1954-05-10

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would allow me to inform the house at this time that on Saturday our ambassador in Paris was asked to convey a message to Prime Minister Laniel of France, on behalf of the Prime Minister and government of Canada, to express to the French government and people the sincere and heartfelt tribute of Canadians for the matchless heroism of the soldiers of France and Viet Nam. With all free men, Canadians, while lamenting the tragic ending of the legendary conflict at Dien Bien Phu, salute with pride and honour the heroic defenders of the fortress. Hon. members will note that this message is very similar in content to the message released Friday evening by the Secretary of State for External Affairs at Geneva, of which he gave a copy to the French delegation there.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all hon. members will wish to express their approval of the message which has been sent and to join in the sentiments of admiration for those who have died in the cause of freedom. Without in any way referring to the military conditions, there is not one of us who can fail to have been deeply moved by the thought that others have been dying in these past few days fighting against that evil force to which all of us are so strongly opposed. Whatever the outcome of this struggle may be, their sacrifice will not have been in vain if what has happened at Dien Bien Phu serves to bring home to the free world a full realization of the nature of the evil against which we are at this time building up our strength. Let us hope there will be peace; but it will only come if we recognize the reality of the things to which we are opposed.
As we pay tribute to the men who died I think all of us should also pay attention to an incident that happened in the French chamber of deputies last Friday. If anyone ever had any doubt where the loyalty of communists in any country lies, it was clarified on the floor of the French Chamber of Deputies when Premier Laniel asked the
deputies to rise in tribute to the dead at Dien Bien Phu. When the communist members refused to rise, disloyalty in all its naked ugliness was then disclosed. There was a symbol for the whole world of what the communist in every free land really is. He expresses loyalty to no flag, to no faith, to no country. There is no loyalty except to the Kremlin itself. We should bow our heads for those who died and carry in our hearts the warning that came to us from Paris on Friday.



QUESTIONS


Mr. McGregor:: 1.	During the fiscal year 1952-53, how many enlistments were there in the (a) army; (b) navy; (c) air force?
2. Of these, how many were (i) men; (ii) women?
3.	During the fiscal year 1952-53, how many detachments were there from the (a) army; (b) navy; (c) air force?
4. Of these, how many were (i) men; (ii) women?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1 and 2.
Active Force Enlistments in 1952-53
Navy	Army Air Force
Men ...._____ 3,645	10,165	10,035Women	
17	39	1,790
3 and 4.
Active Force Releases in 1952-53
Navy	Army Air Force
Men	
1,577	9,234	2,991Women	
5	35	938
Note: Most of those released by the army during this period were personnel who had returned from Korea or Europe and taken their discharge.
As the armed forces approach maximum strength, figures for releases will tend more and more to approximate those for enrolment until enrolment and releases become actually in balance.


POST OFFICE BUILDING, SALTCOATS, SASK.
Mr. Caslleden:: 1.	What was the total cost of acquiring the post office building in the town of Saltcoats, Saskatchewan?

Questions
2.	From whom was this building purchased?
3.	What was the total cost of remodelling the post office building?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	(a) Purchase of lot No. 17 with building thereon, $3,500; (b) purchase of adjoining lot No. 16; $750.
2.	(a) Mrs. M. P. Fea; (b) H. V. Partridge.
3.	$24,488.50.


WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE RECIPIENTS
Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	How many veterans, by provinces, are in receipt of the war veterans allowance?
2.	How many veterans, by provinces, have been granted war veterans allowance each year since 1949?
3.	How many recipients of war veterans allowance, by provinces, (a) served in Canada only; (b) in the United Kingdom and European theatres of operations?


Mr. Bennett:: Statistics are maintained by districts of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The following table shows the location of the eighteen district offices in Canada.
1 and 3. Return at March 31, 1954:
1.	3.
Theatre of service
		(a)	(b)
			Outside
DVA District	Number	Canada	CanadaSt. John's, Nfld. . . .	642	9	633Charlottetown, P.E.I.	444	35	409Halifax, N.S	2,072	148	1,924Saint John, N.B. . .	1,478	101	1,377Quebec, Que	462	82	380Montreal, Que. . . .	2,510	135	2,375Ottawa, Ont	901	38	863Kingston, Ont. . . .	819	38	788Toronto, Ont	4,267	121	4,146Hamilton, Ont. . . .	1,255	30	1,225London, Ont	1,547	63	1,484North Bay, Ont. . .	846	37	809Winnipeg, Man. . .	2,476	65	2,411Regina, Sask. . . .	711	37	674Saskatoon, Sask. . .	797	22	775Calgary, Alta	925	36	889Edmonton, Alta. . .	1,066	23	1,043Vancouver, B.C. . .	7,432	201	7,23130,650	1,214	29,436
2. Fiscal year ending March 31:
DVA District	1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	TotalSt. John's, Nfld	. 139	162	232	147	138	136	954Charlottetown, P.E.I. . . .	. 51	60	85	54	52	50	352Halifax, N.S	. 267	310	444	281	264	260	1,826Saint John, N.B	. 179	208	297	189	177	174	1,224Quebec, Que	. 69	81	115	73	69	68	475Montreal, Que	. 373	435	621	394	370	364	2,557Ottawa, Ont	. 129	150	214	136	128	126	883Kingston, Ont	. 137	159	227	144	135	133	935Toronto, Ont	. 577	672	960	610	573	563	3,955Hamilton, Ont	. 219	255	364	232	217	213	1,500London, Ont	. 263	306	437	278	260	256	1,800North Bay, Ont	. 120	140	200	127	119	117	823Winnipeg, Man	. 320	372	531	337	316	311	2,187Regina, Sask	. 77	89	128	82	76	75	527Saskatoon, Sask	. 78	91	130	83	77	76	535Calgary, Alta	. 92	108	154	98	92	90	634Edmonton, Alta	. 154	179	256	163	152	150	1,054Vancouver, B.C. . . .	. 761	886	1,266	805	755	742	5,2154,005	4,663	6,661	4,233	3,970	3,904	27,436


RADIO STATIONS-NIGHT COVERAGE
Mr. Robinson (Bruce):: 1.	How many broadcasting stations in Canada are required by means of directional array or other devices to reduce their power or effective coverage at night?
2.	What is the reason for this?

3.	Of this number how many are required to protect to the southward?
4.	Why is this particular direction selected for such requirements?
5.	Has any government authority ever made a survey of how many Canadian homes receive inferior service or no service after dark from Canadian stations because of these requirements?

6.	What is the permissible signal strength in
terms of millivolts per metre permitted for Canadian stations with class 2, 3, and 4 frequencies, in each of (a) metropolitan or industrial districts; (b) others?	.
7.	Does this requirement differ from that in the United States, and if so, for what reason?
8.	Is there a specific distance at which Canadian stations must locate their transmitters from the centre of the city in which any such station operates?
9.	Does this requirement vary from that in the United States, and if so, for what reason?
10.	Has any government authority ever made a survey of how many Canadian homes receive better service or single service after dark from United States stations than from Canadian stations, and if so, with what result?
11.	Who represents Canada at international conferences called to discuss the allocations of frequencies and regulations governing their use?
12.	Does such representation vary in any respect from that provided by other North American countries, and if so, for what reason?
13.	Do the proper authorities of the Canadian government entertain favourably applications for slave or satellite stations to improve reception from Canadian stations in areas where such reception deteriorates, at night, because of Canadian requirements?
14.	How many United States stations are permitted by terms of any treaty to which Canada is signatory to operate on class 1 or 2 frequencies?
15.	How many Canadian stations other than those owned by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are permitted to operate on these frequencies?
16.	What steps, if any, are taken to assist Canadian stations in overcoming interference caused after dark to their signals by the operation of United States stations on class 1 or 2 frequencies?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	90.
2.	The demand for use of broadcasting frequencies is so large that international agreement is necessary in order to achieve maximum national use in each country and avoid interference with stations in other countries. By allowing stations to increase their power at periods of the day when covering of distance is more limited, and by use of devices which limit the distance which signals may travel in certain directions, it is possible to allow stations to use greater power and therefore obtain greater local coverage without interference with stations in other countries. Standards to cover this are set up by international treaties to which Canada is a signatory.
3.	90.
4.	Answered by No. 2.
5.	Field officers of the department maintain continuous review of local conditions affecting transmission and reception with a view to elimination of sources of difficulty and improvement of conditions wherever feasible.
6.	(a) and (b), maximum 150 millivolts per meter, minimum 25 millivolts per meter.
Questions
7.	Not substantially.
8.	No.
9.	No.
10.	Answered by No. 5.
11.	Officials of the departments of external affairs and transport.
12.	No.
13.	Such applications are accepted for consideration in accordance with normal procedures.
14.	All countries may use all channels in the standard broadcast band subject to the engineering requirements of treaties to which Canada is a signatory.
15.	48.
16.	All channels assigned to Canadian stations are monitored to ensure the compliance of all stations with the engineering standards of international treaties. Deviations from the engineering limits of the treaties are brought to the attention of the administrations concerned.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Hansell:: 1.	What was the total Immigration to Canada during 1953?
2.	From what countries did these immigrants come, and what number from each country?
3.	How many of these immigrants registered for or came from the various categories of employment such as: tradesmen, farm employment, the professions, etc?


Mr. Harris:: Return tabled.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I believe it would meet the approval of the house if you would call the resolutions in the name of the Secretary of State and the Minister of Transport in order that His Excellency's recommendation may be signified, then call orders of the day and upon reaching that point call the motion in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand that the minister wishes item No. 15 on the orders of the day to be called now?


Walter Edward Harris: You might call the third and fourth notices of motion, then orders of the day, and then go back to the first government notice of motion.
4550	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker: The first one will stand until later this day.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.



PUBLIC SERVANTS' INVENTIONS


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting inventions by public servants to provide a uniform legislative scheme to govern the ownership and management of and the payment of awards for inventions made by public servants of the government of Canada in connection with the duties or employment of the inventors.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the governor in council, for a limited period of time, to provide for transport control of goods in bulk.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration based on a news report of the Ottawa Citizen of Saturday, May 8. Is the Department of Citizenship and Immigration by-passing the national employment service in an effort to obtain jobs for immigrants at lower than standard wage rates?


Walter Edward Harris: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? I do not believe the minister


should allow the statement that appeared in the Citizen on Saturday, concerning which the member for Kootenay West asked a question, to go by with that short answer, although it is satisfactory in its way. Will the minister comment on this article and state what measure of truth, if any, is in it?


Walter Edward Harris: These charges are made from time to time, Mr. Speaker, and are always investigated by the department. We are doing that in this particular case. We have asked the person who made the statement to produce to us any evidence which would lead us to believe there is some reason for the statement he has made. This morning he indicated he would be glad to get the evidence and send it to us. We note in the report that a committee was appointed to see us in connection with this particular matter, and we shall await the time when they come.
However, I might say that quite obviously he has not got all his facts correct because he refers to three officers being employed in the settlement branch in Ottawa, whereas we only have one. As a matter of fact, none of the persons referred to in the report have, to our knowledge, been placed by us at less than the going rate.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimall-Saanich):: Can
the Minister of National Defence indicate when the annual report of his department will be tabled? There have not been many opportunities during this session to discuss defence, and the tabling of that report before the consideration of his estimates would be most helpful.


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: The annual report of the department for the last year has been tabled. I believe the hon. member is referring to the customary white paper called "Canada's Defence Program". My hope would be that we would be able to table that in a very few days.



ALLEGED INFRACTIONS OF PACKING REGULATIONS BY THREE TORONTO FIRMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Onl.):: Can the
Minister of Agriculture inform the house whether or not his investigation into infractions of the meat packing regulations by three Toronto firms is completed? If so, what penalty was imposed?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: The answer to the first question is no. Some investigations have been made and matters concerning them have been turned over to the mounted police, but they have not as yet reported.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister tell me if additional staff will be engaged in Winnipeg this summer to ensure the cleaning staff in dominion public buildings getting adequate holidays?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: The request for vacation relief for the charwomen employed by the Department of Public Works in Winnipeg has been granted. Five additional women will be taken on shortly with a view to providing holiday relief.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:: That a special committee consisting of 31 members, to be designated by the house at a later date, be appointed to consider the bill to amend the War Service Grants Act and the bill respecting benefits for members of the Canadian forces, and such other legislation relating to veterans affairs as may be referred from time to time to the said committee; that the said committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to print from day to day its minutes of proceedings and evidence, to sit while the house is sitting and to report from time to time; that the quorum of the said committee shall consist of ten members; and that the provisions of standing orders 64 and 65 be suspended in relation thereto.


Mr. Brooks:: Is the minister going to make a statement on the resolution?


Hugues Lapointe: It is not my intention to make any lengthy statement at this time. In the past I have expressed the government's policy, as my predecessors have done, that whenever any important or major changes in veterans legislation were introduced, a special committee on veterans affairs would be set up in order that these major changes might be given more detailed study in this committee. I believe the last committee was established in 1952.
This year the government has put forward substantial changes in veterans legislation, and for this reason we have thought it advisable the special committee should be
Committee on Veterans Affairs set up. As hon. members know, some of this legislation has already been introduced in this house, and has been referred to the committee we are about to set up. I am referring to the War Service Grants Act, and the bill concerning benefits for members of the Canadian forces. These two pieces of legislation were introduced in order to put into statutory form the benefits given to members of our armed forces who had seen service in Korea, and make those benefits parallel to those given men who served in world war II.
One other piece of legislation has been introduced and has already been passed by this house without reference to this committee. I refer to the educational assistance bill. At that time it was not thought necessary to send this measure to the committee, because only minor adjustments were made and the need for them had only become apparent after the legislation had been in force for a period of one year. There is on the order paper now a bill to amend the Pension Act. It is my intention at a very early date to introduce further legislation to amend the Veterans Land Act, bringing about some major changes in that act.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I wish to thank the minister, Mr. Speaker, for his explanation of the resolution. I believe everyone is familiar with this resolution. If they are not, there is no reason why they should not be, because I do not know of any resolution that has been on the order paper for such a long time as this one to set up a veterans committee. We asked for a veterans committee when we came to this session of parliament last November. Resolutions and bills have come and gone; but this resolution which was put on the order paper over three months ago is just being passed today. I am sure if the minister has used the word "stand" once in connection with it, he has used that word at least thirty or forty times. There is no doubt he has established a long-distance record, so far as the resolution is concerned.
However, we are pleased today to find that at last it has been moved, and we hope that it will be passed-indeed we know it will be-so that a veterans committee will be set up. It is hard for many of us to understand why it has taken so long to bring the resolution before the house. We are now approaching, we hope, a time near the end of the session, a time when all members are crowded with work both in the committees and in the house. The estimates are now being considered. There are many important matters mentioned in those estimates, and most members like to attend while they are under
4552	HOUSE OF
Committee on Veterans Affairs consideration in order either to criticize or to get information concerning estimates affecting their own constituencies.
Also we hear at this time rumours about morning sittings. As I say, at this crowded period of the session we have placed before us this resolution to set up a committee which, to my mind, should have been set up many months ago. I have heard no explanation from the minister as to why he has waited so long. My own opinion is that the government has not been able to agree on the legislation to be brought before the committee on veterans affairs.
To my mind the most important legislation with which we will have to deal at this session will be that referring to the veterans. I say that legislation of other departments should not have preference over that dealing with this very important subject.
What I have said serves as a further argument for what we have sought on many occasions, namely the setting up of a permanent veterans affairs committee. Time and again we have pointed out the great advantages there would be in having such a committee. We have also pointed out that since 1916, when the first veterans committee was appointed in the House of Commons, some twenty committees have been set up. This in itself I suggest is an indication that this is a permanent matter, and that there is a necessity for setting up a permanent committee to attend to veterans affairs.
Before the second great war we had before us only those matters dealing with the veterans of the first great war. Today however the situation is entirely different. Not only must we consider the problems of veterans of the first war, but we have also those of the second war. Added to this we must consider the problems of veterans of the Korean war, the men who are serving in Europe, and the men in the reserve army. All these subjects are included in veterans affairs. Today the problems of those who served in the first war are entirely different from those who served in the second war. We know that veterans of the first war have today reached the age of sixty or seventy. So far as they are concerned, their particular interest is that having to do with pensions, hospitalization, war veterans allowances, old soldiers homes and other subjects along those lines.
We know that men who served in the second world war have been established in different professions, and that their problems are quite different. Again, the problems of the young men who have served in Korea are different. Briefly, it will be a long time, Mr. Speaker-it may not be in our time, or even


in our children's time-before the House of Commons will not be dealing with veterans problems.
For these reasons I say a permanent veterans committee should be set up to deal with matters of this kind. In the past we have criticized the size of the veterans committee. Perhaps no great argument could be advanced against the committee of thirty-one members now suggested, other than the fact that it is not broad enough to include a large number of members in the House of Commons who wish to serve on it. During the term of the last parliament I believe there were eighty veterans who were members of the House of Commons. While I have not made a count of the veterans in this parliament, I understand there are more than in the last one. I know many of these members are disappointed that they are not permitted to serve on this committee. For instance, the party to which I belong is allowed only six members. Yet, in it there are twice that many who would like to serve on this committee. And I believe the same could be said of the other parties in the house.
There is a good precedent for establishing large veterans committees. I recall that when we were studying a veterans charter after the second world war the late Ian Mackenzie, who was then minister of veterans affairs, wanted a large committee. The result was that in 1945 a committee of sixty members was established, and again in 1946 a committee having the same number of members. But in 1948 the number was reduced to thirty-five, and in the last few years it has gone down to thirty-one. I would like to see the present committee a larger and perhaps a more representative one.
I now come to the object of setting up veterans committees. As I said a moment ago, we must deal with the problems of veterans who have served in different wars-and when I referred to the matter earlier I might also have mentioned the veterans of the South African war and those of the Riel rebellion. The object of setting up the committee should be that of dealing with the many problems these veterans must face. After the second world war the veterans committee met for many weeks with the result that we produced what has come to be known as the veterans charter. Members of that committee, and of the committee in parliament in general, have been proud to call that charter one of the most up-to-date pieces of legislation to be found anywhere. But there are weaknesses in all legislation, and, as time

has proven since 1945 and 1946, many amendments have had to be made to this legislation to meet changing conditions and circumstances. Today when a committee is set up it is set up not to consider what we think are all the problems concerning veterans but those few problems which the government itself feels should come before it.
The most important part of the resolution which is now before us is, of course, our terms of reference. Again we have the same criticism to make of the terms of reference setting up this committee as we have had of the terms of reference setting up committees in the past. It should be the duty of a veterans affairs committee to investigate each and every problem which concerns veterans.
We have been told by the minister this afternoon-and it is mentioned in the resolution-the matters which we shall be allowed to consider. We know that we shall be permitted to deal with and consider Bill No. 82, as he mentioned. In his remarks the minister stated that the government sets up these committees when there are major changes to be considered in the act. Well, as far as Bill No. 82 is concerned, no great major changes are being made in the War Service Grants Act. The bill has had second reading. It has been before this house, and I do not think that veterans across the country believe that any great major changes are being made in the act.
It was found that certain veterans had not taken their re-establishment credit; others had not applied for their gratuities. It is a matter of routine, Mr. Speaker, that is being dealt with in Bill No. 82. We are asked to extend the time so that these returned soldiers may make application for re-establishment credit and for their gratuities.
Bill No. 101 is another piece of legislation that is being sent to this committee. Is there any hon. member who will say that there is anything urgent contained in Bill No. 101; that there are any great major changes such as the minister would lead us to believe the government felt was necessary as far as Bill No. 101 was concerned? It simply extends the benefits received by veterans during world war II to the men who fought in Korea. It is an obvious thing; it is routine. We have been extending benefits for the last three or four years.
We now come to Bill No. 339, which was mentioned by the minister this afternoon. Perhaps there is more reason for the Pension Act to be sent to this committee than there is for those others which I have mentioned.
Committee on Veterans Affairs But no great changes are being made in the Pension Act. When it comes before the committee the minister will find out that more changes are left out of the bill which should be considered than are contained in the bill. The only great change that I see is that referring to benefits for adopted children. It affects very few. Then again, it takes away from parliament the right to set the salaries of the commissioners and places it in the hands of the governor in council. I ask you, Mr. Speaker; is there any great demand in this house or across the country, and more particularly by veterans of this country, for this particular legislation? These are the great major changes that the government wants us to deal with. I assure them that these are changes that do not affect to any great extent the veterans of this country.
I was pleased to hear the minister say that the Veterans Land Act would be amended. We have had rumours to that effect. It has been asked for by veterans. Legislation will have to do with housing, which is one of the great problems not only of veterans but of all people in Canada. We are pleased that there will be amendments to this act. We hope that the amendments will be such that they will be of great benefit to the veterans. But here again, if the rumours I hear are true, it is not going to involve any great financial outlay as far as this government is concerned.
My understanding of the amendments to the Veterans Land Act is that they are going to decrease the amount of land which is necessary upon which a veteran may wish to build a house; they are going to make arrangements so that it will be easier for him to borrow money. But it is to be a revolving fund that the veteran will have to pay back. The veteran will have to pay back to the government the money which is borrowed for the building of his own house. No, Mr. Speaker, I contend that in setting up this committee the government should have made the terms of reference wide enough to deal with veterans affairs. We should not be told that these are the only matters to which we can give consideration, because there is no body of men in Canada better qualified to judge the problems of veterans than the veterans themselves, veterans who are members of the House of Commons, and the veterans organizations across Canada who would appear before this committee to point out some of the great weaknesses in the act and some of the requirements of veterans.
This committee is to be given absolutely no initiative. We are simply told that this
4554	HOUSE OF
Committee on Veterans Off airs is the legislation that we shall have to deal with and that is all we can deal with. As I said a moment ago, we know of the existing problems but our hands are tied as far as being able to deal with those problems is concerned.
I now come to what I consider to be the outstanding problem of veterans in Canada today. It is not those amendments to the War Service Grants Act; it is not those amendments to Bill No. 101; it is not Bill No. 339. To a certain extent it is the Veterans Land Act, because, as I said a moment ago, it deals with housing. That is one of the great problems; but the great problem which is on the tongue of practically every veteran in Canada today is: What is this government going to do regarding war veterans allowances? That is the problem that should be before parliament and this veterans affairs committee. It is the one that should have been given first consideration. It is the one which receives the first recommendation from every veterans organization in Canada, whether it be the Canadian Legion, National Council of Veterans, the Amputations Association or any other organized veterans association in this country. It is also one which, as I said a moment ago, the individual veteran across this country feels should have first consideration. In the past when veterans affairs were being considered, especially when the war veterans allowance was under consideration, I have taken the time, as have other hon. members, to set out the history of war veterans allowances. The pages of Hansard contain the details of that history and I am not going to take the time of the house this afternoon to review it because I do not feel it is necessary. I believe the history of the war veterans allowance is well known to every hon. member in this house. That legislation is recognized and has been for some time as one of the great steps forward in veterans legislation, and I might add that it has been and is a great blessing to thousands of veterans all across this country as well as to their dependents.
Hon. members will recall that legislation was passed in 1930 and at first the amount was $20 per month. It was raised to $40 per month, which was the basic rate, and it is now $50 per month. That is the amount the single veteran receives in war veterans allowance, and the married veteran and his wife receive a total of $90 per month. Possibly we might ask ourselves why this legislation should be considered at this time. Well, there are many strong arguments and they have all been presented to the government. Old soldiers, now in their late sixties and many of them now seventy, have no other income but $50 per month. With the high cost of


rent and the high cost of everything which goes to make the cost of living, he is finding it very difficult to exist, and many of them are living below subsistence level. There are other old soldiers with small disability pensions which are augmented by the war veterans allowance, but they are not allowed to receive the full amount of war veterans allowance because of the ceiling which has been set on that allowance. I believe the most absurd provision in the war veterans allowance at the present time is this ceiling.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am very sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I would imagine it is in the general interests of all hon. members to adhere to the rules. I think that at this moment one rule is being violated and that is the rule of relevancy. The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) has complained about the fact that this resolution is perhaps not wide enough in scope, and he has indicated that it should be wide enough to include other bills which should be referred to the committee. But now he is discussing the merits of the War Veterans Allowance Act, and dealing with various benefits paid out under that act. Bearing in mind that if I allow the hon. member to carry on in this vein I will have to allow other hon. members who may follow him in this debate to discuss not only the War Veterans Allowance Act in detail but all the other acts which compose the veterans charter, I think that it is my duty to intervene at this moment and inform the hon. member that he is wandering away from the subject matter which is now before us.
What is before the house at this moment is a motion to set up a committee. It is true that the resolution states:
. . . and such other legislation relating to veterans affairs as may be referred from time to time to the said committee;
But that does not justify the hon. member in wandering all over the various acts which are now in existence and which form part of the veterans charter. At the moment at which the hon. member was speaking about some benefits paid under the act and some improvements which, in his opinion, could be brought about, I was reading page 165 of the book by Campion "An Introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons" where, for example, it states, dealing with relevancy:
Where the business before the house is a motion to provide machinery, it is not in order to discuss the merits of the policy which it is sought to put into operation. For instance, on a motion to make a sessional order a standing order it has been held that the order itself is not open to debate . . .
There are other citations, of course, which I could quote at this moment, but whereas it is the sense of the house to have as generous

latitude as possible on this question of veterans affairs, I want hon. members to know, so that this discussion may not be taken as a precedent in future discussions where the question of relevancy is involved, that they should keep in mind as much as possible that what is contemplated by this resolution is not all statutes which have been passed and which could be referred to that committee if bills amending them were being introduced through this house, but merely the two bills mentioned in the resolution, and only a passing reference to all such other legislation which may be referred to the committee at a future date is now allowed. However, let us keep this in mind. It is not the merits or demerits of the improvement of various acts which are now in existence which is contemplated in this resolution; it is the desirability of appointing a committee.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I was discussing this matter on the basis that this resolution contains terms of reference which are certainly open to discussion, and I consider that the terms of reference are too narrow and the argument I am submitting is to the effect that it should include other legislation besides that which is included in the resolution. We have always argued along these lines, Mr. Speaker, and in regard to a number of resolutions before this house in the past we have always had a full opportunity to discuss the matter along the lines that we were not satisfied with such terms of reference. In regard to, as you pointed out, "such other legislation relating to veterans affairs as may be referred from time to time", in my opinion that is broad enough to include any legislation we think should be included in the terms of reference. I am speaking now, Mr. Speaker, to the point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has pointed out that in the past resolutions setting up committees have been wider, and he has been complaining about the fact that this one is narrower in scope. It may be because of that that he is finding it more difficult to discuss-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, but you misunderstood what I said. I said the terms of reference in the past were not considered wide enough and we argued that the terms of reference should be broadened. That is exactly what I have been doing.


Mr. Speaker:: I listened to the argument submitted by the hon. member and at one point he was going into detail with regard to the War Veterans Allowance Act. I followed his argument when he said that the terms of reference should be wider and
Committee on Veterans Affairs he went into detail on that particular subject. But at one point he rather decided to step into the War Veterans Allowance Act; then he dealt with the amount of money paid to the various recipients and went further into this matter as to how much more they should receive. He is dealing with proposed amendments to a statute. That is what he is dealing with. Nowhere in this resolution does it say that the committee should consider appropriate amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, I think the discussion that has taken place has been helpful and I believe those of us on the floor and Your Honour can get together on the point under consideration. I certainly am prepared to go along with Your Honour's suggestion that we should not go into great detail concerning any pieces of legislation that we think should be amended any more than we should go into detail concerning the War Service Grants Act, and the bill respecting benefits for members of the Canadian forces which are mentioned in the resolution.
The resolution is one that calls for the setting up of a committee and for spelling out its terms of reference. It does not deal with the details of legislation. However, I think Your Honour will agree that members should be entitled to argue that those terms of reference should be broader than they are. Specifically, since the resolution refers to other legislation that may be referred to the committee, I submit that we are entitled to argue that there are certain pieces of legislation other than those announced thus far that should be referred to that committee. As Your Honour knows, from time to time we have asked whether consideration was being given to amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act. The last word we had from the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) did not close the door finally. I think Your Honour will agree that we have the right to argue that that door should be kept open and that such amendments should be brought in and referred to this committee.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has perhaps indicated more clearly than I did the exact purport of my remarks. Hon. members should not go into details with respect to the two bills which are now being referred to the committee in this resolution. These two amending bills were introduced through the proper channels, namely on resolution, then later first reading and second reading. The principle has been debated and after second reading, in accordance with the provisions of standing order 50, they were referred to a special committee to be

Committee on Veterans Affairs appointed later. We are now discussing the terms of reference of the committee, and these two bills, namely the War Service Grants Act and a bill respecting benefits for members of the Canadian forces are now referred to this committee. Hon. members should not go into the provisions of those two bills. By the same token, while they may argue that the terms of reference should be widened, they should not go into the provisions of the bills which they would like to see covered by the terms of this resolution.
There is, however, one point that I should like the hon. member to examine carefully. Let us examine what is meant by "such other legislation relating to veterans affairs". What is meant by that phrase? It does not mean such other statutes as are now in existence. What is meant by that phrase is such other amending bills as may be introduced in the same manner as that in which were introduced the two bills mentioned in this resolution. They are the ones that are contemplated by those words "such other legislation relating to veterans affairs". If they are introduced by the government, the discussion which is now taking place about them may be completely superfluous. That is a point that I should like the hon. member to consider because, as he knows, if it was existing statutes such as the War Veterans Allowance Act which were contemplated by "such other legislation", the terms of reference would not read as they do now. The terms of reference would be "to consider such appropriate amendments to be made to the War Veterans Allowance Act". What is contemplated by "such other legislation" is a bill. As hon. members know,
The most important functions of a parliamentary body may be stated as-
I am now quoting from "An Introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons" by G. F. M. Campion, at page 6. To continue: - (1) power to express an opinion on executive action, (2) legislative power, . . .
Then further down the paragraph we find the following:
. . . for these differing powers different forms of procedure were evolved: for the first,-
That is power to express an opinion on executive action.
-the motion; for legislation, the bill: . . ,
Then what is a bill? A definition will be found at page 84 as follows:
A bill is a draft of a legislative proposal which, when it has been passed by both houses and received the Royal Assent, will become an act of parliament or statute. The first division of bills is into public bills and private bills, the former dealing with public general interests and the latter with local personal interests (see chapters VI and IX).
tMr. Speaker.]

In the class of public bills the important distinction for our present purpose is between a government bill and a private member's bill, the former being introduced and piloted through the house by a member of the government and the latter by a private or (more technically) unofficial member.
What is contemplated by "such other legislation" is government bills which may be introduced in the future.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what we are hoping for.


Mr. Speaker:: I know that is what the hon. member is hoping for; but no matter how hard he may be hoping for it, he must not at this moment deprive himself of the pleasure which he may have later either of heralding the decision of the government on a point in which he is interested or of criticizing the government if they have not brought in the legislative measures which he would like them to introduce.
As I said, on this resolution hon. members may discuss the desirability of appointing the committee. They may discuss the opportunity of widening the powers contained therein. However, they must not go into the merits of existing legislation or proposed changes therein and discuss the various provisions which are contained in that legislation. Otherwise there will be no end to the discussion. It will be difficult for the Chair to preserve order in debate. I do not know how many pieces of legislation are contained in the veterans charter, but if I were to say there were 15, I may not be too far wrong. Maybe there are more. That is a considerable number. On a resolution for the appointment of a committee to consider two amending bills with respect to existing legislation, where members would like to see perhaps 15 amending bills referred to the committee, if I allow them not only to say that the committee's powers should be widened but to discuss the various merits of the provisions of each and every one of these bills, I ask hon. members this question: Where do we stand as far as the rules of the house are concerned? I know that we are all greatly interested in having them preserved.


Mr. Green:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. There is one feature I should like to draw to Your Honour's attention. If a member is to make the argument that a certain act should be considered by this committee, then surely he should be allowed to say why it is essential that that act should be considered by the committee. I submit that that is all that the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) was doing. If Your Honour makes a ruling that we cannot say why we believe a particular measure should

be considered this year by the committee, then in effect Your Honour makes it impossible for us to make a reasoned case for the broadening of the reference to the committee. I submit that that is all that the hon. member for Royal is attempting to do.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green), when a point of order was raised on April 4, 1951, made exactly the same argument. I could quote him as reported on page 1625 of Hansard, April 4, 1951, where he says:
... if you should rule this amendment out of order, then for all practical purposes it would be impossible to move an amendment to any notice of motion of this kind; because there could not be a case in which the amendment would be more relevant to the contents of the notice of motion than is this one.
Then he carries on with the same argument as he put forward a moment ago. As I said, I want to be as generous as I can be, but I do not think hon. members would forgive me if I knowingly permitted the rule of relevancy to be violated in flagrant fashion. I have indicated what my feeling is on the matter and I know that it is understood. I think hon. members are perhaps too much tempted to enter into a certain discussion for which, unfortunately, the motion on the order paper does not provide as amply as they would like it to. That is the position.
Having pointed out what my position is, I know that hon. members will not abuse the rules, and I hope that we will be able to continue this discussion in an orderly fashion. As I said, the hon. member may refer to other measures which he would like to see covered by the terms of reference of the resolution. He may indicate reasons why, but he knows what proportion of his time he should use in putting forward certain arguments. He is entitled to speak for a certain length of time. If the hon. member spends all his time on what should be the provisions of the War Veterans Allowance Act then he is certainly violating the rule I mentioned a moment ago. But if he makes a passing reference only and spends most of his time on what is relevant, then I am quite sure we will have an orderly discussion.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had made the point that I thought the chief problems of the veterans should be the ones to be considered by the veterans affairs committee. That was the basis of my argument. I followed that by pointing out that the terms of reference of the resolution do not permit us to consider what we believe are some of the big problems. I mentioned particularly the War Veterans Allowance Act which I believe is not to be considered. My basis for
Committee on Veterans Affairs so- stating is the information given us here a few days ago by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) when he gave the house a list of the legislation that it is intended to bring forward during the balance of this session. The War Veterans Allowance Act was not included. At that time I asked the Prime Minister if it was intended to introduce legislation respecting the War Veterans Allowance Act at this session and he told me that there would be no further legislation other than that which he had mentioned.
It was for that reason that I was arguing today that the War Veterans Allowance Act should be included. I have not undertaken to say what should be contained in any amendments to that legislation. I have studiously stayed away from that. I have not said that the basic rate should be so much or that the ceiling should be raised. These are things which I feel should be considered by a committee. The committee would obtain information on all these points and would make its recommendations to the government as to what amendments should be made to the War Veterans Allowance Act.
I am not going to labour the point any further. There are other arguments I could use but I do not think it is necessary. I will say, though, that when veterans throughout this country learned that a veterans affairs committee was to be set up at this session I received a great many letters and telegrams expressing the satisfaction of the individual soldier or veteran that such a committee was to be established. Almost invariably the fact was mentioned that now there would be a committee to consider the question of the war veterans allowance. I could read many of the letters and telegrams if I cared to do so. I am sure all other members received similar letters and telegrams.
I might also say that since the announcement of the Prime Minister a few days ago, that the war veterans allowance would not be a subject considered by the committee, I have received many letters from veterans expressing bitterness, regret and disappointment that this very important subject is not going to be considered. It is not too late yet. There is still time for the government to reconsider the resolution. There is still time, before the resolution is passed by the house today, for the minister to include in the terms of reference the question of the war veterans allowance. I am going to move an amendment. I hope the minister and the government will take into consideration the great necessity of having the question of the war veterans allowance included and that this amendment will meet the approval of the

Committee on Veterans Affairs government and the house. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green):
That the motion be amended by inserting after the word "consider" in the third line thereof the words "the War Veterans Allowance Act."
The amended motion would then read:
That a special committee consisting of thirty-one members, to be designated by the house at a later date, be appointed to consider the War Veterans Allowance Act, the bill to amend the War Service Grants Act and the bill respecting benefits for members of the Canadian forces, and such other legislation relating to veterans affairs as may be referred from time to time to the said committee; that the said committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to print from day to day its minutes of proceedings and evidence, to sit while the house is sitting and to report from time to time; that the quorum of the said committee shall consist of ten members; and that the provisions of standing orders 64 and 65 be suspended in relation thereto.
I commend the resolution as it would be amended to the very careful consideration of the minister and the government.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Royal has moved an amendment which is quite similar to that which he moved on an earlier occasion. On an earlier occasion his amendment was in this form, "such as the War Veterans Allowance Act." This time it is more direct in that it is right at the beginning of the motion and would follow along with the other two bills that are to be referred.
Consistently since 1939 at least my predecessors have ruled out of order all amendments designed to give a committee wider powers than those set out in the notice of motion. I refer hon. members to citation 546 of Beauchesne, third edition, and to rulings by Mr. Speaker Casgrain on March 13, 1939, Journals, page 185; and by Mr. Speaker Macdonald on March 16, 1950, Journals, page 121; on April 4, 1951, page 243 of the Journals; on November 2, 1951, Journals, page 67; and on April 29, 1952, Journals, page 240; then again on April 12, 1948, page 344.
Then in Hansard for April 4, 1951, will be found a lengthy discussion having to do with an amendment of this type, and amongst other members taking part in the discussion were the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), the hon. member for Melfort, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I believe hon. members will understand that after so many of my predecessors have ruled so many times in the one direction on this matter, I would be establishing quite a departure in procedure if I were to say now that amendments of this kind are to be allowed.
[Mr. Brooks.l

I feel that the rulings I have mentioned are ample evidence of sound parliamentary practice with respect to the setting up of committees, and especially with respect to the notice which has to be given prior to the setting up of the committee. The rule is well established, and is to the effect that no amendments should be made to the motion for the appointment of a committee that would give the committee greater powers than those set out in the notice. The explanation I gave a moment ago as to what was meant by "such other legislation" pertaining to veterans affairs is quite apropos on this occasion because the hon. member is moving that the committee be empowered to consider the War Veterans Allowance Act.
The War Veterans Allowance Act is an existing statute. Perhaps, in the laudable desire to have the matter examined by the committee, hon. members are mistaking what, in my humble view, is the point. As hon. members know, according to our procedure legislation may be introduced by the government or by the opposition. In this instance a piece of legislation has been introduced by the government and has gone through the various stages required. It is only after second reading that such legislation can be referred to the committee of the whole or to a special or standing committee. There is no standing committee to take care of this class of bills, and a special committee has been constituted. "If it is the desire that, instead of referring the matter to a committee of the whole house, it be referred to a select committee or a joint committee of both houses, such a motion is made immediately after the second reading and, if carried, the bill is referred accordingly." This statement is found in May's fifteenth edition, page 478. The bills we are now referring to this committee are two bills that have gone through the preliminary stages and have been given second reading. After second reading, instead of being referred in the normal way to the committee of the whole, it was considered they should be referred to a special committee and that is the committee now being established. What the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) contemplates by his amendment is not the reference of the same class of bill, but the reference of an existing statute. An amendment should read that the committee should consider appropriate amendments to the statute, and not just consider the statute. Before hon. members pass judgment on that matter, they should know exactly what they are being asked to consider with respect to that act. It is for that reason it is so important that notice be given, then no one will be caught by surprise.

This is a right that the minorities in this house are always quick to claim, and they should therefore respect it when it refers to their amendments just as they do when it refers to amendments that the other side tries to introduce and of which they are not completely aware. This requirement of notice is just as old as the origin of parliamentary practice. When there was no printed order paper, the clerk had to read all the motions that had to be presented, and even in those days an oral notice was required. Now that we have, with the advent of modern machinery, a printed order paper, our standing order says that the notice must be printed forty-eight hours before it is called. I feel that the various rulings I have mentioned, plus citation 546, should be sufficient to make hon. members understand what my position is in this respect. I cannot accept the amendment.
Does the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) wish to speak?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want to say a brief word, if I may, on the comment you have been making as to the propriety of the amendment. All of us naturally distinguish between the substance of the amendment and whether or not it is in order. For my part, I support wholeheartedly the request made by my hon. friend, the member for Royal (Mr. Brooks). I am inclined to agree with Your Honour, however, that the rulings made in the past leave you no alternative but to rule the amendment out of order on procedural grounds.
However, since Your Honour is doing such an extensive amount of homework and compiling such an extensive list of rulings on points of this kind, I hope you will include in that list, as an unfortunate example, the ruling that was made on January 13, 1953. On that occasion the motion before the house was one made by the Prime Minister for the appointment of a special committee, but an amendment was moved by the Minister of National Defence, which-


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon. member. I remember that incident very well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So do we all.


Mr. Speaker:: At that time the ruling was that the amendment gave instructions to the committee. The committee had the power to do those things, but if instructions had not been received-did that not have to do with the consideration of the Currie report first?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: I remember that incident, and the ruling of the Speaker was to the effect that the order of reference gave the
Committee on Veterans Affairs power to the committee to consider the Currie report, and the motion moved by the Minister of National Defence made sure the committee would consider that first. That was all the motion purported to do. At that time Mr. Speaker Macdonald made the ruling that the committee had the power to do what the house was asking, and it was the desire to make sure the committee would do that first.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My point was that that amendment violated an important point which Your Honour has just now laid down, namely, that amendments of this kind violate the principle that notice must be given. In that case no notice was given, and yet the amendment was allowed. I am prepared to accept Your Honour's ruling today, but I hope it will be a precedent for future occasions rather than the one of January 13, 1953.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not at this moment prepared to condemn entirely the ruling that was made on that particular occasion, because the house was not caught by surprise. If within the powers conferred by the terms of reference in a notice certain instructions are given by the house, by way of amendments, I do not think hon. members can complain- although I am willing to consider that particular phase of the matter, because it is my understanding that the notice is a procedure of great importance. This is one which has for its purpose the protection of the minority. I think I would be inclined to help hon. members in that direction, whereby no motion should be made amending the terms of any motion which requires notice, and which, if made, would catch hon. members by surprise.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have had an education in procedure this afternoon which is all to the good, but has not changed anything very much. I wish to join with the last hon. member in stating that in my judgment the whole status of the veterans affairs committee has been changed within the last few years. This committee, up until the time of the setting up of the last committee-and I believe that is where it showed up clearly-was always considered non-partisan. It was picked largely from members of the house who were exmembers of the forces. For a good many years politics, so far as veterans problems were concerned, were completely divorced from the question.
That was done, I think, because previously the committee set up had power to amend and to initiate legislation that was in the best interests of veterans generally. But in the committee now to be established, and in the last committee that was set up, no longer

Committee on Veterans Affairs have we had a veterans affairs committee of that kind. Now it is merely a legislation examining committee, and has power only to deal with legislation that has already been adopted by the government and treasury board. Inevitably, in those circumstances, when such matters are brought before the veterans committee the result is to line up along political lines. It is that change in the status of the committee that is responsible. I suggest it is a bad development.
In the last sitting of this committee on veterans affairs-and I am reasonably sure the condition will be the same with this one- the chairman was placed in a position where he could bring before the committee only those bills referred to it. As we know, such bills represent the opinion of the government. Despite the fact that members serving on the committee want to be non-partisan, and look at the matter in a reasonable way, they are placed in a position either where they have to go along completely with the government, as represented by the bills, or make a fight for it, with the result that the government and the opposition parties are divided in the committee.
I think this is a bad development. Further, the fact that the resolution has been on the order paper since February 11 indicates bad judgment on the part of someone in the government. I am not blaming the minister entirely because I know that he, too, is in the hands of the board of strategy and treasury board. The fact that the resolution has been on the order paper a long time has served as an aggravation to veterans organizations outside the House of Commons. They have been clamoring for amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act. In the face of that fact we find placed on the order paper a motion to set up a committee, and the fact advertised that by that motion the very act that is agitating the veterans, the one they think needs amendment so badly, is omitted. The motion is left on the order paper for three months. It is just like waving a red rag at a bull. There is no doubt that that is why hon. members are receiving great numbers of resolutions and telegrams.
Several times in the house we have moved that the committee on veterans affairs should be a standing committee of the house, rather than having it as a committee to be called together by the government, if it sees fit. The government is under no obligation to take such action.
I believe the veterans affairs should be a standing committee. There is a motion on the order paper now which, if passed, would have the effect of making it a standing committee. And I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that

you will tell me I have no right in this debate to discuss a resolution on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I will tell my hon. friend that I would-if I did not know that there is no chance of reaching that particular order.


Clarence Gillis: Thank you very much. It would seem that the rules are, after all, a bit flexible.
I have said that in my view the committee on veterans affairs should be a standing committee of the House of Commons. Surely the thousands of veterans who fought in the first and second world wars, who fought in Korea, who are now serving in Germany, and the hundreds more who are now in this country in uniform, prepared to offer their lives if necessary, are just as worthy of consideration as other matters which are discussed in standing committees. There comes to my mind the matter of transport-


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Clarence Gillis: No, perhaps not transport. However, there are sixteen standing committees of the house, including the committee on the restaurant, the library, divorce, miscellaneous private bills, and many other subjects. They are necessary, of course, although some of them never meet.
Do not hon. members feel that in the interests of the general welfare of the country, and in the light of the changing pattern in the services from year to year, it is necessary now that we have a standing committee of the house which, so far as possible, would consist of members who have served in the armed forces? Such a committee would be called, not just when the government thinks it is necessary, but when a private member might think it necessary. I suggest he should be in a position whereby he could rise in his place and ask for the setting up of such a committee.
In this way it would be possible to have a continuous examination of veterans problems, and they would not be permitted to reach the state of turmoil we now find in connection with war veterans allowances. In the procedure I have suggested it would not be possible to set up a committee which would fail to deal with those matters about which the veterans have become agitated. I suggest the establishing of a standing committee would be helpful to the minister, because I am sure he knows there are many members in the house who are quite reasonable and who also have contact with veterans organizations. Let us keep in mind that the brains are not all in the civil service, the

fellows who draft these complicated amendments. If a standing committee were set up the minister would receive much valuable advice.
Let us not continue along the line now suggested, where we are developing a division of hon. members along political lines in the matter of veterans problems. Those problems have always been considered sacrosanct. I recall that for many years, indeed right up to 1939, any politician who attempted from a platform to raise controversial issues respecting veterans affairs did not generally get many votes. He was put in his place by any meeting where he attempted to raise a subject of that kind. That is the way we should keep it, because there should be no politics in matters having to do with veterans affairs.
When this committee begins to function it will not have very much to do. The bills that are to go before the committee are necessary adjustments to existing legislation, but there are not many changes in them. Changes in veterans legislation are necessary but they are not included in these bills. I am not going to discuss details now, but I have some opinions about the War Service Grants Act and the act respecting the Canadian forces as well as the other matters that have been referred to. Many things in veterans legislation need expanding, but this is not the time to do it.
I point out to the minister that his mediums of publicity are not good. For example, people outside this house and a lot of members in the house have always taken a dim view of casual earnings with respect to veterans allowances. I am not going to discuss the details of that except to tell the minister that this business of making changes in basic legislation by order in council and then issuing a directive based on that order in council does not get a very wide circulation, and that is responsible for a whole lot of misunderstanding that exists with respect to much of this legislation.
I met the parliamentary assistant to the minister the other day over a cup of coffee in the cafeteria, and he put me straight on something. Despite the fact that, as I said, a directive was sent out recently by the minister's department-I may as well give the number, W.V.A.B. No. 25-53-that pretty well revised the whole matter of casual earnings, I have been receiving letters on this subject and I did not know anything about it until I got a copy from the parliamentary assistant. I have given some publicity to it myself in my own area to bring it up to date. A lot of changes were made there, and they are good ones as far as they go. Quite a number of people were 83276-289
Committee on Veterans Affairs throwing rocks at the Department of Veterans Affairs on this v,ery matter. A lot of this trouble goes right back to the local districts. I am talking about my own now. They may be very efficient in other sections, but a lot of the difficulty over publicizing these changes from time to time goes right back to the local districts. Very little is known about it unless of course you walk into an office and sit down and discuss it with someone. I am merely leaving that thought with the minister. First, I do not agree with changing basic legislation by order in council in a matter as important as that affecting the casual earnings or parttime earnings of a recipient of veterans allowances. When a directive of that kind is issued it should go to the press in every part of the country. In addition to that, the district offices and the sub-district offices that enforce or handle that type of order should also be instructed to publicize it and see that all veterans who are entitled to the benefits because those changes are made are made acquainted with them.
In regard to the procedural question that came up, I am just going to say that because the War Veterans Allowance Act was not included in the terms of reference I, too, am very disappointed. I know from experience here that you cannot amend the terms of reference in the way that the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) tried to amend it, but I still hope-we have a month and a half to go before the end of the session- that this committee-


Mr. Lennard:: The hon. member is a little optimistic, is he not?


Clarence Gillis: The end of June. I hope that the committee that will be set up will be able to deal with this matter. I know the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) is just as anxious as we are to have the necessary amendments made to the War Veterans Allowance Act, and I hope that he will prevail upon the treasury board, and those who may be reluctant at this time to let us have a look at it, to permit the necessary amendments to that act and have it referred to the committee.
I could talk all afternoon on the reasons why this act should be amended, but I am not going to place Mr. Speaker in the position of having to declare me out of order. Before the minister closes this debate I would like him to clarify something in my own mind. This matter that I am now about to refer to is dealt with in one of the bills that we are to examine. Previous to the armistice in Korea, the Korean veterans were entitled to all the benefits that accrued
4562	HOUSE OF
Committee on Veterans Affairs to veterans of world war II under our legislation. I have had many protests from different parts of the country to the effect that since the armistice was declared, by some decree on the part of the government, it was decided to discontinue the benefits such as gratuities and credits for Korean veterans as from the time of the armistice, and that relieving veterans who go to Korea from Canada are in the same position as the 27th brigade in Germany. If that is so-I am not sure it is except from the correspondence- in my judgment there is no justification for it, because there is no similarity of service as between the brigade in Germany and the troops in Korea. The troops in Germany are living under peacetime conditions, but the Korean troops are in a country that is completely devastated. They are living under war conditions at the present time. No one in this house or outside it can say that war in Korea is over. That has still to be determined. It is merely a cease-fire, and the duties they perform are in effect war duties. Their conditions, their circumstances, their recreation, their method of living, their housing in that part of the world bears no resemblance whatsoever to that of the troops in Germany. Since we are to deal with the Canadian forces and the legislation that should be applicable to them, I hope the minister and hon. members will keep in mind that that is a point we should work over pretty thoroughly, because the veterans organizations who have written to me about it have said emphatically that they consider it unjustifiable and completely rank discrimination as far as the Korean troops are concerned.
Hon. members are pretty restricted in this discussion, but the plea that I made to the minister at the beginning is that I hope he may be able to drive home to the government the fact that the method of setting up this committee, and its terms of reference, which say that only the legislation already determined by the government and passed to the committee in the form of a bill can be considered, are too restrictive. The government is completely disregarding the non-partisan spirit which existed in that committee previously. They are submitting bills for consideration by members of that committee, including members of the opposition who previously examined such questions on merit, bills which are designed to implement government policy and which will force these opposition members to think along political lines rather than attempt to maintain the nonpartisan spirit which existed previously. In my view the strength of the House of Commons in safeguarding the interests of veterans was concentrated in that committee due to


the impartial manner in which it considered veterans legislation. I hope the government may give serious consideration to making this a standing committee so that when problems arise from time to time, as they must during our lifetime, and which will affect veterans particularly in this changing world, the members of the house who are interested may be able to ask the minister to set up the committee to consider these problems rather than wait for someone in the government to determine in his judgment when veterans problems should be considered. It appears now that they not only determine when these problems should be handled, but they write the legislation and then throw it before the committee to fight over along partisan lines.
I think that is the most important aspect of the matter which confronts us at the present time and it is my belief that the government has neglected to place before that committee necessary amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act. That act is the focal point in all problems affecting veterans today. Adjustments are necessary in other acts, but a change in the status of that committee from a veterans committee to a legislative examining committee which can act only on government legislation is very bad, and I trust that by the time we get around to dealing with veterans problems the minister will be in a position to announce that a standing committee of the house will be set up for the purpose of a continual review and survey of veterans problems as they arise from time to time.


Mr. Ray Thomas (Weiaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this resolution designed to set up a committee on veterans affairs, but I feel I have to go along with the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) and the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) in the view that during the last few years the committee on veterans affairs has drifted away from its original attitude and is not now concerned with a sincere discussion on veterans affairs. During the last three or four years we have not had the opportunity to thoroughly discuss the entire realm of veterans legislation, and I have found that the committee is what I might call a "me too" committee. The government suggests changes in the legislation; the committee talks it over; the government members of that committee say "me too"; the chairman says "me too"; he comes into the house and makes his report and the report says "me too"; the house then discusses it and the majority of hon. members in the house, of course, say "me too".
I too, Mr. Speaker, think that this committee on veterans affairs should be made

a standing committee of this house because it would appear that we are going to have veterans affairs problems for a good many years to come. We had the first world war; the second world war; then we had Korea; we have men in Germany; we have men in Korea, and there is a possibility of some sort of action in Indo-China. The United Nations' troops are carrying out police actions all over the world and members of our armed forces are travelling all over the world. We never know when we might be taking part in another war. That danger has often been underlined. We have a very delicate situation in Korea today, and with the international situation as it is we cannot avoid maintaining a strong standing army or at least carrying out a strong armed forces program. In the light of these facts we must have some sort of veterans organization within this house in order to keep pace with events.
I know it has been pointed out on many occasions that such a standing body is not necessary because we can always set up the veterans affairs committee, and it is asked, "Why set it up if we do not require it?" I wish the same sort of attitude could be taken with regard to some of the other standing committees. I have been a member of some of these committees for four years now, and they have not been called together and probably never will be, at least during my tenure of office. In spite of that, something that is as important, long lasting, and as near to us all the time as veterans legislation is ignored and we have to set up a veterans affairs committee whenever the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) and the government decide that we should do so. This is not good enough. We need a permanent committee on veterans affairs which could be called together at any time to discuss matters arising in relation to veterans legislation.
Other hon. members have pointed out that this resolution has been on the order paper for something like two or two and one-half months, and I think it should have been brought before the house a long time ago. It is getting late in the session now. The minister has pointed out that he wishes to submit other legislation which will then be submitted to the veterans committee, but we still have not heard anything about that legislation and it has still to come before this house before it is submitted to the committee. In my opinion that legislation should have been introduced and brought before the committee on veterans affairs at least a month or two ago, because from now on all hon. members will be up to the ears in work with the estimates before us in this 83276-289J
Committee on Veterans Affairs chamber, and we are not going to have much opportunity to be absent in order to attend the sittings of the committee on veterans affairs. Sometimes I wonder if that is not the reason, and that this resolution was held over so that members of the veterans affairs committee would not be in the house to discuss the estimates of various departments.
As regards the terms of reference, I cannot help sharing the view of other hon. members who have already spoken on this topic. The terms of reference are much too narrow and I hope that if the minister does not see fit to extend the terms of reference we might at least be given sufficient leeway within that committee to discuss the entire realm of veterans affairs, and hear briefs from the various veterans organizations.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, on that particular subject I would like to know if the minister has invited veterans organizations to attend and present their views in the legislation which is to be submitted to this committee. As I was saying, I hope that we will have sufficient leeway to cover the whole field of veterans legislation because, in my opinion, veterans have been held down far too long, living at subnormal standards and being forced to merely exist when they should be living comfortably. For example, the Pension Act should be thoroughly overhauled and there should be a substantial upward revision in the amount paid to recipients.
I am not going to dig into the relative merits of the War Veterans Allowance Act. However, I may say that act was brought forward because it was said that the veteran preaged by at least ten years. I should like to tell the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) that many of these veterans are ageing extremely rapidly from trying to get along on the pittance the government is giving them at the present time.
As to the terms of reference, I do not think they should be laid down by the government. The members of the veterans affairs committee of the House of Commons are themselves veterans. The problems of the veteran are close to them and are matters of concern to them. I think the members of the committee are the ones who should determine just what its terms of reference are in order to be able to dig into all of this thing and to make a complete revision of the veterans legislation; it needs it. If this committee is going to be set up, let us leave it to that committee to do a job so as to give the veteran something instead of being set up just to look into some minute amendment which is brought down by the government, is introduced to a predominantly Liberal committee and which we
4564	HOUSE OF
Committee on Veterans Affairs know is going to be passed as it was introduced to that committee, while all we can do, so far as the committee is concerned, is to blow off a little bit of steam and let people know exactly what we think. Under the existing statute, we cannot do anything concrete other than that.


Frank Exton Lennard: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to say a few words as one who has been on every veterans affairs committee of this house since 1935. Like every hon. member who has already spoken, I feel that this committee should be a standing committee and that it should be composed of a greater number of members than 31. It must be remembered that since 1945 we have had in this house a great number of veterans not only of the first great war but also of the second great war. A moment ago I mentioned that I had been on every veterans committee since 1935. I know that I am not being put on this committee this year. I could have been put on it but I voluntarily gave way to a younger member, a veteran of the second world war. Therefore, being deprived of the opportunity of again serving on this special veterans affairs committee, I felt that I should take part in this debate.
I certainly feel that it is a great mistake that this committee has been reduced, over the years, from some 60 members, when the veterans charter was discussed, until at the present time it numbers 31 members out of a house that contains possibly double the number of veterans it contained in 1945. I think it is a gross injustice to the veteran members of this house that the committee should be such a small one.
I also wish to say that I am greatly disappointed that amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act are not to be considered this year, and I know that veterans throughout Canada are also disappointed. As to the Veterans Land Act, which I believe is to be amended, I most certainly hope that the small holding limitation of two acres will be reduced. As I have said on many occasions in the past, half an acre is more than enough for any veteran to care for.
I have another matter that I wish to bring to the attention of the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, because I feel it is a matter that should be discussed by the veterans affairs committee this year. I realize that it might more appropriately be taken up by possibly another department, but it is a veterans problem and I feel that the Department of Veterans Affairs should press for immediate elimination of the difficulty. It is the case of a veteran who in applying for old age security is being denied it for several years because the time he spent overseas
[Mr Thomas.]

during the first world war is not allowed as residence in Canada. I fully realize that where an applicant has been a permanent resident in Canada for the entire 20 years, with a part of that unbroken 20 years spent overseas, it is allowed. But in this particular case to which I refer-and there have been similar cases-they run into the difficulty of not having resided in Canada for a long enough period to qualify. The point I wish to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, is that while the veteran is being denied the pension for some two years because his service overseas in the first great war was not allowed as residence in Canada, his wife, who remained in Canada while he was overseas, has been granted the pension. It was granted to her in April of this year, last month. The veteran who served overseas will not receive his pension until November of 1955. That is a point that I feel should be taken up by the minister. Perhaps I should not have raised it at this time but as I am not to be a member of the veterans affairs committee I felt that I should take the first opportunity to direct attention to it. I might say that this condition has been known by the minister of another department for several years. I would say that is one matter that should be taken up immediately and corrected. It could very well have been changed by an order in council. I sometimes wonder, Mr. Speaker, just how stupid people can get. I feel that it is a great injustice to a man who has served his king and country on the field of battle to be discriminated against to that extent; it certainly is a disgrace.
These are just a few remarks that I wished to make at this time. I want veterans generally and the members of this house to know that I am still just as much interested as ever in veterans affairs. As I said previously, however, I have relinquished my right to sit on that committee. Only six members were allocated to the Conservative party, and I have given my place to a younger man, a veteran of the second world war.


Mr. R. F. L. Hanna (Edmonion-Siralhcona):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) has pointed out, some of us have had a valuable lesson in pro"edure this afternoon. As a result of the rulings handed down by Your Honour I feel that I shall have to discard a good many of the notes I have here on the war veterans allowance. However, I should like to congratulate the minister and the government on bringing in this resolution to set up a committee on veterans affairs. While the personnel of the committee has not yet been announced, I am sure that every veteran

member of the house as well as every other member will watch with considerable interest the deliberations of this committee. Perhaps some day we can convince the minister that this committee should be a permanent one. I notice that the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) asked for this concession. Then he proceeded to criticize the matters which are being referred to this committee in the resolution. I say to him that I think all changes in veterans legislation should be referred to this committee, whether those changes are large or small. Like other members who have spoken, I am disappointed that the matter of war veterans allowance was not specifically mentioned in the resolution. Perhaps the minister will yet bring this matter before the committee. I earnestly hope that he will although, as Your Honour has pointed out, hoping will not necessarily make it so. However, as I read the terms of reference of the committee there is scope there for the question of war veterans allowance to be brought before the committee before the session ends.
During my first speech in the house on November 26 last I urged the government to consider favourably the excellent brief presented last fall by the Canadian Legion, particularly that part relating to the war veterans allowance. In my opinion there are many reasons why an increase in the war veterans allowance is warranted at the present time, but I shall not attempt to go into them all. The case for the war veterans allowance recipients is well set out in the Legion brief for all to read. I still think they have a very strong case and I urgently commend it to the government for their further consideration.
There is a situation developing in my own province of Alberta at the present time involving recipients of war veterans allowance which is particularly serious. In our province, as in British Columbia, there is a supplementary old age pension allowance of $15 per month, bringing the total old age pension, with the means test of course, up to $55 per month for a single person. If a married couple both qualify they will receive together $110 per month. I should say at this stage that the additional $5 added to the additional $10 supplementary allowance will not be paid until the first of June and thereafter.
I am informed, Mr. Speaker, and I have no reason to doubt it, that there are many cases of persons in Alberta who are not even citizens, much less veterans, who will be receiving $110 per married couple per month as old age pensioners. Such persons may even have fought against us in world war I, but they will still receive old age assistance in
Committee on Veterans Affairs the amount I have indicated provided that they qualify by having resided in Canada for twenty years or more and can pass the means test. I am not suggesting for one moment that these needy people are receiving too much by way of assistance, but the situation I have outlined does point up the urgent need for some revision of the War Veterans Allowance Act.
On the other hand, war veterans allowance recipients who also qualify for the old age pension-and I already have a letter from one such person-are limited to $100 per month under the $1,200 per year maximum permissible income ceiling. Surely this is not fair to our aged veterans who, incidentally, had to see service in an actual theatre of war in order to qualify for war veterans allowance. I think I should also point out that there is a war veterans allowance assistance fund up to $15 per month for those who are in dire need. I simply want to point out to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) the situation that is developing in Alberta and ask him to look into the matter very closely in order to make sure that our war veteran recipients in that province do not come out second best.
Of course I realize that the federal government cannot always be changing its policies because of the actions from time to time of various provincial legislatures, but at the same time the situation I have outlined with respect to the recipients of war veterans allowance is one that should not be allowed to persist indefinitely. Because of the rigorous means test prescribed, I am not afraid of the war veterans allowance going to people who do not need it and who do not deserve it, but I am very much concerned about whether those in need are getting a square deal, and I am confident that the government shares that view. I can only repeat what I said in the house on November 26 last, that in my opinion both the basic rate and the permissible income figures for the war veterans allowance are too low at the present time.
Having said that, I must in all fairness add something more. First of all I should like to say that I have great confidence in the Minister of Veterans Affairs, as I had in his predecessors. Between them they have done an outstanding job for the veterans of Canada. I think it is generally agreed that the treatment this government has meted out to Canada's war veterans is without equal in any other country in the world. The veterans charter of Canada, as we call it, has never been equalled anywhere, much less surpassed. Almost literally our war veterans have been looked after in a hundred and one different ways. This is only as it

Committee on Veterans Affairs should be. They have not received too much for no amount of assistance would repay or compensate them for what they have sacrificed for Canada. By their actions they have brought victory and freedom, unity and strength, not to speak of fame and glory, to our beloved country.
But the government has not forgotten these veterans. In Saturday's paper we read that the government is spending $127 million a year in war disability pensions alone. On top of this, the government is spending some $26 million in war veterans allowances each year. The newspaper article pointed out that this was in the order of $242 per minute for disability pensions or, if the war veterans allowance is included, we have a figure of approximately $290 per minute being spent by Canada in veterans pensions and allowances. But this only covers two items of veterans legislation. Actually hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested and are being invested in many other forms of veterans rehabilitation.
I appreciate that the government feels that the line must be drawn somewhere. Theirs is the responsibility of seeing that the country, in all its aspects, is run in a manner that seems to them to be in the best interests of Canada as a whole. But in my opinion the government is hewing too close to the line in the matter of the war veterans allowances. It will be my endeavour to try to persuade the government, as I am now doing, to reconsider this particular matter. As I have said, I have confidence in the Minister of Veterans Affairs and in the government. One has only to study the veterans charter to find ample reason for that confidence. Already in this session amendments to the veterans charter have been introduced in favour of the war veterans in several different respects. More amendments are to be brought in at this session, as the minister has indicated today. I am sure that these amendments will prove to be of further assistance to the men and women who have fought Canada's battles in the past.
I am particularly interested in the amendments to the Veterans Land Act that the minister is going to introduce. Having had the privilege of serving with the Veterans Land Act administration for seven years I know what a tremendous benefit the provisions of that act have been to our farmer, fisherman and small holder veterans, and I think any amendments to that act will be further well earned assistance to these veterans. Judging by what the government has done for our veterans since 1945, 1 have every confidence that they will continue to do the right thing by those who have done


so much for Canada. To our war veterans no sacrifice was too great when Canada needed sacrifice. Therefore I urge the government to take another look at the matter of the war veterans allowance. I hope that they will do this and come forward with a proposal for an increase in both the basic rates and the permissible income ceiling. As I have said before, there is scope in the resolution for such amendments, and I still have hopes that something will be done about it at the present session of parliament.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have noticed that so far every speaker, irrespective of the party to which he belongs, has referred to the particular resolution before us as being too confining in its nature. I agree with them 100 per cent. It is thirty-five years since the first war ended and there are problems affecting the veterans of that war that are still unsettled. There is nobody to which they can come to have those problems aired in a proper manner. I do not feel that the paid officials, who are there to administer the act, are the right people with whom to discuss proposed changes in the act. The veterans themselves or the veteran members of the house should have some say in the matter. Since these problems have remained unsolved, as they have for thirty-five years, it is time a change was made in the method of dealing with them. I feel that in this particular instance the reference to the committee should cover all veterans problems.
The veterans themselves had some hope that when the committee was set up it would deal with all their problems, and particularly veterans allowances. These problems have been brought to the attention of the government, and it is a slap in the face to the veteran and the veterans organizations who have consistently asked for the opportunity to discuss veterans allowances, that this matter is not to be considered.
I agree with the member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) that we should have a standing committee on veterans affairs. As a matter of fact, on December 9 last I had the following proposed resolution put on the order paper:
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.
This idea is not entirely my own, but is general throughout Canada. An opportunity for airing the grievances that are continuously being brought up through veterans organizations and directly to the member of parliament by the veterans themselves ought

to be provided. I feel it would eliminate a great deal of dissatisfaction that we have at the present time. It would eliminate dissatisfaction with what the department calls borderline cases, because in most instances the department takes the line most favourable to the government. This happens in spite of the fact that time and time again we have been told the veteran will be given the benefit of the doubt. I can prove that in some instances such has not been the case. I feel that such a committee would be of immense help to the minister. Through the members the minister could be kept up to date on conditions throughout the country.
There is no family in the whole dominion that is not, in some way, touched by veterans problems, either through the husband, son, daughter or other relative who served in one of the forces. The importance of this subject is so widespread that I feel a standing committee should be set up immediately. The recent sittings of the agriculture committee have been of interest to me. This committee had to consider the report of the Canadian wheat board, which was placed before the committee in its entirety as well as the recommendations resulting from the year's operation. Members of the board were there to answer questions. I thought the idea was a good one because the matter was dealt with by a group who understood wheat problems and who understood what they were doing about them. This arrangement proved very satisfactory. I believe that the committee that is now being set up for veterans affairs should be asked to consider the Canadian Legion brief in its entirety, as presented to the government last November 10, just as the agriculture committee considered a brief that was not sponsored by a minister of the crown.
I feel that in that way we could deal much more satisfactorily with the problems so far as the veterans are concerned. These problems go beyond the bills referred to the committee. These bills hardly go anywhere at all, but merely remedy one or two little things the minister feels should be remedied. I feel this brief was prepared by a body in much closer touch with the needs of veterans than those who administer the act in Ottawa would be. I should like to comment upon one or two aspects of the brief, but in view of Mr. Speaker's ruling I shall satisfy myself by mentioning the need for revision of veterans allowances. This brief contains suggested remedies for the protection of these veterans. I could give instance after instance which I hope I shall be able to do later in the session, illustrating the injustices created
Committee on Veterans Affairs by the administration of this act-I am speaking of the veterans allowances now.
There are other recommendations in the brief equally as important concerning veterans who live outside of Canada. These veterans are few in number, so the cost would not be very great if the minister acceded to their request. In many cases, these men must live outside of Canada for health reasons.
Another point that I think is important, and I have taken it up with the department, is the arbitrary way in which a veteran's allowance is affected by his earnings on a ranch. I have several veterans on small holdings in the Okanagan. I know of one whose income from operations was just about $1,000, but his total operating costs-he is a cripple- were over $1,200. He showed a net loss for the year of $200, but under the new ruling the department said, no, 50 per cent of your gross must be regarded as net profit. In his case, as a result, he and his wife had about $21 per month on which to live. I feel that such matters as that should be dealt with by the standing committee. I have cited one example and could go on to others. There are several others who have been treated in the same way.
The other matter that I believe is urgent concerns widows' pensions. I have mentioned the subject before, but I am going to do it again because the departmental ruling is still the same. If a disabled pensioner dies while receiving only 49 per cent or less, the widow gets nothing. If he received 50 per cent or more, the widow gets a substantial pension. I claim that the line is too hard and fast. It would not cost the government any money because it would merely be a continuation of the pension received by the husband before he died. He would have been paid had he lived, so it is a continuation of a part of the pension to the widow after he has died. Such action would remove a condition that is very unfair, especially if the matter was discussed in the proposed committee. Without going into detail, I would suggest to the minister that he again review the Canadian Legion brief and see if he cannot agree with me that it is a comprehensive one produced by experts in the field of veterans affairs and presented fairly and truthfully. If that brief were presented to the committee, with a request for recommendations, I believe the minister could be satisfied that veterans problems were on the road to being solved.
I would point out that it is the duty of every member of the house, and particularly veteran members, to deal with veterans' problems. If we cannot get that opportunity we are frustrated, the Legion is frustrated,

Committee on Veterans Affairs the veterans are frustrated and everyone is frustrated in presenting veterans problems. Today we have seen an attempt made to curtail the discussion of this vital subject. The day may yet come when we shall want to call upon the young people of Canada to fight our battles in perhaps still another war. If the treatment accorded the veterans of the three previous wars is not satisfactory, there will be little chance of being successful in the recruiting program for the next war. I think to a certain extent that is the reason recruiting today is 25 per cent less than the target set for last month by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton).
I hope the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) will take heed of what has been said by hon. members and, before it is too late, either suggest a standing committee on veterans affairs or enlarge immediately the scope of the committee now to be set up.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members are pleased that this committee is to be set up again at the present session. We do regret however that the time of the session is fast running out, and we can see no particular reason why the resolution could not have been presented to the house earlier in order that the committee might have had ample time to cover the work now placed before it. We cannot help that; but the fact remains that the motion to set up the committee has been put off time after time, indicating to me that perhaps the minister was waiting for some representation or other in order to make an important decision.
However, the resolution is now before us, and all hon. members are pleased that the committee is to be set up. We have reason to congratulate previous committees on the work they have done over the years. I do not know that I can agree altogether with the suggestion that the committee is deteriorating. It may be that I have not paid sufficient attention to it. Some members have made reference to this suggestion, but I can see no reason why the effectiveness of the committee should deteriorate in any way. I believe if we have the proper men on the committee it will do admirable work.
While at times we may appear critical of veterans legislation, compared with the legislation brought down immediately after the first world war, I am sure the veterans of the second world war have reason to believe that they have been treated with a high degree of consideration. I was talking to a veteran of the first world war, one who is


now growing older and has become a successful businessman, who indicated to me that veterans returning from the first world war would have been mighty glad to have had the privileges and opportunities afforded those returning from the second. He did admit that veterans of the first world war are now covered by various forms of legislation which apply also to those of the second world war.
A good deal has been said this afternoon about the terms of reference to the committee, and the suggestion is made that they are not wide enough in scope. I agree with what has been said in this connection, recognizing always the fact that we cannot go into a discussion of the missing piece of legislation, namely, the War Veterans Allowance Act. I am reminded by my leader however that a previous speaker created a precedent by discussing that matter. I am not going to follow his example, but shall state briefly that the fact the War Veterans Allowance Act is not included will be a source of great disappointment to many veterans, particularly those of the first world war who feel that further consideration should be given to the War Veterans Allowance Act, and certain necessary changes made in it.
The fact that the resolution has been on the order paper for so long has given a good deal of hope to these older veterans. They have been waiting in the expectation and anticipation that something more was going to be done for them.
There is a class of people in Canada today who are seriously neglected. I refer not only to the older war veterans but also to their widows-women who have passed the age where they can find suitable employment. To my mind they are more or less a forgotten class. I am not saying they are not properly dealt with where the legislation covers them; I know the officials want to do all they can for them under that legislation, but the fact is that the legislation does not go far enough. I suggest that the terms of reference to the committee should have been wide enough to have permitted it to study this matter and to make recommendations in the matter of war veterans allowances.
An amendment has been moved previously and declared by you, Mr. Speaker, to be out of order. In the light of the fact that it referred to the inclusion in the resolution of a specific act, and the further fact that Your Honour cited many previous decisions, I am afraid we will have to concur in your ruling. However I have here an amendment that I believe covers the point and is also in order. Otherwise I would not present it

I do present it because I believe the committee should be master in its own household. If it so desires it should be able to discuss other matters that it might consider should be discussed.
Therefore I move the following amendment, and I suggest it is only a slight one:
That the sentence, "and such other legislation relating to veterans affairs as may be referred from time to time to the said committee" be deleted, and the following substituted therefor:
"and such other matters relating to veterans affairs as the committee may decide."
The resolution would then read:
Resolved that a special committee consisting of thirty-one members, to be designated by the house at a later date, be appointed to consider the bill to amend the War Service Grants Act and the bill respecting benefits for members of the Canadian forces, and such other matters relating to veterans affairs as the committee may decide; that the said committee shall have power to send for persons, papers, and records, to print from day to day its minutes of proceedings and evidence, to sit while the house is sitting and to report from time to time; that the quorum of the said committee shall consist of ten members; and that the provisions of standing orders 64 and 65 be suspended in relation thereto.
That will not harm the resolution in any way. It will not prevent any other matter being referred to it. It will also make the committee freer to go into a discussion of all matters relating to veterans affairs, as the committee itself may decide.
I move this amendment, Mr. Speaker, and commend it to the consideration of the house.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order; may I draw your attention to the rulings that have been discussed this afternoon at some length? The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) has felt that in wording the amendment as he has he has shifted the onus to the committee and thereby from the house. It is the house, however, that sets the terms of the appointment of the committee, and its terms of reference. I think my hon. friend is in the same difficulty that any other amendment might be in because of the ruling made in 1951 which has been referred to, as I say, on more than one occasion. May I read very briefly from the ruling? It had to do with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks):
Mr. Speaker ruled the proposed amendment out of order on the ground that an amendment cannot be moved giving the committee wider powers than those which were set out in the notice of motion.
I suppose my hon. friend can say that this amendment does not extend the powers of the committee; that the committee itself might decide that it would not consider any legislation except that referred to in the 83276-290
Covimittee on Veterans Affairs original notice of motion. But since he gives them power to do so, I think we ought to assume that they would exercise it, and for that reason it is extending the scope of the motion of which notice was given in the proper manner. I am afraid I cannot add anything to my point of order except to say that it does seem to me that it is on all fours with the decision of Mr. Speaker of Wednesday, April 4, 1951.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I understand that previously this afternoon Mr. Speaker ruled an amendment by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) out of order, and I believe he cited at that time several decisions, one of which will be found in the Journals of 1951, at page 243, and the other of which will be found in the Journals of 1952, at page 240. In each case the amendments to a similar motion as that under consideration at this time were ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker on the ground:
. . . that an amendment cannot be moved giving the committee wider powers than those which were set out in the notice of motion.
The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Macleod would add the following words to the motion:
and such other matters relating to veterans affairs as the committee may decide.
Should the word "matters" refer to legislation, then under the terms of the original motion, which refers to certain specific legislation which will be referred to the committee and certain other legislation which may be referred to the committee, in my opinion the amendment is a nullity and would be out of order.
On the other hand, if the word "matters" refers to things other than legislation, then I can only feel that the effect of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Macleod would be to widen the powers of the committee, and as any such widening of powers under the rulings previously cited has been ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker, I believe that I can only rule the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Macleod out of order.


Mr. D. S. Harlcness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that this resolution to set up a special committee on veterans affairs has at long last been moved. It is difficult for me to understand why it has been sitting on the order paper for three months instead of having been moved shortly after it first appeared. As a result of it having been delayed for this three months' period I am afraid that the work of the veterans committee will now be rushed in a way which is not at all necessary.

Committee on Veterans Affairs
Possibly the reason for the motion not being moved earlier was the fact that these matters that are specifically referred to it are not matters which are going to take a great deal of time and are not matters on which there is going to be a great deal of disagreement. As was stated by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), to some extent they are almost what you might call routine matters; extension of veterans benefits enjoyed by people in the second great war particularly to those who served in the Korean war. Therefore possibly the reason that this motion stood so long on the order paper is that the government was determined not to have some of the matters with which veterans are more concerned at the present time, such as war veterans allowances, dealt with in the committee.
I was extremely sorry that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal was ruled out of order, and also the amendment just moved by the hon. member for Macleod. There is no question that the matter about which veterans are more concerned than any other is the rates of war veterans allowances and the allowable earnings which the recipients of war veterans allowances can receive. It is the most pressing veterans' question we have, and it is the one above all others which this committee now being set up should consider.
It would appear that the terms of reference are quite narrow, and that has been the case in the last two or three veterans committees that have been set up. I think it is a great mistake, as nearly every hon. member who has taken part in this debate today has also said. In spite of the fact that war veterans allowance is not specifically mentioned in this resolution, I would hope that the committee will be able to discuss it. That, as a matter of fact, was the situation in one committee.
It was not specifically mentioned in the terms of reference of a committee of two or three years ago, but veterans organizations, the Legion, the navy, army and air force veterans, and others appearing before the committee, made recommendations in regard to war veterans allowance, pension matters and other matters, and as a result of our discussing these questions with those veterans representatives, the matter of war veterans allowance was discussed, although it was not in the terms of reference. I would hope that the same thing might take place in this year's committee. I certainly hope that it will because if the committee is set up and is not ready to devote any time or give any consideration to improving the matter of war veterans allowance it will not do the job

which the veterans of this country expect it to do. It will prove to be a great disappointment to Canadian veterans.
Now, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna) made a strong plea for an improvement in the war veterans' allowance, and he said he was fully confident the government shared his views in that regard. But I am afraid the government's statements and actions so far this session do not justify that confidence. I hope the hon. member is correct, and I hope it is the government's view that improvements require to be made in the amount of payment under war veterans allowance and the amount of earnings veterans are allowed to make should be increased. I hope other hon. members on the government side who believe this action should be taken will put sufficient pressure on the government so that this matter may be referred to the veterans affairs committee and that some legislation will be brought in to cover these points.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) dealt with the legislation which is still to be introduced at this session a few days ago, and I was extremely disappointed that he made no mention whatever of war veterans allowances. As I have already pointed out, it is a matter of very pressing concern and one in which I believe nearly all hon. members in the house feel the government should make concessions so that the necessary amendment will be brought into the War Veterans Allowance Act to improve it in the two particulars I have mentioned.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: serious consideration to amending the regulations-the resolution says the act; I understand it is the regulations-so that a veteran may acquire a small holding provided he can obtain half an acre of suitable land.
There is one other resolution which is extremely interesting because there are several cases of this type which have arisen in my constituency. This is a resolution that deals with the necessity of protecting the wife of a veteran who has purchased a home under the small holdings section of the Veterans Land Act. We have had two or three cases where the husband and wife have worked together since the war to obtain a small holding and build a home, then the husband has failed to live up to his responsibility and the poor wife, although she has done her best to build up the estate and has worked hard, was left high and dry because she has no legal interest in the property. It was on that account that the Nelson branch of the Canadian Legion adopted this resolution, which I commend to the minister for his consideration:
Whereas under the existing agreement made between the director of the Veterans Land Act and the veteran, the wife of the veteran is not protected in the event of desertion, as under the wives' protection act.
And whereas in the event of desertion by her husband she may be forced to vacate the property which she has helped to build up.
Therefore be it resolved that this convention strongly appeal for a revision of the Veterans Land Act, to permit joint ownership, which would provide protection for the wife.
I am not quite sure, Mr. Speaker, whether the remedy suggested there is the best one from a legal point of view, but I bring the resolution to the attention of the minister in the hope that something will be done to protect those unfortunate women who have made a joint contribution with a veteran to the building of a home. Fortunately these cases are few and far between, but where they occur they are the cause-and I say this from my personal knowledge-of considerable hardship on the wife concerned.
Like others who have spoken, Mr. Speaker, I greatly regret that the government has not paid attention to the repeated suggestions of the Canadian Legion and other veterans organizations in Canada for an increase in the war veterans allowance. We all know that we have without a doubt the finest veterans legislation to be found anywhere in the democratic world. I think there is no question about that fact. Being a member of the committee I have had the opportunity, as have other hon. members, of studying the legislation passed in Great Britain, the United States, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Belgium,

France, New Zealand and Australia. After an extensive study of legislation passed on behalf of veterans and their dependents in other countries, I think it is quite fair to say that Canada can proudly say she has the best veterans legislation in the world. I therefore think it is rather unfortunate that we have failed to remove one or two illiberal blots on the legislation at this time.
Along with others who have spoken, I regret that the government has not seen fit- as was said by the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna)-to send to the committee a bill which would provide for amendment of the War Veterans Allowance Act so as to increase the war veterans allowance and hence make the lives of a number of veterans and their dependents much happier. As a result of this debate and as a result of public opinion in the country I hope that before this session ends the government will respond to our pleas and representations.
In conclusion I want to say a word or two about the committee. I think it is quite fair to say-and I am sure the hon. member for Cape Breton South will back me up in this statement-that throughout the years, generally speaking, the approach of the members of the veterans affairs committee has been a non-partisan one. I have found that to be the situation. Even government members on the committee, when they find that the government cannot be moved to do what the opposition members have been suggesting and what they themselves have suggested on occasion, feel quite uncomfortable about it. I must say that the tone of the debates in the committee and the working of it have been non-partisan. The colonel from Royal, the burly and rugged coal miner from Cape Breton South, that gentlemanly representative of the legal profession from Vancouver-Quadra, and the peasant farmer from Kootenay West all had one thing in common and one spirit. They look forward, as usual, to the spirit and tradition of the veterans affairs committee being carried on. That tradition and spirit is that we work together for the welfare of the veterans and their dependents.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, it is significant that every hon. member who has spoken in this debate, after the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe), has shown grave concern that this committee which is to be set up will not have the power to deal with the War Veterans Allowance Act. I personally feel that a great injustice is being done to these front-line veterans who either are now qualified for that allowance or may become qualified before there is a suitable change in the act. I hope to place before the Minister of Veterans
Committee on Veterans Affairs Affairs, and more particularly before the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) who is now in the house, a few words which will have some effect; I am optimistic enough to hope that the government will take another look at this question.
These special committees on veterans affairs are only set up occasionally. Time and again the request is made that there should be a standing committee to deal with these subjects but, as we all know, that request has been turned down. Once, twice, perhaps three times in a parliament, a special committee is set up to consider veterans affairs. The resolution we are considering today will set up the first committee of the present parliament on that subject. It is possible that there will not be another committee on veterans affairs during the whole life of this parliament. The setting up of this committee is extremely important, far more so I believe than is the case with any other special committee of the house.
As has been pointed out, the terms of reference are limited; they refer only to legislation. In the first place they mention two bills which have already been given second reading, a bill to amend the War Service Grants Act and a bill respecting benefits for members of the Canadian forces. Then the terms of reference go on to refer to "such other legislation relating to veterans affairs as may be referred from time to time to the said committee".
When the Prime Minister spoke on April 30 he gave the house a list of the legislation to be introduced before the end of the present session. The only bill in that list that affected veterans affairs was one to amend the Veterans Land Act. There is also of course a bill to amend the Pension Act already standing on the order paper which obviously will be referred to the committee. Therefore the present position is that we can expect to have only two more bills for consideration by the special committee. On the same day the Prime Minister was asked about the possibility of amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act. The question and answer will be found at page 4276 of Hansard of April 30. The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) asked the following question:
I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he has not forgotten to bring in an amendment to the War Veterans Allowance Act. X am sure there will be great disappointment if no amendments to that act are brought in at this session.
The Prime Minister answered that question as follows:
I have stated a complete list of the government's program for the remainder of the session.
4574	HOUSE OF
Committee on Veterans Affairs
It is perfectly obvious therefore that unless there is a change of mind on the part of the cabinet there will be no bill to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act at this session and therefore the special committee, under its terms of reference, cannot consider the question whether or not the present War Veterans Allowance Act is adequate. That, I am sure, is contrary to the expectations of veterans from one coast of Canada to the other. I have here a press dispatch reporting on a letter written by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) which shows that he too expected that this subject would be considered by the special committee. In Vancouver quite a campaign has been carried on with respect to the question of war veterans allowances by the West End branch of the Canadian Legion. Reports of their activities have appeared in a district paper known as the West Ender each week. I have here a copy of that paper for March 17 which contains this report concerning a letter written by the Minister of Finance:
Canada's finance minister, Hon. D. C. Abbott, is a very busy man but he took a few minutes to reply to our petition in behalf of the W.V.A. pensioners. Mr. Abbott states that veterans problems are under continuous study by the veterans affairs department, and legislation providing benefits are continuously reviewed. In conclusion he adds-
This is the part I wish to emphasize.
-that all due consideration will be given to W.V.A. recipients and that the problem will come before the special committee on veterans affairs to be set up during this session.
You see, Mr. Speaker, this question of the war veterans allowance is far and away the most important question worrying the Veterans of Canada today. It is of course of concern to every war veteran who is interested at all in veterans problems, and to the great veterans organizations of Canada. For example, when the Canadian Legion appeared before the cabinet in November of last year their first and main submission had to do with the war veterans allowance. I have no doubt the Prime Minister was present at that interview and that he will remember that the Legion placed the greatest emphasis on the need for amendment of the War Veterans Allowance Act.
It has also been the most important question concerning veterans affairs in this house. It was considered at great length and with some care by the last special committee on veterans affairs which met in 1952. I draw to the attention of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Veterans Affairs the recommendation which finally came out of the special committee in 1952 respecting war veterans allowance. It was a unanimous recommendation; in fact, it was moved by the members of the Prime Minister's own
IMr. Green.]

party. Members of the opposition had previously moved a stronger recommendation but it was voted down. Then the Liberal members on the veterans affairs committee brought in this recommendation which was passed unanimously. It read as follows:
Your committee further recommends to the government continued and sympathetic study of the needs and requirements of recipients of war veterans allowance, keeping in mind the recommendations of veterans organizations in that respect-
It will be noticed that here the committee picked out one particular point.
-and particularly with regard to permissive income.
In practically every other case in my memory where there has been a recommendation from a special committee on veterans affairs it has been acted upon by the government, usually during the same session. It is two years ago that this recommendation was made and yet the government has never acted.
1	do not say that the government failed to consider the question, but if the cabinet did consider it at all they obviously turned down the recommendation of the committee. Putting the matter on the basis of fairness to a committee of this house, on the basis that a committee of this house just two years ago made a definite recommendation for consideration of the need of amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act, I suggest that ihe committee now being set up should be given the power to consider this question even though the government is not prepared at the moment to take any action by way of introducing an amendment.
The committee could hear from the department. No doubt there is a story to be told by the department with respect to the War Veterans Allowance Act. No doubt the officials would say that a special new provision was written into the act in 1952 which took care of many war veterans allowance recipients. However, I have here a return tabled for the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode) giving the number of veterans who have benefited by reason of that change as of the 31st of October, 1953. They only amounted to 761 out of a total of 31,234. In other words, just slightly over
2	per cent of the recipients of war veterans al owance at that time were able to take advantage of the amendment which was put into the act in 1952.
This committee could hear from the veterans organizations. Surely, we are not to be put in the position where they are called before that committee but are not allowed to make any recommendations concerning war veterans allowances. I repeat that is the main problem facing the veterans

of Canada today. If the veterans organizations are allowed to make submissions, but the committee cannot make any recommendations, where is the sense of the committee being in that position? I suggest the committee should be given the power to deal with this question, to hear representations and to make recommendations to the house just as it did in 1952. If the government does not see fit to accept those recommendations, then that of course will be the responsibility of the government, as it ought to be.
This action of setting up a committee and depriving it of the power to deal with the main veterans problem amounts, in effect, to putting a lid on the problems that are worrying the veterans at the present time. In fact, it amounts to making this veterans affairs committee nothing more nor less than a rubber stamp to approve the four bills introduced by the government, and with practically all the terms of which everyone is in agreement. The work of the committee is reduced to such an extent it is hardly worth while setting up a committee at all.
I am not going to go into the reasons why the War Veterans Allowance Act should be amended. I believe they are well known to every member on the government side, just as they are to every member on this side. This afternoon I was struck by one fact brought out by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna). Incidentally, he is the only government supporter who has spoken in this debate, outside of the minister. This hon. member had the courage to say he thought this question should be faced at this session. He pointed out that now in Alberta a civilian can get an old age security payment from the dominion of $40, and an additional $15 from the province, whereas a veteran of course is limited to a total of $50.
The same situation exists in my own province of British Columbia. There have been amendments this year that have changed the law so that now a civilian, even a man who served in the German army and came to British Columbia afterwards, can now get $55 a month, whereas a man who was fighting in the front lines for Canada can only get $50 under the War Veterans Allowance Act. There is also the fact that the permissive income is only $10 a month, both in the case of a single veteran and of a married veteran. This is absolutely unfair. When the veteran reaches 70 and becomes eligible for old age security he cannot get the full $40 like everyone else in Canada. He is discriminated against because the ceiling on his permissive income is so low. However,
Committee on Veterans Affairs this is not the time to go into these details. They are bad enough, but I think everyone here knows about them.
It seems obvious that the veteran is being put on the basis of a welfare case. The war veterans allowance recipient is being treated the same as a civilian welfare case. It is for that reason we cannot get any improvement in the situation, and The Legionary put that quite clearly in the January edition in an article entitled "1953 in Retrospect":
Time and again we have been told by the Prime Minister and members of the cabinet that war veterans allowance rates and ceilings cannot be permitted to get too far out of line with other social benefits such as old age pensions, pensions for the blind, etc. Time and again we have pointed out that citizens of Canada are not required to render any special service to this country in order to become eligible for the usual social benefits available to all under certain conditions. On the other hand the veteran, before becoming eligible for war veterans allowance, must have served in a theatre of actual war and we are satisfied that the Canadian people would in consequence place him in a preferred position.
Leaving the act as it is means that the government is ignoring the fact that this is a claim by the veteran for services rendered. It is in the nature of a debt owing him by his country, and I believe is recognized as such by the Canadian people even if it is not so recognized by the government.
I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, to the private members on the government side of the house that they could force the government to introduce amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act during this session if they took a stand in this debate today. This is the time to do it. Do they believe that the War Veterans Allowance Act should be amended at this session or do they not? If they do, let them stand up and indicate to the government what they think should be done. Every single member on the opposition side, no matter to what party he or she may belong, stands firmly for changes in this act, and stands firmly for the veterans problems being aired in the special committee on veterans affairs. I believe most members on the government side feel the same way. I would hope that the Prime Minister would make his supporters feel free to express their opinions on this question rather than make it a party matter. Surely where the vast majority of the members here who have been elected by the people of Canada believe some action should be taken, the government should not make them go against what they feel on such a question.
I do not doubt that practically every member here today, including the members of the cabinet, told the veterans last year that this War Veterans Allowance Act would be

Committee on Veterans Affairs amended. I do not think there are many here who did not take that stand in the election just one year ago. This is the time to act. I hope this parliament will not put itself in the position of raising the pay of members and senators, then two or three weeks from now of every judge in Canada, but not giving any help to these front-line veterans. They have a far greater right to consideration than anyone in this house or in the Senate or on the bench in this land. Now is the time to see that they are given that consideration to which they are so fully entitled.


Richmond Francis Lionel Hanna: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether I might correct the misinterpretation placed on my remarks by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness). I am sorry he is not in the house at the present time. I was out of my seat for a few moments this afternoon, and I am informed the hon. member told the house I had said I was confident that the government shared my view in the matter of war veterans allowances. That is not what I said. I am not confident that the minister shares my view, although I hope he does. I was speaking particularly of a situation that is likely to develop in Alberta where veteran old age pensioners may receive $10 a month less, as a couple, or $5 a month less for a single person than does a non-veteran old age pensioner. I had intended to say I was confident that the government would share my view that the veterans who are pensioners in Alberta should not be placed in a less advantageous position than non-veteran old age pensioners.


Mr. Winch:: In other words, you have lost confidence in the government.


Richmond Francis Lionel Hanna: Not at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, whatever confidence or lack of confidence the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna) may have in the government, I dare to believe that most private members on the government side of the house are still hoping that before this session ends something will be done with respect to the War Veterans Allowance Act. It seems to me that the way in which the ball might be started rolling in connection with this important question would be for the government to agree to an enlargement of the terms of reference of this motion so that this important question might be discussed by the special committee to be established when this motion passes.
Most hon. members who have spoken this afternoon have referred to this motion as one for the appointment of a committee on veterans affairs. I suppose there is a sense


in which that is the correct terminology. But I am inclined to agree with the view expressed by my colleague, the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), when he says that this is not a committee on veterans affairs in the sense in which we have known those committees in years gone by.
I recognize that when the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) announced to the house on February 11 that he was going to place a motion on the order paper he used these words:
It is therefore proposed to set up a special committee on veterans affairs this session.
But I suggest-and in this I do not think I am just being technical or legalistic-that this is not a motion to set up a committee on veterans affairs at all; this is a motion to set up a committee to which will be referred three bills. Two of those bills are named in the motion-a bill to amend the War Service Grants Act and a second one respecting the benefits for members of the Canadian forces. The third bill, as we know from what we have been told on other occasions, will be one to amend the Veterans Land Act.
Members supporting the government may argue that this is, in effect, a veterans affairs committee because the bills with which it will be dealing are bills relating to veterans affairs. But the committee suggested is not a veterans affairs committee as the House of Commons has known it in the past. And I must congratulate the Minister of Veterans Affairs upon not having tried to say in the wording of his motion that this is a veterans affairs committee. It is just a special committee to deal with three bills the government has decided should be referred to such a special committee. It is not a committee to go into the broad question of what our veterans in Canada need at the present time, as previous veterans affairs committees have been permitted to do.
I feel strongly that the whole question of the terms of reference of the committee should be reconsidered. I would hope that the Prime Minister, who has listened to all the appeals that have been made this afternoon, might reconsider the terms of reference. I would hope that the strong appeal made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) might lead the Prime Minister to reconsider this whole question.
As I indicated earlier, I could not but go along with Your Honour's attitude toward the amendments that were made, so far as the procedural position is concerned; but it is still possible for the government to respond to the wishes of the house and to ask the consent of the house to change the terms of this motion.

Since it is not possible to move an amendment asking for the inclusion of other matters such as the War Veterans Allowance Act, it is therefore not possible at this time to get a vote on that specific question by itself. Perhaps that is one reason that there may be more speakers in this debate than might otherwise be the case, because members generally in all parts of the house feel so keenly on this issue that they are anxious to express their views.
So far, as has been pointed out, apart from the minister who introduced the motion, we have heard only one speaker from the government side of the house, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona. I hope there may be other speakers. Indeed I am waiting anxiously to hear from the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott). On February 11, when the Minister of Veterans Affairs announced that it was his intention to file notice of a motion for the setting up of this committee, the hon. member for Vancouver South made a very short speech in which he expressed his pleasure at this announcement. He even went on to say that this would now give him an answer to the 427 postcards that were lying on his desk upstairs. I would like to know what answer he gave on that occasion to those 427 postcards, and I would like to know further whether he has amended that answer.
When one reads the very brief statement the hon. member for Vancouver South made on that occasion it becomes quite clear he had confidence that the bringing down of a motion for the setting up of this committee meant that consideration was going to be given at this session to amending the War Veterans Allowance Act. As I say, now that he knows it is the government's intention that that matter shall not be referred to the committee, and that there shall not be a bill amending the War Veterans Allowance Act, I am wondering what amendment he is sending out to the answers he gave to the 427 veterans who sent him the postcards.
I have referred to the hon. member for Vancouver South, not to be critical of him for the view he expressed on February 11, because the same view was expressed by members in all parties. We were delighted with the announcement. It came as a surprise, right in the midst of another debate. I repeat that we were delighted with the announcement that a special committee on veterans affairs was to be established. What we are now disappointed in is that we are not getting a special committee on veterans affairs; we are getting merely a committee to consider three bills and nothing more. The terms of reference are limited, so limited that it will not
Committee on Veterans Affairs be possible to discuss an important matter such as the War Veterans Allowance Act.
And so I hope that, even yet, before the debate goes much farther, Liberal members, like the hon. member for Vancouver South and others on that side of the house, who I am sure are just as anxious as we are that something be done on this question, will enter the debate and join with us, as private members on all sides of the house, in making it known to the government that this session must not end without something having been done about the War Veterans Allowance Act.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, just before the house rose at six o'clock I had expressed the hope that we might yet hear, during the course of this debate, from the hon. member for Vancouver South. I am pleased to see that he is in his seat at this time, and I dare to hope that he will accept my invitation. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I wish to express very strongly the hope that a number of hon. members on the government side of the house will speak for at least a few minutes during the course of this debate. We would like to hear from the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall); we would like to hear from the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker); we would like to hear from the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), as well as from others whom I could name.
Some may be asking: Why do the members on the opposition side of the house want to hear from government members in a debate of this kind?


Walter Edward Harris: It is a little unusual.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration suggests that it is a little unusual.


George Randolph Pearkes: Perhaps he will speak.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Esqui-malt-Saanich suggests that it may be a good idea to hear from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


George Randolph Pearkes: He is a returned man.


Stanley Howard Knowles: His contribution would be listened to with a great deal of interest. All levity aside, the reason why we would like to hear from private members on the government side is that we attach extreme importance to our contention that the terms of

Committee on Veterans Affairs reference of this motion should be enlarged. We can make that appeal from the opposition side of the house. We are doing so. I imagine it will continue to be made during the course of the debate this evening. It is quite clear what it is we mean when we say that the terms of reference should be enlarged. We mean that this committee should be given the right to discuss the amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act which we believe are very necessary.
Let us be quite frank about this. There is no doubt that people in the country will approve of the stand that the opposition members are taking during the course of this debate. There is no doubt that in time we shall win our point but time can sometimes-


Frank Exton Lennard: Just before the next election.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -stretch out. The hon. member for Wentworth has just put in a very apt comment; but, Mr. Speaker, this question is serious. We want action, not just approval of the speeches we are making; we want action on this matter at this session of parliament. We believe that it would strengthen our efforts, that it would bring something about for the veterans of this country, if the Prime Minister and the members of the cabinet knew from what was said on the floor of this house that the private members on the Liberal side of the house are just as concerned about this issue as are members on the opposition side of the house.
It has been said by a good many already that it is a bitter disappointment to be told that there are to be no amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act at this session of parliament. As hon. members know, questions on this point have been asked repeatedly during the course of this session. I have asked a number of them myself. The last time that a question on this subject was asked on the orders of the day was on April 30, when the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) put a question to the Prime Minister, after the Prime Minister had listed the remaining items of business for this session of parliament. He asked the Prime Minister whether he had not forgotten to announce an amendment to the War Veterans Allowance Act. This was the brief reply made by the Prime Minister, as found at page 4276 of Hansard of April 30:
I have stated a complete list of the government's program for the remainder of the session.
That statement seemed to close the door on any possibility of an amendment to the War Veterans Allowance Act at this session of parliament. But, Mr. Speaker, we have seen doors that were apparently closed, pried open
I Mr. Knowles.]

on previous occasions, and I am joining with other hon. members on this side of the house in asking private members on the government side to join with us in trying to pry this door open so that we might get consideration at this session for those veterans who depend upon the terms of the burnt-out pension or the war veterans allowance.
Of one thing I am sure, despite my lack of confidence in this government. It is that this government would not think of bringing in legislation decreeing that any veteran, or any number of veterans, should be asked to starve. To a great many veterans that is just what it seems like when, with all the rest of the legislation that has been brought in at this session of parliament improving the position of other people, there is nothing to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act. I am sure that this government, in its most callous moments, would not bring in a bill discriminating against our burnt-out pensioners, our burnt-out veterans, particularly those of the first war. It would not bring in a bill saying that their services should be forgotten. But many of those veterans-other hon. members know it as well as I do from the letters they receive from them-feel that that is exactly the kind of treatment that is being accorded them by virtue of failure of the government to do anything about the the War Veterans Allowance Act at this session.
What the government will do regarding legislation is a matter that has to be decided by the cabinet, but surely this simple request that we are making is one that should be met; namely, that this committee's terms of reference should be broadened so that the members of that committee will have the unquestioned right to discuss the War Veterans Allowance Act.
I appeal to the government to consider enlarging the terms of reference. I appeal to Liberal private members in this House of Commons to join with us in making that plea to the government.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I was informed that the hon. member for Oxford would like to say a few words on this resolution; and because he has to go away, would the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich and other hon. members please give way to the hon. member for Oxford? I am sure he will appreciate it.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am pleased if you will see the hon. member for Oxford, and if you will see me later.


Mr. Speaker:: After the hon. member for Oxford has spoken, I will see the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to thank the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) for his courtesy in this matter; I thought it had been brought to his attention. At long last, Mr. Speaker, the resolution having to do with the committee on veterans affairs has been brought before the house. Many veterans throughout Canada and their families will be pleased that the resolution has been acted upon. However, it is something like the very famous old proverb that appears in the Good Book. If I am not correct in this I am sure somebody will call it to my attention. In any event the proverb goes something like this; The mountain laboured and brought forth a mouse. I am quite willing to agree that a mouse, albeit small, is better than no mouse at all.
Hon. members who are to be members of this committee will be very glad to have the committee set up so that we shall be able to get to work on the legislation, such as it is. I should like to agree with the numerous hon. members who have already expressed certain thoughts with respect to this committee, and have also expressed their opinions.
I believe this committee rather than being a special committee ought to be a standing committee of this house. I think the subject of veterans affairs is sufficiently important to justify the appointment of a standing committee. I also agree with other hon. members who have suggested that this committee should have a larger membership. There are a great many members in this house who have served in one or both world wars and who should like to have an opportunity of sitting on this committee. But since the committee is comprised of only 31 members not many of us will have the opportunity to do so.
I was interested in the suggestion made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) and his opinion of the manner in which this committee conducted its affairs previously, namely in a non-political manner. Problems concerning war veterans were brought up by committee members themselves and that was an excellent way of running a committee such as this, and I think it would be agreeable if that type of committee were set up again at the next session of this house. I believe all hon. members will agree that veterans affairs is not a subject which should be made a political football.
However, I would like to congratulate the government on the excellent veterans legislation which has been passed in the years since the war. I agree with other hon. members that there may be other countries which
Committee on Veterans Affairs have legislation just as good, but certainly no other country has better legislation. Nevertheless, there is always room for improvement. Since 1945 there has been a great change in conditions in Canada. For example, our population has increased a great deal and the number of new houses has increased considerably in the suburbs of our large cities. Certainly most Canadian cities large or small in Canada have expanded their boundaries and veterans who previously had two or three acre plots in the townships now have their homes in urban areas and carry a much heavier burden of taxation. Moreover, I believe it has been found by experience that while the two and three acre plots were supposed to make people independent in the event of a recession, these plots are much too large to be worked by hand and too small on which to operate machinery. That is just one example of the change which has taken place in Canada. In addition, because of the expansion of our urban areas it is now very difficult for anyone to obtain a plot of a suitable size near his place of employment.
I had hoped that when this committee was set up it would be able to deal with the recommendations set out in the brief presented to the government by the Canadian Legion last fall. I believe the recommendations suggested in that brief were fair and reasonable and not at all out of proportion. These recommendations were carefully thought out and have taken the changing conditions I have outlined into consideration. I am expressing these facts not because I happen to be a member of the Canadian Legion, but because I really believe the recommendations set out in that brief are all worthy of consideration at this time.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to comment briefly, without transgressing your ruling today, on certain matters which will be discussed by this committee. The first question to which I would like to refer is the suggested change in the Veterans Land Act. From what we have been able to gather these changes seem very appropriate and will probably be of considerable benefit to veterans and will serve to bring the present legislation into line with conditions existing in this country at the present time.
There is one matter which unfortunately will not, it appears, come before this committee and that is the question of possible amendment to the Pension Act. The minister is no doubt aware that section 13, subclause 1, paragraph (a), and section 13, subclause 1, paragraph (c), which ameliorates the first section I mentioned, cause a great deal of hardship. I just mention that in the hope

Committee on Veterans Affairs that the minister will give it his consideration. I see Mr. Speaker looking at me and I must be rather careful and avoid going into detail.
The last thing I would like to mention in passing is one which has been mentioned by almost every hon. member who has spoken in this debate and that is the matter of veterans allowances. I agree with other hon. members who feel it is a great pity that this committee when it sits will not have an opportunity to consider legislation in this regard. I believe I am quite safe in saying every veterans organization in Canada, and the Canadian Legion in particular, feel this matter of veterans allowance is the prime problem which concerns every veterans organization at the present time. As other hon. members have pointed out, the matter of increasing these allowances and raising the ceiling of permissible income should be brought before this committee. Certainly legislation in this regard is very much needed, and of great importance to veterans generally.
I have heard it said by some veterans that after all in the first year after the election one cannot expect too much, and that possibly some legislation will be introduced at another session, closer possibly to the date of the next election. I am quite sure the government would not like to give veterans the impression that this matter of veterans allowances is being used as a political football. I just mention this because as Shakespeare said: It is not what is truth, but what people believe to be truth. Unfortunately I am afraid a great many veterans will gather that impression.
In conclusion I would just like to reiterate that I hope before the session is concluded that the door may be opened for the committee to examine this question of veterans allowances.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, reference was made by two previous speakers this afternoon to directive No. 25, 1953. It will be recalled that during the fall session of this parliament I asked questions of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) regarding this directive which had been issued during the summer when this house was not in session. That directive made changes with respect to casual earnings. At that time casual earnings were defined as that amount of money which might be obtained through odd jobs but not exceeding $2 per day. The minister explained that there was some ambiguity about that definition and very kindly offered to look into the matter. As a result of his investigation and the investigation undertaken by the


chairman of the war veterans allowance board this amendment was introduced. Casual earnings are now defined in a far more generous manner than hitherto. The directive refers to earnings obtained through work in jobs not of a regular nature, and it goes on to say:
Earnings by a recipient and/or his wife resulting from part-time regular employment such as a caretaker for a church or school, a canteen attendant, a crossing guard, self-employment at home on a parttime basis, etc.
Such earnings would be considered as being exempt. Then in another paragraph it goes on to say that earnings by a recipient and his wife resulting from full-time temporary employment of limited duration such as at summer camps, guard duties, collecting tickets at race tracks, replacing a regular employee on holidays, harvesting or other similar activities of relatively short duration would not be considered under the title of that income which would have to be deducted. All those are excellent regulations. I am highly pleased that the minister has been able to authorize that extension. But that extension does not cover the whole field. When this committee is set up I would hope that there will be discussion of these regulations which are in many respects more far-reaching than any of the minor amendments which are being introduced under the different bills to which specific attention has been called in this resolution.
I am not asking for a general discussion necessarily on the War Veterans Allowance Act. I am asking that this memorandum be placed before the committee, partly so that the memorandum may be brought to the attention of the nation. As was said by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), little publicity has been given to this memorandum. It was issued at the time of the Easter recess and there was little opportunity for anybody to discuss it. If this memorandum is placed before the committee with the amendments to the various other bills which are to be introduced the committee would then have an opportunity to discuss the extent to which this memorandum meets the problem of the older veteran.
It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to delay the house for long. I am an old soldier, and I am getting older every year. I suppose I am getting more and more cantankerous as the years march on. I am sick to death of pleading with this government for the old soldiers of Canada. I think the time has come when this government needs an urge to do something rather than pleading to do something for the old soldiers. It is my great good fortune-I served in a number of units during

the first war-to have had the opportunity of meeting many of the men who forty years ago this year left Canada to fight for the then king and for this country. Those men are advancing in years. They have given so much in the past that they are finding it utterly impossible, in hundreds of cases, to keep up with the modern trend of life today. They have been looking to this government to do something now to help them meet the critical situation with which they are faced in their declining years.
They have the approach through the Canadian Legion; but only a comparatively small percentage of veterans are in the Canadian Legion; they are not all in it. I wish that every ex-serviceman was a member of the Canadian Legion. Then perhaps the government would pay more attention to what the Legion has to say. They sort of brush them aside because there are only perhaps some 300,000 members in the Legion out of one and a quarter million veterans in Canada. But the Legion speaks for that one and a quarter million veterans, even though they are not all members of the Legion. The Legion has been demanding that something be done for these old soldiers.
It is all very well to ask for extensions of this resolution, but extensions are quite unnecessary. Right there in the wording of this resolution there is ample opportunity for this committee to be given the chance of examining the legislation which is passed. The government itself is issuing a challenge. The government says "and any other legislation which the government may be prepared to place before the committee." All this government has to do is to come forward with amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act and then the committee can discuss it. It is not for the members of the opposition or for the House of Commons to say whether this problem is going to be discussed in the committee; it is for the government to say that. The government can introduce an amendment. The government knows full well what amendments are required. If there is any doubt at all, then let the committee discuss the matter and make a firm recommendation as to what are the best types of amendments to be made. The amendments suggested by the government can be discussed in the committee and, if necessary, can be modified. But the government is afraid to come forward with any amendment. The government is afraid to place an amendment to the War Veterans Allowance Act before the committee which it itself is recommending to be set up to consider such legislation as it may choose to place before the committee.
Committee on Veterans Affairs
Let the government make the decision. Let the government now choose to bring forward an amendment which will relieve the doubt, uncertainty and suffering with which these old soldiers are now faced. The matter is up to the government. If the government refuses to measure up to its own challenge to place before this committee such legislation as it feels should be placed before it, then that government is guilty of most callous indifference and utter failure to realize the situation which is facing the veterans of Canada today. The government knows what is the situation. The government can bring in the legislation. If it fails to do so, I consider it to be an atrocious affront to the ex-servicemen of this country.


Mr. Elmore Philpoit (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who was extremely anxious to hear what I was going to say, does not seem to be in the house. I have something to say which I am fairly sure he would like to hear. I cannot help recalling to the mind of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) that I had the honour, a great many years ago- in 1917, I think it was-to occupy the next hospital bed in the field dressing station during the same week that the hon. gentleman won his Victoria Cross. My regard for the hon. gentleman was high then, and it is higher now, even though I think he has developed a louder voice in the subsequent 30 or 35 years.
If my hon. friend and my friends generally in the opposition were sincerely to forget party politics just for a minute I think we would all come to the conclusion that, in spite of all the things that we have done or left undone in this Canada of ours in the past 30 or 35 years, no one could ever accuse this country of being ungrateful to the men who served it in the theatres of war. I say that because there is not an hon. member in this house, there is not an intelligent citizen in the whole Dominion of Canada or, for that matter, in the entire British commonwealth, who does not know that Canada's veterans legislation is the best veterans legislation bar none in the entire world.
I know a little about veterans legislation from both ends, the giving end and the receiving end. I think that I have been in as many veterans hospitals as a patient as probably most hon. members in the house. I must say that I fooled the doctors a bit because after they had washed me up about 30 years ago and had given me only a few months to live I kept out of the hospitals for about 30 years. When I went back

Committee on Veterans Affairs into the hospital last year, probably because of my very bad temper at the change of government in British Columbia, and stayed there for a couple of weeks to recuperate I could not help but be impressed by the fact that in the 30 years since I had been in that hospital the change in the whole veterans administration was really something wonderful. I venture to say that those of us who go next Sunday to see the opening of the wonderful new veterans hospital at Ste. Foy will come to the conclusion that there is not a finer hospital in the country and that the veterans hospitals are on a par with the very finest institutions in this land.
I am frank to confess that I would have preferred it if the government had made the terms of reference of the committee a bit wider. But as the hon. member for Esqui-malt-Saanich suggests, any aggregation of men with good common sense and intelligence can always take terms of reference and interpret them liberally even if they are good, staunch, true blue Tories. I am sorry to say that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre could not have read the full text of my speech, part of which he quoted this afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh yes, I did.


Elmore Philpott: If he had read in full the speech to which he referred this afternoon he would have seen that while I hoped the government would make the terms of reference wide open, I had had enough experience of the democratic process to know that intelligent people could take any terms of reference and pretty well say anything that requires to be said within those terms.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I tried that this afternoon.


Elmore Philpott: When someone asked our own Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) at the United Nations one time whether such and such a question would come up I remember that he said he was quite sure that, regardless of the agenda, the delegates there would find ways and means to discuss anything that required to be discussed. Therefore I for one have no hesitation whatever in believing that the veterans affairs committee will be an intelligent committee and will find ways and means to discuss anything that falls within its common-sense purview, including the Legion brief or anybody else's brief.
I am sometimes a bit amazed at hon. friends opposite, especially hon. friends immediately opposite me, who always clamour to the high heavens for more welfare legislation. They are for everything so long as it does not have to be paid for. I remember what they said when we introduced the 40-hour week for the post offices.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I realize now how right I was this afternoon when I asked that the rule of relevancy be observed. If there is a wide open discussion there will be rebuttals. I think the hon. member understands that on this resolution, which after all only involves a discussion of the desirability of appointing a committee, something that apparently meets with everybody's approval, his remarks should be relevant to the matter under discussion.


Elmore Philpott: May I say again how
delighted I am-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You see that you do have to stick to the terms of reference.


Elmore Philpott: -with the setting up of the veterans affairs committee. It seems to me that it is one more step in the creation and maintenance of the finest welfare state in the entire world, one other brick in the structure of which will be placed when we get the allowances this week for disabled persons.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, several times during this discussion hon. members have referred to the excellence of the legislation on our statute books concerning the problems of the veterans. No one, I think, is disputing that point and I see no need to continue to emphasize that particular aspect of the topic. Certainly those veterans of world war II, who have benefited from certain phases of the legislation, would agree 100 per cent. When I was discussing the veterans legislation with a certain group of individuals on one occasion they were quite surprised to discover that I had received benefits following the last war. One of them made the observation that perhaps the legislation would have been somewhat different if the government had thought that it was nurturing a viper in its bosom by means of the generous terms accorded to the veterans of world war II.
But I say that to emphasize that particular aspect in our discussion today is really begging the question. As I look at the resolution and try to interpret and understand the terms of reference from the point of view of how far they extend, it seems to me that they will narrow the scope of the veterans affairs committee, and that to do so is a retrograde step in the maintenance of the high level of veterans welfare legislation that we have already achieved in this country. I would suggest that the reason for the high quality of our veterans legislation is the fact, as was pointed out this afternoon by the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Lennard), that the committees which considered this subject

during the war had very broad terms of reference and were widely representative of all groups in the house. I submit that it is because of the wideness of those terms of reference that the legislation we have today was finally realized.
Looking at the resolution, it seems to me that we are moving away from that broader interpretation that has been so successful in the past. We cannot dwell on the past continually, and it is obvious there is some dissatisfaction concerning certain features of veterans legislation. The length of the discussion today would indicate that considerable pressure is building up. As I look at my mail from day to day I find in it letters pertaining to one or two controversial aspects of veterans legislation, and this would tend to suggest that there is some need for a more comprehensive consideration of the legislation than is indicated in the resolution before us this evening. With all the enthusiasm that I can muster I would support the representations of other hon. members that the terms of reference of the committee should be substantially broader than they now are.
Furthermore, I should like to support the suggestion that there should be a standing committee of this house on veterans affairs. I believe this as a result of my experience as a member during the past three years. I am discovering that a good deal of a member's time is spent in the consideration of veterans' welfare problems. I discovered further, as I discussed these matters with the members of the various departments, that there is a great duplication of the information requested concerning problems that arise repeatedly. I am sure that were a committee placed on a standing basis, the administrative officials would welcome the suggestion. It must be a source of great exasperation to them to be repeatedly considering the same problem, going over the same issues, when if we could get together at regular intervals we would find that these problems had assumed a general pattern and helpful solutions could be considered and a broader approach to these recurring difficulties could be realized. I would contend that if we had a standing committee it would have to be larger in terms of numerical membership than the committee indicated by this resolution. In this house there is a growing number of veteran members. I am sure there is not one of them who would not be anxious to have the opportunity to serve on a committee that might be dealing with such an important subject as the welfare of the veterans.
I do not need, Mr. Speaker, to re-emphasize the burning issue that has been repeatedly
Committee on Veterans Affairs discussed today. The problem raised by every hon. member is that of changes in the basic rates and permissible earnings ceiling of war veterans allowances; that seems to be the crux of the controversy here this afternoon. I am sure much time could have been saved and this discussion could have been considerably abbreviated had the resolution, instead of referring obliquely to other legislation relating to veterans affairs, referred specifically to changes in the War Veterans Allowance Act. We could have then moved expeditiously to the establishment of the committee and there, in the close contact that is possible in deliberations of that kind, some successful solution could have been realized in regard to representations being made by all veterans groups concerning changes in the war veterans allowances.
I refer particularly, of course, to the work of the Canadian Legion in this respect. Again the Canadian Legion deserves much of the credit for the high quality of our veterans legislation. It is my hope that during the committee sessions we shall have an opportunity to hear from responsible representatives of the Canadian Legion. It would still be possible, as a result of those representations, to come to grips with the urgent need of doing something about the upward revision of the terms of the war veterans allowance.


Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) is now well aware of the fact that the subject of veterans legislation is of serious importance to the members of this house. It is not a subject that can be introduced and disposed of in a few minutes. It is a subject that is treated with great seriousness by the members of this house and the people across the country.
I hope the minister realizes that there is great disappointment in his action in bringing this resolution to the attention of the House of Commons. It has been on the order paper for three months and we expected something different when the minister made his announcement on February 11 that the committee would be appointed. We thought then he was going to meet the demands that have been made from time to time in this house for a committee to consider all the problems affecting veterans. Instead of that we have a bit of camouflage in this resolution, and we have a so-called committee on veterans affairs that is really a special committee to deal with several bills affecting veterans.
According to the terms of reference, it is not intended that the committee shall look
4584	HOUSE OF
Committee on Veterans Affairs further afield and look into some of the pressing problems affecting veterans. The terms of reference are restricted. From time to time a request has been made for a standing committee on veterans affairs, and with good reason. People in the house today, and on other occasions, have mentioned the excellence of the veterans legislation in Canada. I do not question that at all. I have not had the opportunity of making comparisons that others have made. It may be excellent, but that does not say it could not be improved. The fact our veterans legislation is better than that of some other country is no reason for resting on our laurels and not making the necessary improvements.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It has never been proved.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hem. member for Royal suggests it has not been proved. I believe there are serious weaknesses in the veterans legislation. Perhaps those weaknesses are not in the charter but in the field of administration. This places the matter right before the minister. It is for that reason that a standing committee on veterans affairs, convened early in the session and given the opportunity to investigate the whole field of veterans legislation, would be able to find out the reason for the weaknesses that are only too apparent in the management of veterans affairs in Canada.
Let us just consider the need for investigating veterans problems. They are continuing problems. There are veterans of the first world war, ageing but many of them still alive. There are the veterans of the second world war and the veterans of Korea. Then for the first time in our history we have a large active army. We have no reason for too much confidence that there may not be other conflicts in which our young men may be engaged. We are faced, therefore, with veterans problems for many years in the future. So it is a matter of necessity that we carefully examine our veterans legislation and improve it from time to time to meet changed conditions. That is what has been asked for in this house. That is why we have objected to the terms of reference of this committee, which are so narrow. That is why we draw attention to the fact that one of the most pressing problems in Canada, that of war veterans allowances, is not being dealt with at this session,
Just consider the magnitude of the task with regard to veterans problems. Pensioners alone number 115,000, and each year applications are received for pensions, or for the reconsideration of pensions. An enormous amount of work is being carried out by departmental officials, by representatives of the Legion and by other organized veterans


bodies across this country. I doubt if there is a member of the House of Commons who is not faced with some pressing veterans problems every month.
The magnitude of the task encourages us to press for an investigation of the veterans charter itself, and the administration thereunder. For example, last year there were 3,820 new awards for pensions. Of that number we are told 311 were for first-war applicants. Yet 35 years have elapsed since the conclusion of that war. Do we never solve the problems of the men of the first war, or do they have to die before the department is released from its bond?
One would have thought that by now, after all these years, there would be very few cases concerning veterans of the first war. What is the reason for the recurrence of these problems? Why are there so many of them? The report of the minister's department indicates that each year there are successive appeals, or applications for pensions by men of the first world war. These are followed by second hearings, by third hearings, by appeals and so on. The applications alone numbered more than four thousand in the last year. Of those a thousand were concerned with first war problems.
So I suggest that this is a matter of considerable magnitude. When we turn to the war veterans allowances branch we find again that the numbers are large. In the last 23 years 100,000 have been considered for war veterans allowances. The present figure is just under 40,000. Obviously soldiers of the first world war are dying off, so that from the financial point of view the problem is not as serious for the government. But the problem is still there. And with the men of the first world war now in their sixties and seventies-and I believe the average age is somewhere in the sixties- these are the ones requiring attention; and that attention should be given to them.
After 35 years surely we can meet this final obligation to men of the first world war, and settle this problem. But it is a problem to which the minister will not face up; because we know this question has been before the House of Commons year after year. We have been led to believe or have inferred that something would be done about it; yet once again nothing is being done. Hence the protest on this occasion concerning the narrow terms of reference in the resolution before us, and the attitude of the government toward this one problem affecting the veterans which, in the last two or three years, has become a problem of major importance. The number of men applying for war veterans allowances is increasing from year to year; but the number who

remain on the roll does not get very much larger because the older ones are dying off.
This is the situation we are asking to have settled; and it can still be done. The minister can alter his terms of reference to suit the events of the moment. Other members of the House of Commons can join in the demand that the terms of reference be widened. It could still be done this year, so that these older men who have served their country so faithfully may receive their just reward. And let us not forget that that was the purpose and the intent of the veterans legislation. In the book published by the minister of veterans affairs who held office in 1947, the late Right Hon. Ian A. Mackenzie, at the back there is a chapter headed "The History of Veterans Legislation in Canada", and at page 285 I read these words:
"The Veterans Charter", states the Hon. Ian A. Mackenzie, K.C., M.P., Minister of Veterans Affairs, "grew in spirit, substance and final form, out of the hearts and minds of a united people dedicating themselves and the lives of their sons and daughters to victory. Its basic provisions were the result of a desire to deal in a just manner with all who served."
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if we are to deal in a just manner with all who served we must approach the problem and get to grips with it. We have to have a committee that will deal broadly with all the problems of the veterans, a committee that will solve the problems of the older veterans and that of veterans allowances, a committee that will examine the whole system of the administration of this department, of the administration of the pension commission and of the veterans bureau, a committee that will determine what if anything is the matter-and I think there is something the matter-with veterans legislation itself, or the administration thereof.
Why are there so many cases each year? Why are there so many first hearings, second hearings, third hearings, fourth hearings and further hearings-and sometimes I notice that if you reach the fifth hearing you get results. But you do not get results on the first, second, third or fourth. Surely there is something wrong with our legislation or the interpretation thereof when it results in this type of extensive review of cases. Why is a case, which on its fifth hearing is settled favourably to the applicant, not settled at the first or second hearing? What is wrong? I cannot think new evidence is being brought forward, because everything is documented from the day a man enters the army until the day of his discharge. In some instances there may be new evidence; but I think the defect lies somewhere in the act, something that should be written into it, some interpretation of it that has to be revised. I find the pension commission and the veterans bureau have to
Committee on Veterans Affairs deal with the problem of interpretation and put forth arguments as to how this or that phrase in the act may be interpreted. Are we informed of this body of interpretive law that is being built up with regard to the veterans charter? We would be if we had a standing committee on veterans affairs. These cases would be brought to our attention.
A standing committee on veterans affairs, looking closely into this matter, would ask for an interpretation of sections of acts that are not clear. Perhaps they would be able then to suggest amendments to the minister so the act could be clarified. By that means we would come not only to the assistance of the veterans themselves but also to the assistance of those people who are doing the hard work in the veterans bureau and in the pension commission. I am sure they would like to have some guidance from parliament in the solution of some of these borderline cases and some of the difficult problems that face them. I am not at all of the opinion that they are being too strict with veterans applications, or anything of that nature. They are bound by the instructions that they have to follow, and it is up to parliament itself to make those instructions broad enough and clear enough so that we do justice to those who served.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, that is the reason for this protest of mine against the action of the minister on this occasion. On February 11 he promised us a committee on veterans affairs, and he ended up three months later with a special committee to discuss two or three acts, with small amendments thereto, and avoided the main issue of all that has been before us during the last two years, namely, the problem of war veterans allowances, and he certainly avoided a broad investigation of the veterans charter itself and the administration thereof.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: I have been in this house a short while, but time seems to have passed very quickly. I have never been disappointed with the ministers of veterans affairs and the legislation they have brought in. The opposition are doing a pretty good job at this time in trying to show the weaknesses of this resolution, but I admit that they have a stiff job to prove it. I should like to ask the minister a question, which he can answer when he speaks to close the debate. In the resolution I find these words:
and such other legislation relating to veterans affairs as may be referred from time to time to the said committee.
My question to the minister is this: Can any member of the committee not stand up and ask that a veteran of the first war have his old age pension without a means test at
4586	HOUSE OF
Committee on Veterans Affairs 60? Can he ask that question and any other questions? This resolution is just as wide as the English language can make it, and the committee can ask any question. What is the business of the committee? What are they appointed for? Let them do their job and ask these questions of the minister, and I think we shall have legislation that the veterans of this country will be proud of.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the veterans and veterans organizations welcomed the government's notice some time ago that a special committee was to be set up to consider veterans legislation. Certain measures have been referred to that committee for consideration, such as the War Service Grants Act and a bill respecting benefits for the members of the Canadian forces, and perhaps one or two others. I know that the veterans and those associations are grateful for the legislation that has been brought in over the years, and without question it has brought many advantages to them. However, even if we admit that, we must also recognize the fact that they are far from satisfied with the present legislation on the statute books.
I discussed the matter with a number of the leaders of the Legion in various sections of my riding. They mentioned several things that they would like to see done, and other matters they would like to have considered. They find it difficult to understand why the government is not willing to accede to the request for a standing committee on veterans affairs, since we realize that these problems are with us and apparently will be with us for some considerable time.
It is the general feeling that if such a committee were set up it could deal with these problems as they arise. I am sure that veterans are going to be far from satisfied with the terms of reference of this particular committee. I may not fully understand the terms of reference, but it seems to me that some hon. members who have spoken this afternoon have said that the terms of reference are wide enough, or that we can get around them or under them or over them. That does not seem to fit in with my conception of terms of reference, and certainly this afternoon we were kept pretty close to the line. We were not permitted to discuss too much that went beyond the actual matters that were brought to us in this resolution, and it would seem to me that in the committee the same thing will happen. We will not be given too much latitude as far as discussing the other problems is concerned.
In my conversation with leaders of the Legion group they have mentioned several


problems, and I am sure that the matters referred to the committee are not the major problems as far as the war veterans are concerned. They may be the concern of some, and I have no doubt they are, but I believe that once again the government is failing to face the problems and measure up to the expectations of the veterans and the veterans organizations.
Some major problems have been referred to today, and perhaps I could do no better than just say that I agree with the statement that certain things of paramount importance have been omitted. For instance, there is the matter of war veterans allowances, which we feel are far too low to meet the needs of men at this particular time, and at the present cost of living. I spoke to one particular leader who was on his way back to the coast. I am not sure of his name, but I think it was Williams. He told me that one of the things that helped the war veterans considerably was the fact that they could buy tinned meat so cheaply at the coast. He said it was a Godsend to them because they could not afford to buy fresh meat; they could not afford to buy the better type of meat and therefore they were living on the very cheapest that they could obtain. I feel that this is one of the problems of major concern, but apparently the government is not planning to give any consideration to the matter at all. I fear they will see to it that these terms of reference are tight enough to restrain anyone from dealing with it very effectively.
Another problem has been mentioned to me, namely, the problem of permissive ceiling, which again reminds us that at the present cost of living these ceilings are far too low. I would like to call attention if I could to some articles, but I suppose the Speaker would rule me out of order and therefore I shall refrain from referring to them. But I should like to ask by what process of reasoning is this ceiling maintained? Are we afraid that the veterans are going to get too rich? Just why do we maintain that ceiling on permissive incomes? I have heard it suggested that it is done to keep them more or less in line with the old age pensions and so on. Well, the same thing obtains there. I cannot see why it should be retained on the old age pension basis. I feel the veterans should be encouraged, rather than discouraged, to supplement their allowances to a point where they can maintain an adequate and a decent standard of living.
Another matter has been brought to my attention, and I believe that this could be considered and will be considered by the

committee, since it falls within the terms of reference. I refer to the changes in the regulations relating to earned income. I have been given to understand that that regulation stipulates that 50 per cent of the gross revenue derived from agricultural operations shall be considered as income for the purpose of the War Veterans Allowance Act. Now, Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why we should consider that regulation just and proper. However, I believe the Department of Veterans Affairs is giving consideration to this matter and I trust their ruling will be fair and equitable as far as the veteran engaged in agricultural activities is concerned.
There are other matters to which I would like to refer, Mr. Speaker, but I do not wish to presume on the time of the house. Nevertheless, I feel there are three reasons why at this particular time we ought to give serious consideration to the plight of the war veteran. I believe gratitude demands that something further be done for these men who have hazarded their lives in the defence of the things we hold dear. They were willing to sacrifice everything they had. They sacrificed in their own lives everything that was dear unto them, and they were willing and to all intents and purposes did lay down their lives, just as did others, in the defence of the sacred things we enjoy. Therefore, I would suggest that we take a look at this situation again and reconsider some of the major problems. We request that the minister give consideration to these problems at this particular time and deal with them more effectively than has been the case in the past.
Again, I believe it is our responsibility to see to it that these men have sufficient to maintain them in a decent standard of living. I say we are grateful to them, and our gratitude demands that we do something to discharge the responsibility which devolves upon this government at the present time in regard to these war veterans.
Finally, I believe there is one other consideration, namely that consistency demands that the government do something further for these men at this time. A short time ago legislation was introduced in this house which was bitterly opposed by some and supported by others. 1 happen to be a representative of a group which supported that particular legislation. All hon. members I believe will realize that I am referring to the recent increase in indemnity for members of parliament. The government introduced that legislation and it was approved and we are all much better off for it. I supported that legislation and the group to which I belong supported it, but I feel that because of that there
Committee on Veterans Affairs is an added responsibility upon this government to deal with problems affecting our war veterans. I cannot speak for other hon. members but I can say that I received some letters which were far from complimentary, and I was charged with feathering my own nest, and being interested only in myself. But I assured these individual war veterans, old age pensioners and others that I was just as anxious and more anxious to do something for them than I was in doing something for myself.
In view of that I would urge the government that they shoulder this added responsibility which devolves upon them, and do something now for those who are less fortunate, those who have given so much and who are suffering so much in so many ways. I would urge the government to take note of the privations being suffered by these men and request the minister to give further consideration to this matter and bring in legislation at an early date which will deal effectively with this situation.
In closing I should like to read a letter addressed to the editor of the Vancouver Sun and signed "Old Vet". The letter reads as follows:
We who are about to die salute you. I speak for the burnt-out pensioners between 70 and 90, first war men.
We appeal to you and your intelligent readers against the action of the D.V.A. in reducing war veterans' allowances. We find as we go on the old age pension they cut our W.V. allowance as veterans to $20, making a maximum of $60 a month.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member
started out with very good intentions, but I think in reading a letter into the record without divulging the source he is getting away from the rules. The hon. member is aware that he should not read documents, telegrams, or letters unless he is prepared to give the source. It may be that before I resumed the chair he had given the name of the person whose letter he is now reading.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker, that you have found it necessary to call me to order, but this letter was written to the editor of the Vancouver Sun and was signed "Old Vet". However, it goes on to say that because of the mere pittance upon which these men were forced to exist they could not pay for necessities, and because of lack of suitable clothing could not attend "the means of grace" on Sunday, and the letter urges that hon. members as they take their place in Ottawa support these people in their request.


Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, like most of the veterans across this country I was very pleased when I saw this resolution

Committee on Veterans Affairs appear on the order paper three months ago tomorrow. There was one reservation though with regard to it, and that was the fact that it did not specifically mention any legislation with the exception of the two bills which are to be referred to this committee when it is set up.
Nevertheless, there is a line in the resolution which reads:
. . . and such other legislation relating to veterans affairs as may be referred from time to time to the said committee . . .
This held out a hope in the minds of most veterans, especially those who are veterans of world war I, that the government during this session intended to present amendments to other veterans legislation which could be dealt with by this same committee.
As time went on it became more and more evident that in effect the terms of reference were not to be widened and, in addition, that this line as it relates to other legislation will probably be meaningless. Added to that there was the disappointment that this committee was merely to be a special committee for the session rather than a standing committee. I believe it is important that we should have a standing committee. I believe it is important that we should have a standing committee of this house on veterans affairs. After all, we in this country have perhaps a million and a half veterans from four different wars, veterans who served in different theatres of war in different circumstances, and it is very difficult to draft legislation which can be interpreted in a manner which will be fair to all. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, at this time I want to express my disappointment that this committee has not wider terms of reference which would allow it to examine the additional legislation which it was hoped this government would bring before parliament during this session.
It is not my intention to transgress the rules of the house by discussing in detail the legislation I believe should have been brought down at this session and referred to this committee. Therefore I conclude my remarks by saying that I hope to deal with some of these subjects when the estimates of the minister's department are before the committee of the whole house. The matter can be discussed more fully at that time, if in the meantime the minister does not relent and decide to bring in some additional amendments to some of the veterans legislation now on the statute books. The whole veteran body of this country hoped that such amendments would be brought down.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, a number of hon. members have mentioned the melancholy fact that it is 35 years since the first world war ended. I say


"melancholy" because for those of us who are veterans of that war it brings to mind the unfortunate fact that we are now becoming old men.
Today at noon I took a walk on a pathway around these buildings. If the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) were here I would give him a piece of my mind about the condition of those paths. It is almost 40 years-39 to be precise-since I took that walk previously when I was in Ottawa waiting to go overseas in the first war. During these last few days, Mr. Speaker, knowing that this particular resolution was coming before us, I have been thinking of just what one should say in order to try to bring home to the members of the House of Commons of Canada the obligation they owe to the men who now survive from the first world war. Not many of us are left. Some of us, more by good luck than good guidance, are in a position in which we do not have to come to the people of Canada to enable us to live decently; but a great many are forced to come to the people of Canada.
I am going to suggest this to you, Mr. Speaker. A country such as Canada is today, in 1954-which is a far different country from the Canada of 1914-has no excuse whatever for niggardliness, caution or parsimony in the method of its treatment of the survivors of the first world war. I am not suggesting that those who went away from Canada in that distant summer of 1914 or 1915 were all heroes. We were not; we were ordinary, common human beings. However, I suggest this, Mr. Speaker. A vast number of those who came back from that war came back crippled physically or mentally or perhaps psychologically, and they were unable to find their place in a world to which they were not accustomed. Many of them perhaps, like myself, went into the army as mere boys, straight from school. We were not trained to find our way in a world of peace; we were trained to survive in a world of war. We were trained, in fact, to die and not to live. However, some of us survived and we had to learn how to live. It has not always been easy to do this.
I am going to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the record of Canada with regard to the veterans of the first world war is not so noble and so high-minded as the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) would have us believe it to be. I realize, of course, that the hon. member for Vancouver South is the self-appointed leader of the Greek chorus of paeans of praise for everything the Liberal government does. Nevertheless, I am going to suggest that the Liberal government and its predecessors have not always

been models of generosity. I am going to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that on occasion they have been deplorably mean and small-minded.
It has been stated here that the government has done a very good job with regard to veterans affairs. Undoubtedly it has done a fairly good job. Like the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), I am not in a position to measure their accomplishments against those of other governments. However, I doubt whether Canada will stand so very far ahead of other nations of the world in that regard. I also greatly doubt whether our record is commensurate with our ability to carry out our obligations to those whom we asked to risk their lives in the service of this country. I am going to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) and this government if they really think that even the most extravagant demands from those who served Canada-those who, incidentally, not many years ago were practically promised the moon in exchange for their patriotic services-are going to break Canada? Do we really have to watch our pennies so carefully? As to every man who comes to us and says "You owe me a pension because I gave service in the armed forces of this country", do we have to be quite sure that he is not going to cheat us? Does it matter, Mr. Speaker? I for one would rather have the government and the people of Canada cheated by a hundred charlatans than to have one deserving case treated in a niggardly manner.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I would ask this government to take a second thought and to give us a wide-open committee, one which will have power to consider all the problems of the veterans of the first war, of the second world war and of the Korean war and to advance the most generous proposals. I suggest to you that the people of Canada will support their government in the most generous considerations they may make with regard to the situation of those whom we have called upon from time to time to risk their lives in the defence of this country and of the values for which this country stands. We cannot take one position when we are in danger and another When that danger has been removed.
I have never been able to forget an incident when a number of young men who had been wandering, homeless and destitute, across this country came to see me in Victoria to say good-bye before they left on the adventure of the second world war to defend a democracy that had given them destitution and a country which had had no use for their services. I cannot forget that those young men, nevertheless, went to deal
Committee on Veterans Affairs for us with the appalling danger of the nazi menace to human civilization. I say this to you, Mr. Speaker. No matter what the circumstances of what any of those individuals may be or no matter how weak a character such a man may be in civilian life, you and I owe him a duty. We owe our self-respect a duty. I trust that this government, which is spending money with such a lavish hand on some extremely dubious enterprises for which I have yet to hear any reasonable justification, will on this occasion decide to listen perhaps to the voice of the opposition and to alter the terms of reference of this committee.
It may be, as the hon. member for Vancouver South says, that on this occasion, unlike all other occasions, this committee will be able to disregard its terms of reference. It may be that this Liberal government is different from other Liberal governments which I have faced in earlier times. But unless it is different I know very well that the committee will be held down rigidly to the very letter of the terms of reference, that no member will be allowed to stray one inch beyond. I am going to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this government and this parliament will not be discharging their responsibility to the people of Canada and to the veterans of the Canadian armed forces unless they insist that the terms of reference of the committee be widened and that the committee be constituted as a standing committee of the House of Commons.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my recollection I have never spoken in this debate before. When I first had the honour of being a member of this house I felt that the affairs of veterans were in good hands. I think they were in good hands all through the house. The late Ian Mackenzie, who had much to do with them in those days, was a man of the widest sympathy who really made the cause of the veterans his own. And all through the house there were others. But I feel that tonight I should like to add a very few words. I hardly know why except I think as time goes on and as those of us with whom life has dealt more kindly meet the comrades of those years we realize more than we did then that those who were most useful in war are often not the most useful in peace. We remember them as they were then, how brave, how gay, how humorous, and we often meet them now and realize that they have not fared very well in life. I suppose that as we and they grow older that feeling grows.
There is only one point I want to make. It seems to me that there is a very small

Committee on Veterans Affairs difference dividing us at the present time and that it could easily be resolved. What is being asked of the government is that they extend the terms of reference. I am not going into the merits of that. It has been adequately dealt with, I merely want to stress the fact that I think the difference is not a very great one. On the other hand, I think that for the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) to suggest that a committee that is appointed to deal with A, B and C could rollick along and deal with D, E and F is not very sensible. That does not seem to be a serious contribution to the debate because even a person who knows as little of the rules as I do knows that we would not get very far if we did that kind of thing.
On the other hand, I feel that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) was absolutely correct when he said this afternoon there were many in all parts of the house who would like to see this matter discussed in broad fashion. I think many people agreed with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when he said that this was not a committee to deal with veterans affairs but a committee to deal with the War Service Grants Act and the bill respecting benefits for members of the Canadian forces. I think that was true. I repeat that I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra was representing the feelings of the house when he said that there would be a widespread disposition to have the matter discussed. And why not? Has the government not got ample safeguards? They will of course have a majority on the committee itself which I take it will not be wholly deaf to their wishes. They will then have their majority in the house which also is not deaf to their wishes. Why in those circumstances should it not be possible to have this matter discussed freely, frankly and in broad terms?
No one is asking-at least, I am not and I do not think anyone else is-for a committee committed in advance. All that we are asking is that this matter, which I believe is dear to the hearts of every member of the house, should be discussed in wide-open fashion. I find myself somewhat embarrassed perhaps in suggesting what may involve extra expenditure, but I would just conclude these remarks with these words:	If we find what the
amount is, if we find that we think something more should be done, then whatever else we do, whatever other economies we make, we should not make economies at the expense of what is right and just to these men.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, in two terrible wars the noble youth of Canada have risen, marched, and stood, sufficient in their generation. But for their strivings, their sacrifices, and those of the hundreds of thousands of others from the vast expanses of the British Empire and commonwealth, we should not be sitting in this house today, or dwelling in the matchless land of Canada. The best we can possibly do is too little to compensate them for the measureless losses numbers of them have sustained. Considering the rich and varied wealth of production of which this nation is capable, and of which this nation has proved herself capable by actual achievement, the treatment that Canada has accorded to far too many of her veterans, right from the beginning, has been meagre, if not downright niggardly.
The requests of our veterans have in the main been moderate indeed. Their present requests are moderate. Take, for instance, the request that the war veterans allowance be raised to $60 a month for a single man. Who can possibly call that extreme? Take the request that the allowance be raised to $120 a month for a married man. I should like to see any member of the cabinet of Canada get out and try to live with a wife on $120 a a month. Far too many of our people have been raised with silver spoons in their mouths. They just do not know what it means to be up against rough going.


Walter Edward Harris: A good many of us have.


John Horne Blackmore: Take another instance, the request that the ceiling on permissive income be raised to $1,000 for a single man. To deny any man in Canada the privilege of earning as much as that is to subject him almost to slavery. The same is true of the request that permissive income be raised to $2,000 for a married man.
For years now I have been contemplating the treatment we have been giving our returned men. During recent sessions I have not voiced my disapproval to any great extent, although in former years I did. But it has always been a conundrum to me what could be the basic reason for the way we treat our men. Is it, Mr. Speaker, that some hidden hand behind the government of Canada is deliberately causing the Canadian government to mistreat our returned men so as to discourage the youth of the rising generation from joining the forces, thereby weakening the fighting potential of this nation? Could that be the reason? Certainly it is not financial. It is not the fact that we cannot produce enough. There must be some sinister, hidden reason.

Mr. Speaker, when you contrast the loyalty, the fervent devotion, faith and confidence with which the boys of my generation arose and flocked to the colours, then marched off to die, contrast it with the cynicism that prevailed far too commonly amongst the boys who entered world war II, and to a worse extent than that, prevails in the hearts of too many men today, you wonder how it can have come to be. They are of the selfsame blood, of the same race, bear the same names; they have over them the same flag. What has caused the appalling deterioration?
I do not propose to enter into that tonight. I suggest that if we desired to destroy this nation-I sometimes wonder if the members of the government do not want to do that- if we desired to destroy the British commonwealth, drag down the union jack and trample it in the mud or see some foreign people do that, I do not see how we could possibly guide ourselves more unerringly to that goal than we are doing in the way we are dealing with many of our returned men.
I am not saying that we are not giving many of the boys fine opportunities. I have been delighted with the consideration, the tenderness and the earnestness that I have seen manifested by the men in our departments when dealing with veterans. The difficulty is that the damage is done before these people ever get a chance. The damage is done when the bills are passed, the rules are drafted and the directives are issued.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Could the hon.
member make these remarks when the estimates for the Department of Veterans Affairs are before the house? I have asked hon. members not to deal with veterans affairs generally, and I think they have been trying to do that. I know the hon. member wishes to conform with the rules, just as the others have. I do not want to be less generous in my attitude towards him than I was towards the others, but it seems to me we are getting rather far afield in the resolution stage of setting up a committee to study two bills and other legislation that may be brought before the house.
I do not want to have to intervene too often. I know it is always disagreeable, both to the hon. member who is being interrupted and to myself. I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the subject matter of the resolution.


John Horne Blackmore: I thank you most earnestly for your most gracious way of pointing out to me that I have been deviating. May I assure you that I shall discontinue, having
Committee on Veterans Affairs left those questions for every hon. member in this house and every person in the country to answer.


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


Hugues Lapointe: In rising to close the debate on this resolution to set up the committee on veterans affairs I feel that my remarks should be brief. I feel that first because I believe there are very few matters pertaining to the subject that have not been dealt with already by the speakers who have taken part in the debate. Secondly, any statement I might make in answer to the charges that have been levelled at the minister and the government on this particular resolution is limited by the ruling that you rendered this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.
There are a few remarks, though, that I should like to make dealing with some of the points raised by hon. members. During the course of the debate everyone expressed particular pleasure, in a rather sarcastic manner, over the fact that this resolution had, at long last, been called. I do not feel I have to make any apologies in that respect, Mr. Speaker. I have explained to some hon. members privately when they asked me the reason for the delay in calling this resolution. Some of the legislation the government wants to introduce, and which will be introduced in a few days I hope, is still in the drafting process. This is something of a technical character. The amendments to the Veterans Land Act are rather lengthy, and in the face of a considerable amount of work the staff whose special work it is to draft this legislation has not been able to produce the bill within the time I had hoped.
I have felt, and I think rightly, it would be preferable to wait until I was sure I would not have to bring the committee together to study some of the legislation, and then postpone further hearings for a matter of weeks. One of the reasons for this is that in the past it has been the practice of national veterans organizations to come before the committee to express their views on matters which interest them, regardless of the terms of reference.
These gentlemen come from all parts of Canada and so I felt it would be more appropriate to wait until I could bring all the legislation before the committee and have these groups make only one trip to Ottawa to make their representations to the committee. I feel I have no apologies to make for this.
Many members have expressed the view that the government should accede to the
4592	HOUSE OF
Committee on Veterans Affairs demand made in the last few years that the veterans affairs committee should be a standing committee, that is a committee under standing order 63. I believe that the whole matter of parliamentary committees is one of the subjects being studied by the rules committee which has been set up to look into the rules, standing orders and procedure of the house. I believe this committee is inquiring into the whole structure of parliamentary committees and reporting upon them. I have no doubt if that committee, of which many of those who spoke are members, does make such a recommendation the government will certainly give it most serious consideration.
I might point out, however, that I believe some hon. members, in making that suggestion, have in mind an objective that might not be accomplished simply by setting up a standing committee on veterans affairs. I am not an expert on parliamentary procedure, but I have no doubt that if my assumptions are wrong hon. members opposite, and particularly the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), will set me straight.
My understanding is that a parliamentary committee, whether it is a special select committee or a standing committee, can deal only with matters that are referred to it by the House of Commons. And the fact that our standing orders might be amended so that the veterans affairs committee would be made a standing committee would not necessarily mean that this committee each year, on its own authority, could investigate and inquire into every phase of veterans legislation,	and report	upon it to
the House of Commons. I think this should be remembered. However, as I say, 1 have no particular views to propose on the matter. I have no doubt that this and other committees are subjects which will be looked into and reported upon by the rules committee of the house.
Hon. members have complained considerably of the fact that the terms of reference of this committee are very restricted. I believe it was the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green)-and if I am wrong I should be pleased to be corrected- who said that the only bills mentioned were minor amendments. He intimated that the Veterans Benefit Act and the War Service Grants Act amendments were minor.


Howard Charles Green: On a point of order; I did not say that.


Hugues Lapointe: I am sorry, then; I was not sure. Then, I think it was the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) who said that.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: No, I did not say they were minor amendments. I said they were not as important as the minister tried to make out they were, as compared with other amendments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Try again.


Hugues Lapointe: I think the record will show that the hon. member used the word "minor". However, I am willing to accept his correction. I would like to point out that these bills, as I said earlier, are the bills which put into statutory form the various legislation applicable to Korean veterans. I recall very well that when the Veterans Benefit Act was introduced in the house by myself on the first occasion hon. members asked why these provisions were not put into statutory form, and why the legislation was going to be carried out by orders in council. I explained at the time that it was necessary and that it would make it more flexible. I pointed out that we did not know yet just what the circumstances of the service would be. And when each year I introduced a bill to continue the powers of the governor in council under the Veterans Benefit Act, to implement those provisions, I was told that it should be put in statutory form. Now hon. members say that it is minor legislation which really did not require the creation of a veterans affairs committee.
Then, Mr. Speaker, there is other legislation of equal importance. On the order paper there stands a bill to amend the Pension Act. The resolution has already been passed, and second reading of the bill was called for today and would have been proceeded with if this debate had not continued all day.
I might point out to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), who in his criticism of the resolution mentioned various aspects of the Pension Act and regretted what he considered a restriction in the terms of reference of the committee, that there is a bill concerning the Pension Act that will be referred to that committee. He will be able there to inquire into each one of the points he mentioned when he was making his criticism of the terms of reference.
Then, as I pointed out earlier there is legislation concerning the Veterans Land Act. I hope to be able to introduce it in a few days. I am awaiting final draft from the legal experts.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that in the past the veterans in this country have benefited by the joint work of all members of the House of Commons who have served on veterans affairs committees. They have done good work over those many years under terms of reference that have varied greatly. When

hon. members say that only in the last tew years have the terms of reference for veterans affairs committees been restricted, I would suggest that they go right back to the first committees which were set up after the first world war and find out for themselves what the terms of reference were. If they will read the reports of those committees they will find that most of the subjects which this committee will be able to discuss, when it is appointed and nominated, were not and could not be discussed under those terms of reference.
I hope we will be able-and I see no reason why we should not-to continue to work in the veterans affairs committee as we have done in the past, in that same spirit of co-operation, and with the same aim as previous committees have had, namely the general welfare of all the veterans in this country.


George Randolph Pearkes: One question; has the
minister nothing to say about the omission of the War Veterans Allowance Act in this resolution?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Silence.


George Alexander Drew: The silence speaks for itself.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Business of the House

Mr. W. G. Weir (Porlage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the special committee on legislation relating to veterans affairs, appointed this day, consist of the following members: Messrs. Balcom, Bennett (Grey North), Brooks, Cardin, Cavers, Croll, Dickey, Dinsdale, Enfield, Forgie, Gauthier (Port-neuf), Gillis, Goode, Green, Hanna, Harkness, Henderson, Herridge, Jones, MacDougall, MacLean, Murphy (Westmorland), Nesbitt, Philpott, Quelch, Roberge, Stick, Thomas, Tucker, Weaver and Weselak.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we will take second reading of the bill to amend the Pension Act; then the resolution with respect to the extensions of the Canadian National Railways; then another resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport with respect to the control of goods in bulk; then the resolution in the name of the Secretary of State with respect to inventions by public servants; and then the resolution to approve the Japanese trade tready. If, however, not all those items are carried during the day, we will continue on Wednesday with the resolution concerning the Japanese trade treaty.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
4595
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 11, 1954