyards adjoining Winnipeg.
There was a floor price of $22.80 per hundredweight announced for good steers, and a floor price of $24.50 for grade A hogs. But the price being paid in Winnipeg yards for heavy hogs and sows has been approximately 14 cents. That is a very great difference, and it is creating great hardship for those producers in the matter of marketing their hogs.
The cattle market has been at a stalemate for several days, with no sale whatever for certain grades of cattle. We had the plight of the poultry producer, and an unsatisfactory price for eggs. The plight of the dairy producer, and especially that of the cheese producer, with no market for their products, has been referred to. If there is a floor provided for hogs, for poultry and for other products, the cheese producers of this country are every bit as much entitled to a floor price during these very difficult times.
It has been pointed out in this debate that Canada's farm population of some 450,000 are dependent on receipts from the dairy industry as a source of income. It contributes more than $600 million to our national commerce. As was pointed1 out by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair), a large area of Canada is peculiarly suited to this form of farming, and it requires years of labour to build up a good dairy herd. The present situation in the dairy industry constitutes a national emergency. The outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease that I have referred to has resulted in the loss of the United States of America market for dairy cattle, as well as for beef. The traditional United Kingdom market for cheese is lost, and there is a quota imposed by the United States of America against Canadian cheese.
The government have announced the policy of support prices for certain agricultural products which, as I stated, is also applied to the cheese producers. The apple producers of this country are facing loss of markets. Then we have the western wheat producer who
The Budget-Mr. J. A. Ross has subsidized the consumers of Canada and of the United Kingdom by several hundreds of millions of dollars during past years, and they are still continuing to do so.
There is the matter of the international wheat agreement and the policies of this government which have been responsible for this. While we have been urging the government for some years that the domestic price of wheat should be different from that prevailing under the international wheat agreement, nothing has been done. Again I want to appeal to the responsible minister and to the government that there should be a different price for the domestic wheat of this country.
On April 16 at North Portal, North Dakota, the American farmer was receiving $2.09 a bushel for his wheat, while across the street at North Portal, Saskatchewan, the Canadian farmer received $1.43J per bushel for a like grade of wheat. In the United States of America the federal treasury subsidizes the farmer for the prevailing difference in the market price and the price under the international wheat agreement. According to the Searle Grain Company research department, this will cost the United States of America taxpayers around $600 million during the term of this international wheat agreement. While we have lost many of our best agricultural products, the price of our products is rapidly decreasing, the cost of production is still increasing. The cost of farm machinery increased during the year 1951 by over 14 per cent, and further increases are expected. Farm wages are at an all-time high, and still rising.
The hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Catherwood) pointed out the fact that we at one time enjoyed a splendid market for many of our agricultural products in Britain. In 1938 we supplied 27-5 per cent of the total British imports of barley. This market is now entirely lost to Russia. In 1938 we supplied 93 [DOT] 9 per cent of the total British imports of oats, and this market is lost. In 1945 we supplied 43 per cent of the total British imports of beef. This market is lost to the Argentine. In 1945 we supplied 83 per cent of the total British imports of bacon. This market is lost to a very great degree. In 1945 we supplied 31 per cent of the total British imports of cheese. There has been a great loss of this market. In 1947 we supplied 18 per cent of the total British imports of poultry. We have lost this market chiefly to iron curtain countries such as Poland and Hungary. In 1948 we supplied 79 per cent of the total British imports of eggs. That market is completely lost.

The Budget-Mr. J. A. Ross
These figures indicate, Mr. Speaker, that we are facing the most serious financial and trade crises in our history, and it is a dark picture for Canadian agriculturists during these times. With Canada being the only dollar member of the commonwealth our markets have been practically erased. This party has asked the government to initiate a trade and economic conference of members of the commonwealth, but up to the present that request has been refused. It is most important that to some degree Canada should regain its traditional markets for primary products. Our loss of markets has brought about a situation that strikes at the very roots of the agricultural economy of Canada.
As already set forth by the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), Canada is short of tanks and planes. The British Centurion tank is considered one of the best of its type in the world and it sells for much less than other types. The British Canberra bomber is so good that the United States are making it for themselves. Our armed forces are very ill-equipped and if Canada for the time being were to buy Centurions and Can-berras in some quantity the British would have dollars with which to buy Canadian agricultural products.
I urge the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who is also the Minister of Defence Production, to do something about this. I think the minister should be able to work out some scheme which would be beneficial both to the armed forces of this nation and the agricultural producers of Canada. I trust the government will endeavour to take some action such as this.
Before closing I should like to make some reference to this dreaded foot-and-mouth disease. I was surprised at what took place in this chamber yesterday with respect to a motion that had been passed previously by the house. I know the matter is to be discussed by the standing committee on agriculture, but that committee has not yet been convened. While I am anxious to get to the bottom of the cause of the great delay in taking action once the disease was first discovered I want to make it clear that I do not want to be responsible for keeping these veterinary officials away from that area in Saskatchewan while the matter has not yet been cleared up. The committee is to be convened tomorrow to investigate this serious matter. I think this is one of the most serious things that have struck this nation in its entire history. We cannot begin to predict its effect upon our economy. While it has been decided to place the matter before the agriculture committee I think we 
should be most careful to see that the services of these officials are used to the best advantage in trying to stamp out this disease.
When the minister made his announcement that the disease was under control I sincerely hoped that he was right, but I along with others said that we must keep our fingers crossed until the first few weeks of spring had passed. The new outbreak has occurred during the last few days and I sincerely hope that this will be checked as soon as possible.
I should like to have the minister point out in more detail how the floor price on beef is to operate. I have before me the last copy of the Manitoba Co-Operator which contains an article headed "Who Benefits?" and which reads:
In the March 27 issue of the Manitoba Co-operator an editorial appeared, entitled "Ten Provinces- Eleven Problems." A suggestion was made that it was imperative in the interests of the livestock industry of Canada to remove all provincial embargoes and turn the problem of dealing with the foot-and-mouth disease entirely over to the federal government, whose sole responsibility it was in the first place.
Livestock markets in western Canada are still chaotic and will no doubt remain so until all interprovincial embargoes are removed. With the United States market closed and with our present level of livestock production in Canada, it is unlikely that the domestic market will absorb all that is offered for sale in the next few months, unless the retail price drops to a corresponding level of that for live cattle.
It is interesting to note that one large retail outlet in the city of Winnipeg quoted blade rib roast of beef at 63 cents per pound on February 25, the day that the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease was announced. On April 17, the same cut of beef was advertised at 62 cents per pound. In spite of this, cattle have dropped nearly five cents per pound in that time. The question farmers would like answered is, why have not retail prices been reduced more than one cent per pound?
The recent announcement from Ottawa that a support price for cattle has been established at 25 cents per pound basis Toronto for good steers (dressing 53 per cent defatted or 55] per cent fat in), has been met with criticism from farmers. In order to determine the dressing percentage cattle must go to packing plants for slaughter prior to establishing the price. This means that carcass grading for cattle has been foisted on the unsuspecting farmers much as carcass grading for hogs caught them unawares a number of years ago.
The support price applies to four classes of cattle -choice, good and medium steers and heifers, and choice cows. At the time of going to press, no announcement has been made as to the price differentials at the St. Boniface market.
As far as can be determined, the support price does not necessarily mean that cattle will be bought at that price. In our opinion, it actually means that the federal government guarantees to buy any surplus stocks of beef from packing plants at the equivalent of that price. At present prices for cattle at St. Boniface are three cents below the support price.
In view of the fact that the producer is being blamed for the high cost of living, what the farmer would like to know is who is getting the difference? The consumer is paying nearly the same price for

beef, while the farmer is getting five cents per pound less than he was two months ago, and has little or no guarantee that the price may not go lower.
Can it be that the meat trade has outwitted the government officials, by absorbing the differentials?
This is a most serious situation and I hope the Minister of Agriculture will give more details to the house and to the producers of this country of the operation of the floor price on beef. There has been great dissatisfaction with respect to this as well as with respect to the floor price on hogs. In many instances the prices are not going through to the producers of cattle and hogs. I trust that steps will be taken to clear up the situation as soon as possible.
I make a final appeal to the government to try to work out a scheme to try to hold stable markets for our agricultural products. I have suggested a scheme whereby most useful equipment for our armed forces could be exchanged for primary products.


Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: The Budget-Mr. Murphy five months! This is despite the fact that they wrote millions of dollars' worth of insurance in every city, town and hamlet throughout northern Ontario.
This brings me to another aspect of the situation, namely, that all these millions are being drained out of northern Ontario and invested in certain selected areas of southern Ontario. Our own money is being used to build up better housing'in southern areas to compete further with our northern Ontario centres. I am also informed that these companies are pursuing a policy of lending only to select risks in certain areas of these southern centres. In other words, they are just skimming off the cream.
It has been further suggested to me that these companies are permitted to use their own discretion as to where housing is needed and as a result are lending only in certain areas. I should like the minister to clear up this point. Surely such a policy cannot be condoned by the government when we need a program that will build homes in every community across the nation. I would urge the government to call a conference immediately with these lending institutions through the appropriate channels, get this phase of building under the National Housing Act under way again, and insist that the companies earmark a reasonable portion of their available funds for this purpose.
I would further urge that if this cooperation is not forthcoming the government should then change its policy and should expand the facilities under section 31A which permits direct loans. I admit that I do not favour the federal government becoming a large-scale landlord, but I feel the present situation demands immediate attention. I believe, if the government points out to the lending institutions their responsibility at this time, together with the suggestion that the government is prepared, if necessary, to enter this field itself, that then and only then will our housing program be resumed, and then and only then can the minister say, as he has said on previous occasions, that the lending institutions are playing their traditional role in this field. By such action as I have suggested we can make sure that all our people have the opportunity, if they so desire, to build under this plan.


Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambion West):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Garland), and I have no hesitation in saying that what he said was certainly factual and, unfortunately, only too true. I agree entirely with the earlier part of his speech. I think

the only part I disagreed with was when he said so much of the money these insurance companies were draining out of northern Ontario was coming into southern Ontario. I can tell him that we have the same complaint in western Ontario as the hon. member so ably described in the few short minutes he took up tonight discussing this very important subject.
I have for a number of years concerned myself with the question of federal taxation and its relationship to crown corporations and municipalities in this country. I am glad that the government has gone part way, at least, in recognizing the seriousness of this situation growing up within our economy, and that today we have the Abbott or government formula as laid down for crown companies, which is quite satisfactory. I am also glad that the government has taken the step it has in the way of grants in aid to municipalities, where federal property constitutes 4 per cent or more of total assessments. Beneficial and all, however, as this change may be, no one, I am sure, agrees that the problem has been satisfactorily met.
Twelve years ago in this country the federal government took 49 cents of every tax dollar, leaving 51 cents to the provinces and the municipalities. Today, the federal government absorbs 73 cents out of every tax dollar, and the remaining 27 cents leaves the municipalities and the provinces to get along as best they can. While this whole question of federal, provincial and municipal taxation warrants considerably greater study than has yet been afforded this problem in view of its gravity, the immediate question is what can and should be done to assist financially pressed municipalities, and we find those from coast to coast.
The present tempo of development and industrial expansion in this country has created for many municipalities problems with which they are unable to cope. Increased demands for educational costs, services for housing and numerous other requirements are today bringing the burden of municipal taxation to the point where that long-cherished hope of owning your own home is being questioned.
The present policy of the government of grants in aid to municipalities is reserved to those areas where federal property exceeds 4 per cent of the total assessment. In my opinion, all federal property should be subject to regular municipal taxation, and I urge the government to give consideration to this problem at the earliest opportunity.
I listened with interest to the Minister of Finance when he presented his budget in this

house on April 8 last, and I was impressed with the marked similarity between this budget and the one presented in the preelection year 1948. I have since re-read the minister's budget presentation of 1948 and also his presentation in the pre-election budget of 1949. In the pre-election budget of 1949, when the minister announced sweeping tax reductions right across the board, he had this to say at page 1795 of Hansard:
... I feel the time has now arrived when this parliament should enact some further substantial reductions in taxes. The increasing flow of goods available for sale to consumers without higher prices makes tax reductions economically feasible. The prospective surplus of revenue over expenditures, in the absence of tax changes, and even of a substantial cash surplus over our requirements for income and investments make tax reductions financially feasible. The reduction of more than $1,600 million in our net debt made in the last three years has put us in a position now where we may prudently give consideration to further tax reductions. Finally, sir, I should say, that I have been led to believe in recent months, as no doubt other hon. members have, that most of the Canadian people would support and even welcome an enlarged measure of tax reductions this year.
Those were the minister's words. Compare the situation then with the situation now. Economically feasible then, because of the increasing flow of goods available to consumers, but not economically feasible today when goods are not only available but in many industries are piled up in inventories, causing widespread unemployment. Financially feasible then, because revenues exceed expenditures. That situation is just as true today when we have before this house estimated expenditures which the minister himself admits exceed what the government expects to spend.
In this regard, I do not think the Minister of Finance, any more than the Minister of National Defence, can do more than say "We think this vote adequate for what we may require." The record of the past few years has conclusively proven that defence expenditures have been overestimated. This, combined with continuing high revenues exceeding estimates, has resulted in surpluses far exceeding estimates given to this house. Reductions prudent then, because since the war we had reduced the public debt by $1,600 million. Surely this reason is just as valid today, when we have reduced the public debt by $2,344 million, as it was in 1949.
The fourth reason given by the minister at that time was that the Canadian people would support and even welcome an enlarged measure of tax reduction. On April 8, when the budget was presented to this house at page 1260 of Hansard, Minister of Finance told us that-
Unless conditions at home exceed my generous expectations, and unless the clouds that overhang
The Budget-Mr. Murphy the international scene lift more rapidly than we now have a right to expect, my hope for next year is the same as that expressed a year ago, an expectation of no increase in tax rates, but not much likelihood of substantially lower rates.
A week later however, speaking to the voters of this country in a "Nation's Business" broadcast over the C.B.C. national network, the minister had an entirely different story, when he said-
I hope that before too long the international situation will make it possible to make some bigger tax reductions than we have been able to make this year.
Just what happened in the international scene during that week that warranted this change of assurance to the Canadian voter has never yet been explained by the Minister of Finance. This similarity of factors and apparent predication of reasoning to suit the circumstances leads me to believe that if there ever was a time when estimates should be gone over with a fine toothed comb, it is this year. I hope the government will see fit to afford parliament the opportunity to do this, instead of the usual practice of voting millions a minute in the dying days of parliament.
I want to discuss another matter, Mr. Speaker, the gravity of which is increasing year by year, and which constitutes a problem which I think warrants top-level consideration by the federal governments of this country and the United States. I refer specifically to the increasing damage as a result of high water levels in the great lakes system, and the inadequate action taken by responsible governments to meet this situation. Personally I am in favour of the St. Lawrence waterway development, but I am not carried away with the idea that this will be accomplished at an early date, or even undertaken within the next year or so. In the meantime, and as part of any St. Lawrence waterway development consideration must be given to the disastrous effect of rising water levels in the great lakes system.
I do not intend on this occasion to reiterate the extensive damage that already has been caused, other than to point out that in my own constituency valuable lake shore property has been damaged severely and it has been necessary to move and rebuild a lake shore road on three different occasions within the last twenty odd years, always in the expectation that this action would be adequate, only to find that the problem was becoming worse. Press reports would indicate damage in the millions in various other parts of the province of Ontario, and I think this government is well aware of the serious damage already done.
1724	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Murphy
The suggestions I propose to make to this house today have been considered in line with the possibility of the eventual St. Lawrence waterway development and would, in my opinion, fit into such a scheme.
The great lakes, having a surface area of over 95,000 square miles and a drainage basin of approximately 298,000 square miles, are the headwaters of the St. Lawrence river system. In comparison with other large river systems, the vast storage capacity of these lakes causes an unusual stability in the system, reducing fluctuations in level and eliminating floods in the main river, and makes possible some sound measure of control over lake levels. But I agree that any plan to accomplish this purpose must be long range, and any overall plan would require some years to be fully effective.
An examination of the United States lake survey record of monthly mean stages of the great lakes, which extends back over a continuous period of 91 years, reveals that the extreme range in stage experienced by any of the lakes during this period is 6-33 feet, and that occurred in lakes Michigan-Huron. The range experienced by the other lakes during the same period is 4-07 feet in lake Superior, 5-08 feet in lake Erie and 6 29 feet in lake Ontario.
With the permission of the house, Mr. Speaker, I would like to place on record a graph of water levels on the great lakes, prepared by the corps of U.S. army engineers, and recording the fluctuations in water levels over a period of 91 years, up to and including
1951.	I believe this graph material would be of immeasurable value to members of this House of Commons who, like myself, are concerned with this problem.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to have this graph appear in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed*.


Joseph Warner Murphy: There are a number of factors, both natural and man-made, that cause the levels of these lakes to fluctuate, and I propose to deal with some measures which I am reliably informed would be very effective in reducing lake levels and controlling lake levels. A little later I intend to deal with-
1.	The water coming into lake Superior.
2.	Control of lake Superior water coming into the lower lakes.
3.	The Chicago diversion.
4.	The Welland canal.
*(Note: The graph referred to could not be reproduced in the form submitted.)

The Budget-Mr. Higgins through the higher levels of government, to do something constructive now. I think it is most important that the Canadian and American authorities exercise their intelligence and resources to lessen the flood danger.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest in conclusion that it is entirely possible by undertaking most of the projects I have outlined that the level of lake Ontario could be kept at or near 245 feet above mean tide at New York, and that the level of lake Huron could be held at or near 579 feet above mean tide at New York. This would be several feet lower than the present high level, and still be not as low as the graph shows the levels to have been in some years. I think it is agreed that we cannot take any action that is going to lower lake levels lower than they have been according to this graph. In the main, action that must be taken must be with the idea of maintaining as nearly as possible a constant level. By doing this we would no longer face the terrific losses we now experience or the danger of even greater losses in the future.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard all the speeches on this particular motion, but the ones I have heard have been excellent and very much to the point. Possibly some of my remarks may not be altogether in point. Before I get to the ones I wish to make, I have a few comments to make dealing almost exclusively with my own province, in a way.
I had the privilege of making the first flight on the new North Star service instituted on Sunday last. I want to congratulate the minister responsible and to thank him for the institution of that service. As far as I was concerned, it meant cutting the time taken in coming to Ottawa at least in half. As an example of what I mean, may I say that I left Torbay airport at 3.30 and arrived in Montreal 6J hours later, having had two stops of 20 minutes each. There is only another hour between Montreal and Ottawa. When you look at the train time, Mr. Speaker, as we have had to look at it since coming here, and realize that it is anything from 4J days to 5 days-


Mr. Stick:: Seven.


Gordon Francis Higgins: As my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick), says, the last time we travelled together it was 7 days. This new service has made a wonderful difference. So if it is the magic carpet of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) in the case of the North Star, as far as that is concerned, I feel it is well justified that it exists. I want to thank him, and I feel quite certain that the service is


going to be patronized to the extent that he would want it to be patronized. I am not going into the merits or the demerits of the particular aircraft. I understand that subject has been discussed here on former occasions and I do not think I should rehash it tonight. However, I want to make one comment in connection with the meal services, and I think it is one that should be made.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: And the liquor?


Gordon Francis Higgins: As to the liquor, I think you had better carry your own, as far as I can see; and I am still able to carry it.
The point I wanted to make is this. The DC-3's, the other aircraft flying out from Montreal, provide a meal service and there is a considerable contrast between the meal service provided in the North Stars and that provided in the DC-3's. Quite a number of people will continue to use the DC-3's because of the number of flights per day from Montreal. I am referring not only to people who are travelling to Newfoundland but to those who are travelling all over the maritime provinces. From these meals they get a bad impression of the service provided by T.C.A. I am not casting any reflection- nor do I intend to do so-on the personnel of T.C.A. in any way. I do not think you can better the personnel, but I think you can better the meals considerably on the DC-3's, trans-Canada. I have had that complaint made to me by outsiders; and when I speak of outsiders I mean Americans and tourists. I think we should make every effort to try to have meals that compare with the meals provided by American air lines and by our own North Star. I say that not in any carping spirit but with the idea of attempting to make constructive criticism. I also understand that there is going to be a new form of silencer applied to the North Star, or a new muffler system. I think that would be a great help indeed. At the present time the noise is practically deafening and except for the fact that the service is so fast that one puts up with it, really you would not take it from choice. I pass that suggestion along in the spirit merely of constructive criticism.
One other point that I think might be borne in mind is from the point of view of people who may be nervous when travelling in aircraft. If it could be provided in some way or another that these flaming exhausts would not be stuck up in the passengers' faces, I think that might be a good idea as well.
Going from aircraft to landing fields, may I say that when Queen Juliana arrived at Gander, a desolate picture was painted of her landing and of her quarters at Gander itself.


An hon. Member:: Colonel McCormick.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Don't get me started on that man McCormick. I believe Your Honour has already called me to order on that subject. If I start on it again, I might go too far.
I was speaking of the time that Queen Juliana arrived at Gander airport and of the description which was broadcast of her arrival and which was publicized in the various newspapers. It gave an extremely bleak impression of the quarters provided for travellers at Gander airport. It is all very well to say that no reflections are cast on the place that gives hospitality in such a case, but there really is a grave reflection. When one has the queen of any foreign country described as being quartered in a room that has no floor covering, that has no toilet arrangements of any kind, and that is small, it is bound to cast a reflection. I therefore say in all sincerity-and remember, I am not putting any blame on the Department of Transport or whatever department is concerned, because that is apparently the way that most airports are run-that there should be set up some quarters that might not be used always, that is, they might not be used by any Tom, Dick or Harry.
It is not every day that you have these special people coming here, and I think there should be some quarters set aside that could be used on such occasions as that. It is not a costly business, but it would make all the difference between getting bad publicity and getting the kind of publicity that Canada deserves. I do not think that the queen said anything about it, but I am quite certain that a great number of other people did. We do not want that to happen again. That is just another angle.
I am sure the minister will now follow me in most things that I say as well as he has in the past. The most important thing that I wish to speak about tonight is this; and again it is something that is almost local, but it is practically international, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately I did not have the answer given me this afternoon because of the enforced absence of the minister who had to attend a meeting in another part of this building. I refer to the operation of a radio station by the United States air force in Newfoundland. To those of us who live within the radius of that station it is most important to have this particular station continued in operation. The terms of its operation are, I understand, that it may be operated by the United States air force until six months from the time that formal peace has been signed with Germany. It has been in operation from the beginning, from the time when the United States forces first came into Newfoundland, and it has given wonderful service and entertainment to the
The Budget-Mr. Higgins people within its radius. I suppose the chief kick that I have heard is this and I am sure that it has been heard not only by me but by all the members from Newfoundland. It has appeared in all our daily papers; it has been broadcast. I know that I for one was buttonholed very often before coming to Ottawa this time. The real worry that the baseball fans have is that this station broadcasts ball games, and it is the only station that does, and that the people down there, the Newfoundlanders and the Americans, who live off the base are not able to hear those programs.
I do not know where the blame rests. It has been passed to various places. I have heard the department of the Secretary of State for External Affairs blamed, but this morning in the committee he disavowed any such blame. As I understand it, it is not the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I have not had an answer from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), but I expect the answer will be that it is not his doing. Where the blame rests I do not know. If the facts are as we have had them outlined in many letters in the Newfoundland press and by many private individuals, the blame would appear to attach to the proprietors of a recently incorporated company that operates a broadcasting station. Unfortunately that broadcasting station-and I do say this, I suppose, in a spirit of criticism-is not unfavourably inclined to my hon. friends opposite. Protests were made before the licence was granted to this particular station. At the time it made its request to be given the right to operate, it stated very definitely that there was lots of room for another station in Newfoundland. As a result of that appeal they were given the right to operate.
Now, I understand-and I understand on authority that I am satisfied is reliable-that one of the proprietors of that particular station, the chief proprietor, went to the American general commanding and told him that his station was not able to stand the competition of the American station, and by other and divers means, whether there were threats or not, Mr. Speaker, I have not been able to ascertain-one does not approach an American general and say, "Tell me the whole story"-but for whatever reason, the station has been put off the air. I do hope very sincerely and honestly, and I am sure my colleagues from Newfoundland will express the same wish-


Leonard T. Stick: Hear, hear.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I hear, "hear, hear" in agreement. I am sure that the hon. members opposite will also voice the same wish. This station has given us so much pleasure, and

The Budget-Mr. Higgins has given all our people so much pleasure, that whatever steps have to be taken to see to it that the American authorities are reassured that we wish them to continue their broadcasting should be taken. I hope those steps will be taken.
My idea is that they do not wish to offend Canada in any way. It has been suggested to them that by continuing operations as they are they may offend Canada, and for that reason they have stopped. We have to remember-and I am speaking now in the broad sense-that in so far as the United States forces in Newfoundland are concerned, they are possibly the largest industry in the matter of getting money to our people. We must recognize it as the very first great industry we have.
Speakers from Newfoundland on the other side of the house, not only the hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick), have enlarged on this particular matter recently. I would not like anything at all to take away the good feelings that exist at the present time between our American friends and the people of Newfoundland. This may very well do so, because, as I say, there are a considerable number of American personnel and tneir families living off the United States base, and they cannot get these programs. Moreover, the base at Argentia is also dependent on the programs coming from Pepperrell

air force base as well. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I do hope that whatever minister is concerned, whether it is the Minister of Transport, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann), or the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson)-I would even ask the Prime Minister himself (Mr. St. Laurent)-will take a hand in this particular matter because it goes a little further than that. It means good relationship between the newest part of this dominion and our great sister country on the other side of the border. It means very much more than just merely asking that Newfoundlanders will hear the ball games; I can assure you of that.
On motion of Mr. Higgins the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, we will proceed with the debate on the budget on Wednesday and Thursday, but tomorrow we will first take up the resolution of the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) to set up a special committee to consider the operations of the national film board. I think that is about all.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 30, 1952