1954-06-17

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think I should inform the house about the exchange of messages with London concerning the visit by Sir Winston Churchill and Mr. Eden to Washington at the end of next week. As soon as we heard that a date had been set for that visit we made inquiries through the office of the United Kingdom High Commissioner here in Ottawa and through our own High Commissioner in the office of commonwealth relations in London as to the possibility of their coming to Ottawa on the occasion of their visit to this continent.
Yesterday morning I received personally from Sir Winston Churchill a very cordial message in which he said he always enjoyed a conference in Canada but could not make any plans at the present time. Following that message I had this message sent to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations of the British government:
Having heard that Sir Winston and Mr. Eden are coming to Washington, my colleagues and I would like to assure them that, if it were convenient for them to visit Ottawa on their way back, they would be most warmly welcomed and that we would much appreciate the opportunity of hearing direct from them their appreciation of the present situation.
I quite understand, however, Sir Winston's difficulty about making plans at present for such a visit and I would not like him to feel any embarrassment if circumstances made it necessary for him to decline our invitation at this time.
This morning I received this personal message from Sir Winston which I am glad to communicate to the house:
So glad to get your telegram. I have every hope of coming to Ottawa for a day or a day and a half during the 29th of June, 30th of June and 1st of July, if it is convenient to you. Mr. Eden, to whom I have spoken, will be delighted to come too. I do not want any public meeting but we shall be honoured to meet your cabinet.


Mr. Green:: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it would be feasible to have any sort of commonwealth conference at that time in view of the fact that Sir Winston
Churchill will just have completed very important discussions with the President of the United States?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: I do not think so, Mr. Speaker. I think this means that we will have an opportunity of hearing from Sir Winston and Mr. Eden their appreciation of the situation as they see it at this time. There would be no opportunity for bringing representatives of other commonwealth countries here, and that would not conform with the tone of this exchange of messages. I understand the visit Sir Winston and Mr. Eden are making to Mr. Eisenhower is an informal personal week-end visit, and that Sir Winston and Mr. Eden hope that it may be possible for them, on their way back, to spend a day or a day and a half here having the same kind of informal discussions with us about the present situation.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	In how many cases has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation renewed its lease or signed new leases covering buildings and property, since the 1st day of January 1954?
2.	Where were such properties located, what was the previous rental and what is the new rate of rentals?


Mr. McCann:: 1 and 2. Since January 1, 1954, the corporation has arranged to continue occupancy of space at two locations. A lease for space at 660 Howe street, Vancouver, B.C., was renewed at the same rate of rental as under the previous lease. Negotiations have been concluded with local municipal authorities for a new lease for studio and office space occupied by station CBV in the Palais Montcalm in Quebec city. As already announced locally, the new lease is for 5,858 square feet at a rental rate of $8,000 per annum. The previous lease was for 4,600 feet at a rental rate of $2,500 per annum.



GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS


Mr. Hansell:: On what basis, or what formula is used in determining rates of pay for tradesmen and labourers employed, irrespective of those in the armed services, where contracts do not apply, on buildings coming under the supervision of: (a) Department of Transport; (b) Department of National Defence; (c) Department of Public Works?

Questions


Mr. Gregg:: The rates of pay of government employees so described is based upon surveys of wage rates paid, in the area of their employment, by private employers to employees engaged in comparable work.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That on and after Thursday, June 17, 1954, in addition to the hours of sitting as provided for in special order of the house made May 27, 1954, the house shall also sit from 7.00 o'clock to 8.00 o'clock, p.m., on each sitting day; and that on Saturday, June 19, 1954 and every Saturday thereafter, until the end of the session, the hours of sitting of the house shall in every respect be under the same rules as are provided for other days, and the order of business and procedure on Saturdays shall be the same as for Thursday.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question arising out of this motion? I would like to ask the Acting Minister of Public Works (Mr. Harris) whether, in view of the fact that the extension of the hours of this house and the inclusion of Saturday sittings will mean that a large percentage of the employees of the house work 60 hours a week as against 38 hours a week in the ordinary civil service, what arrangements are being made by way of compensation for the extra time or for time off? There should be some.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Acting Minister of Public Works):: I am not familiar with that matter, Mr. Speaker, but I will ascertain the answer and give it to my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Walter Edward Harris: Last night, in announcing the business for today, I omitted to include the amendments made by the Senate to the Income Tax Act. It would be greatly appreciated if, after disposing of the amendments to the Bank Act, we could proceed with the amendments to the Income Tax Act.



POTATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. As I did not give him notice, he may take this question as notice and reply at a later date. Has the minister had from the British Columbia coast vegetable marketing board representations urging that the dates for the imposition
[Mr. Hansell.l
of the import duty on early potatoes be changed because of the lateness of the season in British Columbia?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, the department had a message similar to the one which I am sure the hon. member has had, as well as other members, from the British Columbia district and have looked into it. The arrangement is a matter of international agreement, and the dates set are statutory so that they could not be changed at this time without negotiation with the parties concerned.



THE BANK ACT


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved: the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 338, respecting banks and banking.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.


Douglas Charles Abbott: the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 467, to amend the Income Tax Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should give a word of explanation.


Mr. Knowles:: And tell us what they are.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They are routine in character. They were made at my suggestion. One relates entirely to the coming into effect of a section which increases from 20 per cent to 30 per cent the tax on shares redeemed at a premium. The section is a new one, as the house will recall. It was found that the date originally fixed for coming into effect would have adversely affected certain taxpayers and would have a retroactive effect which was not intended. That correction was made at my suggestion.
The other amendment was also made at my suggestion. It is a clarifying amendment to the section dealing with the mutual insurance companies and was to make it quite clear that the coming into effect section relating to the non-resident mutual insurance companies did not affect the resident mutuals. I can assure the house they involve no fundamental question of policy. They are matters as to which I think it was quite appropriate for the amendments to be made in the other place.


Mr. Macdonnell:: In the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, in view of the ample assurance given by the minister that there is no question of policy involved, it seems to me that we have no other course to follow than to agree. But it seems to me that we are acting in haste when we are asked to agree to something which we actually have not seen.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If there were any question of policy involved, we would not have made this request.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the fact that we have not yet seen yesterday's Votes and Proceedings which would tell us what these amendments are, may I ask if I understood the minister correctly when he indicated that there were only the two amendments?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would perhaps clarify that. Perhaps there may be consequential amendments to the sections but the substance of the two amendments is as I have indicated.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Judges Act to provide salaries for an additional judge of the court of appeal for British Columbia and an additional judge for the trial division of the supreme court of Alberta.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Mr. Fulion:: I think we should have from the minister an assurance that both these additions have been requested by the province concerned.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes; that is right. Indeed we cannot make the appointment until the provinces concerned have first created additional vacancies. Therefore in the nature of things they are bound to have been approved by the provinces.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any other amendment in the bill?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Judges Act
Mr. Garson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 478, to amend the Judges Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: By leave shall-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Despite the simplicity of this bill I do not think we should pass too many things without at least having a chance to see them.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a second time? Next sitting of the house.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE Exhibitions-
430. Exhibitions generally, $325,962.


The Chairman:: Hon. members will find the vote on page 57 of the blue book and the details commencing on page 493.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to ask the
minister if he will make some comments on the trade fair. I remember that a year ago he gave us some interesting comments showing the extent to which the attendance had been by people from outside the country and inside the country. I should very much like to hear his assessment of it perhaps in that way and others this year.


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: I am sorry to
say that we have not the analysis of this year's fair at hand at the moment. But as far as exhibitors are concerned, slightly more than 50 per cent of the exhibitors were Canadian. In my opinion that is about the right proportion.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Can the minister give a comparison with the figure for last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is about the same ratio as last year, in fact 52 per cent Canadian and 48 per cent foreign in both years. The attendance of buyers for the first week was a record. The second week was rather disappointing. There were not as many buyers in attendance the second week as we had hoped but, as I say, the first week was a record. We have made a careful detailed analysis of the results every year and we make up our minds from such analysis about the future of the fair. It has been announced that the fair will continue next year. Last year the total attendance of the business visitors, the buyers, was 26,853. This year it was 25,049. The number of buyers is down a little. As I say, the second week was disappointing. The decrease was in large measure

Supply-Trade and Commerce due to a drop in buyers from the United States. Last year we had 2,183 buyers from the United States and this year 1,839. But in general, we believe that in many ways this was the best fair we have ever had, and we are hopeful that next year will show an improvement in the attendance of buyers.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister add a word as to the composition of the foreign exhibitors, whether they were pretty well identical with last year and whether there was any noticeable change in the nature of the exhibits that would indicate a change in trade trends.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am informed that the pattern of this year's fair was very similar to the pattern of last year's. There was no difference that would indicate a trend of any kind.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: For example, Germany and Japan?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Germany and Japan were exhibitors last year and they were exhibitors on about the same scale this year.


Mr. Nesbitt:: I think the minister is to be complimented on the very fine showing at the international trade fair. There is one question I should like to ask. Can the minister tell us whether or not there was a doctor on the premises at the fair?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am told that there was no physician there.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That is my understanding, and in view of an incident about which I have been informed I suggest it might be a good idea in the future to have a doctor available on the premises rather than just the services of the St. John Ambulance people.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will be very glad to pass on that suggestion to the management of the fair.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion bureau of statistics-
435. Administration, $198,949.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to have the minister say something about the dominion bureau of statistics. I have received great help from it myself and appreciate its value very highly. There is one thing, however, which has been mentioned in the house before.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. May I ask hon.
members to please maintain silence. It is impossible to hear the hon. member who has the floor.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am speaking loud
enough. The trouble is that other people are speaking too loud. I want to raise the question of the extraordinary discrepancy which exists between the figures put out by the dominion bureau of statistics, being a part of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and the Department of Labour in the matter of employment and unemployment. It seems to me to be obvious that unemployment is one of the most important matters which face us at the moment, and it seems an extraordinary thing to me that we have this terrific discrepancy in figures. It has been explained in a way but not in a way with which anyone in my opinion should be satisfied.
One department uses the phrase "persons without jobs and seeking work", and the other uses a different phrase which I forget for the moment. We get figures not varying by 10 per cent or 20 per cent but sometimes by 50 per cent or more. It may be satisfactory to the departments concerned. They may have their ways of making their own mental reservations and explanations, but surely it is entirely unsatisfactory from the point of view of the public. Certainly it is entirely unsatisfactory from the point of view of labour because it means that they never have firm ground on which to discuss the matter. It is one thing to discuss the question of unemployment with the government if unemployment is 10 per cent. It is an entirely different thing if it is 5 per cent.
Further, I have been reading in the Labour Gazette for April a very interesting article about seasonal unemployment. There is a long discussion there and some suggestions are laid down as to how seasonal unemployment shall be assessed. Of course seasonal unemployment is the reason that has been given for the situation, but we are now in June and I do not think that the defence of seasonal unemployment can be of any further value. I would ask the minister to give us a full explanation of why the difference does exist. I am not blaming the dominion bureau of statistics at all. I assume it is done under instructions because they have got to be given a policy in order to work out a figure. I assume they are under instructions as they quite properly should be. I understand for example that they do not include figures of people temporarily out of work; people who have been let out but with instructions that they are to come back at the end of thirty days.
But these people are certainly out of work at the moment, and I take it also that even if all of them go back at the end of thirty

days it is not reasonable to assume that the same thing has not happened to a lot of others in the interval. In other words, the thing rolls around. I understand that the Department of Labour does include those figures, and if they do I take it that is on the assumption that if you have tens of thousands of people temporarily out of work in May you are not going to find a situation in June where all those tens of thousands of people have come back and where no others are in the position that the first lot were in during the preceding month.
In other words, so far as my judgment goes, I find the figures of the Department of Labour very much more realistic than those of the Department of Trade and Commerce. I think we should try to get to the bottom of it because it is a very important matter. The minister accused me the other day of being a pessimist. I hope I am not. Pessimists are a nuisance to everybody, and I do not want to regard myself as being in that category. I want to be a little optimist, but on the other hand I cannot go around like some members of the house and, when I am asked the reason for my faith, just say: "Well, C. D. said so". There are a lot of people in the house who think that when they have said that, the matter is settled. To me that is a very important piece of evidence, but I do not regard it as absolutely the last and final word, not necessarily.
Therefore I hope the minister will have regard for my weakness, for my quality of optimism which is not so great as his and which wants to be optimism plus reason. I should like an attempt to be made, which I have not heard done before, to reconcile these two figures and to make sense of them because, as somebody said, at the moment there seems to be a kind of cold war between these two departments.
Mr. Hov/e (Pori Arthur): I presume my hon. friend prefers the Department of Labour figures because they suit him better as a basis for argument, but he is really making an analysis of two different things. The Department of Labour figures show the number of people looking for jobs on a particular day. There would be no harm, and it would be quite in order for my hon. friend to go to the nearest labour office and put his name down as one seeking a job. He might find a better one than he has.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Not after all we members have said about being fully employed.
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Clarence Decatur Howe: Probably the bureau of statistics would put him down as employed, even though he might be seeking a job. There, you have the situation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is a sort of temporary permanent.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, quite right. We have a situation where people register for jobs while they are employed. We also have a situation where a man will retire from the railroad on a pension and then put himself down as seeking a job. Would you list him as unemployed? The bureau of statistics would refer to him as a man outside the labour force. He had retired. Nevertheless, the labour department would include his name as an applicant for a job.
I do not believe there is any harm in telling the house as a matter of interest that by arrangement with the labour department we had a survey made of a list of those applying for jobs as registered in the labour department. We did not inform the field men that there was anything particular about the list we sent down to them, but they thought the results were sufficiently odd to warrant a special report to the Ottawa headquarters. The report said that they found the list most extraordinary; actually over 50 per cent of the people on it were out of work, and they thought the department should know!
The labour survey is made on a scientific basis, and it follows the approved sampling methods of the bureau of statistics. Over 30,000 families are called upon each month, and it is a different 30,000 each time. A report is based on the findings of that survey. If the man is unemployed and seeking work on the day the survey is made, then he is registered as unemployed. A list is made up by expanding that sample survey to cover the working force of Canada. I may say that the bureau of statistics survey is much more complete than the surveys upon which unemployment figures are based in the United States. This survey of 30,000 out of a v/orking force of 5 million is a very much larger sample than is used In the survey of unemployment in the country to the south. We believe the results are correct, so far as it can be determined by sampling methods.


Mrs. Fairclough:: The minister has just explained that in sampling for the purpose of labour statistics different people are interviewed each time. I should like to make some representations to the department on behalf of a group of people who have found that they

Supply-Trade and Commerce suffer considerable inconvenience because of being on the list for sampling, and not being able to get off the list. I am not talking about labour statistics; I am talking about statistics that are sought from various industries through surveys by the bureau of statistics. I realize that when you seek to produce statistics by the sampling method you must select certain people out of each industry for which the survey is conducted who can supply you with the material.
The part to which I object is the fact that some small industries or comparatively small restaurants, with one or two persons in the office, are periodically required to make returns to the bureau of statistics. Despite the fact that they protest that their office staff is not adequate to keep this up indefinitely, they simply cannot get off the list. In some cases, it goes on for a long time. It does not seem right to me that a few people should be saddled with this job of providing statistics for the bureau, while a great many people in the country go scot-free. If you have a small office staff, it is an expensive procedure. It sometimes means you have to hire extra help in order to supply these figures. I am sure many of these people realize the importance of supplying the figures, but they do believe they are being discriminated against.
If they were put on the list for a year and then removed, there would not be too much complaint. However, when they are put on the list indefinitely and they realize they are being forced to supply information to the bureau that their competitor is not forced to supply, they believe there is just cause for complaint. I ask the minister, therefore, to inquire into this matter to see that some people are not forced to continuously supply information.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would say at once that any information that is gathered by the bureau is entirely confidential. Not long ago we had a case which may interest the house. We were asked by another government for information that the bureau of statistics had. We consulted the bureau, and they said we could not disclose it even privately to another government. It was gathered as private information and could not be released to anyone for any purpose, so the information was not given. There is nothing guarded more carefully in government circles than information gathered by the bureau of statistics.
Every effort has been made to cause the least possible inconvenience in obtaining the statistics that are considered necessary in carrying out the functions of the bureau. We


have now on the questionnaire list business firms of less than $50,000 capitalization. The form for such companies has been simplified so that only one question is asked, and that is quite a simple one. In the case of labour statistics, if anyone objects to answering the questions we simply drop their name from the list and pick another name. I am told that the bureau receives remarkable cooperation from the public in gathering information, and finds very little resentment about giving the information that is required.
I must say I have received no complaints that I recall about any demand from the bureau for information. I am sure our chief statistician will keep in mind the suggestions of the hon. member for Hamilton West to make certain that sampling lists do not include the same name too long. I am told that is not the practice. The practice is, where sampling is performed, to change the lists frequently. I am sure the dominion statistician will look into the complaint and make sure the inconvenience is minimized to the greatest possible extent.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The minister must have misunderstood me with reference to the first part of his remarks. I was not talking about the confidential nature of the reports at all. I was making, more or less, a representation on behalf of these small companies. I know, and the minister knows, that if you have a sizeable staff it is easy to juggle jobs around so that someone can compile these statistics. It is, however, a real hardship on the little fellow. Despite the minister's assurance, I know of a few cases where names have been on the list for a long time, and despite their protests. I take it that what is required is that they make a written protest, and their names will be removed, but that has not been the experience of some of these people.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The head of the bureau of statistics tells me that he would like very much to have the names of those people, for his confidential guidance. Perhaps my hon. friend would pass those names along.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I shall do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I join with the hon. member for Greenwood in paying tribute to the excellent job done by the dominion bureau of statistics. I have seldom if ever known an instance where the bureau was unable to supply information I have tried to get from them. In fact often when one seeks certain information he gets more than he asks for. In short, they do an awfully good job.
In this connection I was a bit surprised the other day to find that certain questions

I had placed on the order paper were answered by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production, apparently on behalf of the dominion bureau of statistics. They were questions relating to records concerning charges and offences under the Criminal Code. I fully expected my questions would be answered by the Department of Justice but, as it turns out, the answers were given by the dominion bureau of statistics.
Obviously the answers given by the bureau were somewhat limited. It was pointed out to me in the information I received that only such information as it is felt necessary to keep for statistical purposes is kept by the bureau. What I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is not by way of criticism of the dominion bureau of statistics. 1 had thought these records would be kept by the Department of Justice, but it appears that this is being done by the bureau of statistics.
I would hope that another look might be taken at the questions I put on the order paper to see whether the bureau might not enlarge the categories of statistics it keeps in relation to matters coming under the Criminal Code. Apparently the job is already being done by the bureau. This is just a suggestion that the field of information in connection with which statistics are kept regarding the Criminal Code might be enlarged.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sure the dominion statistician will take note of my hon. friend's remarks, and do what he can to amplify his records.


Mr. Robinson (Bruce):: Mr. Chairman, may I join with the other hon. members in congratulating the dominion bureau of statistics upon the job it is doing. I know, too, that they are always open to suggestions to improve their work.
I had the pleasure of attending the first trade fair held in Toronto, and also of attending the last. I was greatly pleased with each of them and must commend the minister upon the improvement that has been made in the fair in a short number of years.
My reason for speaking now is to suggest to the bureau that they make a survey showing the number of miles travelled by workers to and from their work, in the large cities, and another survey showing similar information for the medium sized cities and towns. I believe the information obtained would help us realize that centralization is not a good thing for the country.
A short time ago I read in the press the report of a speech made in Montreal, I believe, by the president of General Motors. In his speech he was chiding the highways
Supply-Trade and Commerce department for not having better roads to assist labourers who travel perhaps 50 miles to and from their work. With all due respect for presidents, in this instance I begin to think that this particular president should be shown a few things.
My point is that in the smaller towns the workers have to travel only short distances, at the outside taking up perhaps only 15 minutes of their time. Walking to work they meet each other-"Hello Bill; hello Jack"- and it is not just a rat race such as we see in the larger cities. People working in those factories enjoy their work a great deal more than those who work in the city.
I believe if this survey were made it would enlighten us and would convince us that there should be more decentralization of industry, thus making everybody happy.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, in view of what was said a short time ago by the hon. member for Greenwood may I take this opportunity to say just a word about the points he brought up, particularly considering the very fair way in which he dealt with the matter.
Prior to a year ago last fall in the Department of Labour we had been publishing every month figures showing the total number of those seeking employment across Canada. At and prior to that time we in the Department of Labour, as well as my colleagues in other departments, felt that although a true total of workers so listed was coming out of the adding machines in our U.I.C. offices it did not give a clear picture either in winter or in summer.
Consequently we had a very careful study undertaken. Part of that study included a cross-check in different parts of Canada referred to today by my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce. A check of listed unemployed was made to find out if they were actually unemployed. I must say when the results of that check came to my attention it was a surprise as well as a bit of of a shock to me.
Yet, Mr. Chairman, what was found is not surprising when we realize that in our 230 offices, particularly in the winter months when our staffs are busily engaged in interviewing applicants for work and looking after all those complex matters entering into the insurance plan, there is not the time for the staff to con over the lists of applicants to find out by telephone, by letter or by wire which ones may have got work somewhere else, which ones may be listed at other places, and all those pieces of information which would be necessary to strip the lists down to applicants still wanting jobs.
6126	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce
As a result of that, beginning a year ago December, I believe it was, it was decided that the quarterly announcement made by the dominion bureau of statistics should be enlarged and, if you like, sharpened up, and made into a monthly report based upon the survey the minister outlined a little while ago.
The suggestion was made that the results of that survey, with the new total, might be the only monthly total issued. My personal view was that it would be wrong to do so- and I still feel that way-because ever since 1941 the monthly list showing the total of persons seeking employment has gone out to the public. We have had that for every month. We have not had any other yardstick for every month, except the information we have had only since a year ago last December when the list was begun by the dominion bureau of statistics.
So it was decided in the middle of the winter a year ago last January to issue this as a joint release, providing for the public all the information we had on the subject, including the total number of persons seeking employment as of a given date. The one which will come out within a week will be as of approximately May 20, just as the one which came out around May 20 showed the total as of about April 20. In other words, the figures are about a month old.
Now, there is another factor affecting the total number who are seeking employment. Particularly in the winter months we have found in the cities and towns a keen interest on the part of everyone as to how the picture was going with regard to that city, town or province. By the very nature of it, the dominion bureau of statistics' plan is a nationwide one, and so are the conclusions drawn from that. In the city of Toronto, for instance, the only indicator on the employment situation there today, as compared with three years ago this date, would be that very general one coming from the Department of Labour. I want to take advantage of being on my feet at this time to scotch completely a suggestion that has been made in some quarters that this combined release was over the dead body of the Department of Labour or the Minister of Labour. It was nothing of the sort. As a matter of fact it was we who suggested that the study take place and we have co-operated and will co-operate in every way to provide the best information we can. On the one hand, a careful survey is made by D.B.S., an agency of government that has had great experience and in which all the members have complete confidence; and, on the other, a simple total through U.I.C. of those who are applying at any given time.
I should like to tell the committee that if it is possible to narrow the gap or give more


precise information, we will certainly do it. I can tell the committee that I have gone over the comparable reports which are issued south of the line from month to month, and I must say that the three or four that are produced there do not add any more precise information than we are giving. I am sure it will be realized by the hon. member for Greenwood that it would be impossible, even if you carried out a complete census in Canada, to say exactly how many men and women are unemployed on this 17th day of June. By the time the callers went around to the doors and found out, the figures for people behind them on whom they had called would be out of date before totals could be got. We have got to give the best information that can be made available.


Mr. Mang:: I should like to ask a question on this item. To what extent does the bureau of statistics gather information in the rural areas of a province like Saskatchewan? The reason I ask the question is that in my area there was a man going around visiting ever so many farms. He called on the fourth or fifth one in the areas surrounding the villages, and he also made a canvass of the villagers in that area. He took one out of so many houses as he went down the street. To what extent is that being done throughout Saskatchewan? Those statistics were gathered from a good many people who would probably list themselves as unemployed on the farms because they were under the impression that if they listed themselves as unemployed they would get a job in town in the winter or in the logging camps, or something of that nature. That would affect the unemployment picture. They are not unemployed now of course. My reason for asking the question is to find out how that might influence the unemployment picture. Does the bureau of statistics have quite a group of men doing that type of work in Saskatchewan? The man I have in mind lives on a farm. From time to time he jumps in his car and goes around and gathers this information.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am told that we do make a survey of rural Saskatchewan. I am told that a man who is living on a farm which he owns is not counted as unemployed just because he is not as busy at that time of the year as he is in other times of the year. If he were away from home and working as a logger and were out of work as a logger, he would be registered as unemployed. In that class of labour, that shifts between the farm and the forest industry, there is bound to be a discrepancy in labour figures. In my own district many loggers live on little farms and

their business is logging. Nevertheless, if they are not logging at the time of the survey, they would be registered as unemployed in that area.


Mr. Noseworihy:: Has the minister anything in the form of a break-down with regard to the amount of expenditure by the educational branch of the dominion bureau of statistics? Can he give me the number of people employed by that branch? I used to be in much closer touch with that branch before I came here than I have been since. My experience was that that was one branch of the dominion bureau of statistics which was financially undernourished. What is the situation at the present time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: 1 am told that there is a new director of the educational branch who has just been appointed. A provincial conference has been held to get the requirements and the views of the provinces on the proper way to compile information. I am told that we are now in the process of expanding that branch to give complete coverage of that division of our statistics.
At the moment, eleven people are employed in the branch.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Just one more question. Two years ago a good deal of consideration was given to the possibility of having some office, or someone in the educational branch of the dominion bureau of statistics, act as a sort of co-ordinator of information, or an information office for the various phases of educational work that is done by different departments of government. I realize that some publications are published by various departments of government that provincial departments of education might not be very anxious to have distributed within the schools because of the propaganda nature of the publication. But there is an immense amount of valuable factual material about Canada published by various departments of government such as the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the Department of Trade and Commerce, the Department of Labour, the Department of National Health and Welfare, and a number of others that publish an enormous amount of material that would be almost invaluable in the schools.
When I was teaching, my difficulty was to find out from what departments this material was available and just what the material was. I know that for some time teachers' organizations have advocated the setting up of some central clearing house in the educational branch of the dominion bureau of statistics that could give to the educational workers and teachers across the country some
17, 1954
Supply-Trade and Commerce guidance about material, for instance, from the film board or from any other department. Is anything being done along that line, or is each department simply producing material that lies in storage space until it becomes outdated and then is sent off to an incinerator or sold as scrap paper?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I am told that we have had several requests from the provinces along the lines suggested by the hon. member. The new director of the branch is studying the matter and it is believed that within limits we can give that service. All the provinces think it is a desirable service and attempts are being made to organize the bureau to provide it.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, there are a few brief remarks I would like to make on this item. During the recent discussion in this house on Bill No. 7 dealing with the Criminal Code the question of death on the highways was discussed from time to time and some intimation was given that perhaps next session a further discussion of the matter of traffic fatalities and problems relating thereto would be undertaken. I believe the minister even intimated that there might possibly be some sort of conference with the attorneys general of the various provinces in view of the jurisdictional problems which arise relative to this question.
In view of the fact that the question of accidents and death on the highways has become increasingly grave in this country, I am wondering whether the minister might consider recommending to the dominion bureau of statistics that they compile more complete figures with respect to motor vehicle accidents and traffic offences throughout the country.
The figures we have at present in the Canada Year Book are meagre when one considers the magnitude of the problem involved, and though I realize it may be a difficult and expensive job in obtaining this information I think in view of the fact that this is such a major problem it might be well worth while.
For example, there is no break-down of the type of traffic offences. The Canada Year Book at page 304 gives by province the number of convictions against breaches of the traffic regulations, but it does not give any break-down of the variety of accidents, whether they are due to careless driving, speeding, failing to stop at a stop sign, or merely neglecting to have a licence renewed.
I think there might be other interesting break-downs such as the age groups of the persons involved in traffic accidents; and another and very important break-down would be one showing how many involve
@128

Supply-Trade and Commerce repeated offences. Another break-down might be the number of traffic offences involving liquor, and how many accidents involve more than one automobile.
1 would like to recommend this to the minister because I feel this problem will have to be considered either in this house or in conjunction with the various provincial legislatures, and in order to assess the problem and discuss it intelligently we will have to have a much better break-down than is provided by this department. I do not mean that as a criticism of the dominion bureau of statistics, but this important problem exists and must be faced and I think if we are to deal with it the bureau should attempt to expand its facilities in order to gather this information.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, the bureau can only collect this information in co-operation with the provinces and only to the extent that the provinces themselves keep records on a reasonably uniform basis. I am told that a few years ago a conference was held with the provincial attorneys general, or members of their staffs, and an undertaking was given that statistics would be compiled in a manner in which they could be used by the bureau to compile a national record. However, that undertaking has not been carried out. I am informed that the estimates we are now considering provide for another meeting with the officers of the provinces, and another attempt will be made to obtain accurate and complete records kept on a uniform basis for compilation by the bureau of statistics. I am hopeful that we can improve the situation.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to hear the minister say that because, for example, apparently there are no figures available for the province of Quebec, which in population is the second largest province, and without these figures we will be very much at a loss.


Mr. Lennard:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw to the minister's attention two questionnaires which are handled by the customs and immigration officials at border points. One questionnaire deals with Americans or foreigners leaving this country and asks them how much money they have spent here, and it is very difficult for them to give an accurate estimate. The questionnaire has its nuisance value and it irritates. The other questionnaire is directed at Canadians re-entering Canada and asks a similar question. I would say that in about 80 per cent of the cases the answers are not correct. It is not compulsory to give an answer to this question and the persons involved do not have to supply this information. I know


that in my own case on several occasions when I have been re-entering Canada and have been asked this question I have tried to answer correctly and I have later found out that I was very far short of the amount I had actually spent. For example, when you are motoring in the United States your gasoline and oil are checked against your credit card and you do not have to pay for them immediately. On another occasion Mrs. Lennard spent some money which I knew nothing about at the time. I might add that during rush periods where people are crossing the border in large numbers the officials do not have the time to be bothered asking these questions, and on other occasions I know that most of the answers are incorrect. In my estimation the department is not obtaining the information it seeks and the whole thing is a farce.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us about Mrs. Howe.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am afraid I could not answer that question with regard to her expenses. However, I would point out that the tourists' expenditures are a very important item in the balance of payment figures. The bureau adopts the method which it believes is most likely to give fair results. My hon. friend from Wentworth might be under a bit in his estimation of the amount he spent but others might be boasting a bit and perhaps the average would be fairly close to the mark. I think we all realize the difficulty of getting absolutely accurate figures on tourist expenditures either in Canada or outside its borders. The bureau, in collaboration with the customs and other agencies of government, pursues every avenue that seems most likely to give reliable figures. The dominion statistician informs me that he believes that after all sources are used, the figures are reasonably accurate. In any event they are used in international trade references.


Mr. Rowe:: They are only an estimate in any event.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is all.


Mr. Hahn:: In connection with that same idea, may I ask if it would not simplify matters if, when you report you are going across the line, you were given a simple form which you could turn in on your return to the border. This procedure would facilitate not only the getting through of the individual who might have been across the line but also the work of the customs officials who already have it completed and have not 20 or 30 people rushing around them trying to get forms at one and the same time.


Frank Exton Lennard: I might say that such a procedure might curtail some spending on the part of visitors to Canada, if they thought they had to account for every cent they spent over here. We need their dollars.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. I think there are two sides to the question of the advisability of doing that. The matter could be looked into, to see whether that would help the situation. We always like to give the impression that Canada is a free economy, which it is, and to impress on visitors that this information is obtained only for statistical purposes.
I4r. Hahn: I am not getting at the fact that Canada is not a free economy. I believe these people who use the port of Blaine as an entry, or Douglas in our own case which is the name of it in British Columbia would not feel that way about it. What I am thinking about is this group which comes across the border on Sunday. We have possibly two or three miles of them. We have at Douglas an excellent staff which certainly gets them through as quickly as possible. When that zero hour, however, hits, it is difficult to get them through. We have many harassed individuals at the border wondering why they are not being permitted to go through more quickly, when all they have to do is to sa3' "I have not bought anything", but you are just waiting in a long line while the other individuals who definitely want to give the information properly can be dealt with in the proper fashion. They would be only too hapy to fill in such forms. I meet dozens of them from time to time who say: If we just had this before we got to the border, we would not be spending half an hour around here trying to figure out exactly what we did spend.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The dominion statistician now has the hon. member's suggestion. He says it is well worth looking into. I am sure he will look into it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am sorry to be so, shall I say, stubborn. I notice that the minister was addressing two audiences in Montreal yesterday. I am sure none of them gave him anything like the trouble I am giving him. In fact, I have no doubt that they applauded him to the echo. I most certainly hope that what he said there is going to turn out to be correct.
I am grateful to the Minister of Labour for his contribution and for the spirit in which it was made, but I must confess that what the Minister of Labour said really underlined my trouble in this matter. As I understand it, we have two parallel lines- yes, they are parallel; parallel lines never
17, 1954
Supply-Trade and Commerce meet-of inquiry going on. One is what you might call a scientific inquiry made by the dominion bureau of statistics. I presume that is a natural way for it to operate. But the other seems to me to be a much more human kind of inquiry. It shows the people who come in and say they are out of work and are seeking employment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They do not say
they are out of work. They do not need to say they are out of work.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister can correct me on that point, and I accept the correction. My point is that while the Minister of Labour has admitted that there may be errors, nevertheless when he talks about 230 separate offices which are trying to get a real picture of the situation, I confess I do not find it easy to wash out that error. If the difference between them were 10 per cent, 15 per cent or 25 per cent one would say:	There is
room for a margin of error. But I want to read the figures from last January. As I understand it, here you have unplaced applicants in January last, as the Department of Labour figure it, numbering 523,000 people. Persons without jobs and seeking work- that is the D.B.S. figure-number 280,000. There is nearly 90 per cent of difference if my pencil has not deceived me. It seems to me to be an extremely disturbing situation. I am not going to be cynical and say that it is convenient to have two figures when labour makes any complaint about the situation. I am not going to indulge in any talk of that kind. But to me it does not make sense that we can have these widely divergent figures. Let me ask one thing. Am I correct in understanding that this figure of 280,000 persons without jobs and seeking work does not include people on temporary lay-offs? Is that right? Will the minister tell me whether that is right?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; it is not.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then the minister will
explain just why it is not right because I believe it has been stated in the house, and has not been denied before, that it does not include that figure. I will wait for an explanation of that. I am also wondering about this figure that I have now read. I am sorry not to have a more recent one; it is as far back as January. Perhaps we could get the corresponding figure for today or at any rate for a much more recent moment. I feel that this is an important matter. I earnestly feel that the present situation is entirely unsatisfactory.
I have one further thing to say before I sit down. After all, labour now has highly competent economists and statisticians who
6130	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce follow these things. I believe that their figures are not to be lightly regarded. I further believe that they are of the view that the Department of Labour figures represent the situation much more realistically than do the others. It is easy to say. "Of course; they take the larger figure". That perhaps would be their tendency. But nevertheless they are not taking it blindly. I believe they are trying to assess things as well as they can. I believe that they believe that the labour figure gives a much more realistic figure. If it does so, I earnestly suggest to the minister that as to these two parallel lines, which are a fairly wide distance apart, it does not really make sense to let that situation continue.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The trouble arises out of the fact that my hon. friend uses the "applications for employment" figures for purposes for which they were never intended. For example, I had a chauffeur about six months ago. He told me that he did not like living so far out of town and that he had applied to the Department of Labour for a job. I said, "That is fine". Then he said that he had a job and that he was leaving me. I said, "Are you going to leave that application in at the employment office?" He said, "Oh, yes; I might get something better." I saw him only two or three days ago. I said, "How are you getting on?" He said, "I like my job fine." I said, "Is your application still in at the employment office?" He said, "Oh, yes." There is no way of policing the fact whether a man who is applying for a job gets a job under his own steam or not. If he gets a job there is no compulsion to go back and take his name off the register. It is simply a list of people who say that they are available for work if a job is offered to them. If they are not available, of course, their names are struck off. There is another angle, as I said; for example people who retire from the railroad. They are entitled to certain unemployment benefits. They register as available for jobs and collect their benefits as long as they last. In most cases they would not take a job if it was offered to them. Nevertheless, if they do not apply, they are not entitled to the benefits.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That should be corrected, should it not? If they were offered jobs and did not take them, their unemployment benefits would be cut off.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; that is true. But nevertheless until they are offered a job they are on the list and get unemployment insurance. There are many reasons why many more people apply for jobs than are


represented by people out of work and seeking work. Take for example a man who is laid off for a week for one reason or another. Is he registered as unemployed? While he is unemployed in a certain sense, he would not take other work if it was offered him because he is going back to his old job. I think if my hon. friend pays strict attention to the labels at the head of these lists his confusion will be less acute than it seems to be at the moment.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Worse.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am told that the new figures of those unemployed and seeking work will be out next Wednesday. We do not have the figures at the moment, but I am told that it is going to show a very remarkable drop in the numbers that were shown on the last report.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not going to pursue the matter further. I am grateful to the minister for suggesting that I myself might seek useful work when I leave here, and that is an idea worth considering.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You would certainly be registered on one list if you did.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I merely wish to make a comment in answer to the argument which the minister has just made. If there are people on there who should not be, there are a lot of people not on there who might be, so that matter may wash itself out. But I still leave the comment that I hope these parallel lines will somehow or other meet, and I press it no further.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I want to make it clear that they cannot possibly meet.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Come closer together.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Some classes of people are on the one list who are not on the other list.


Mr. Barneii:: It appears to me that a further question is raised by the story the minister has just told us about the case of the chauffeur which might well be answered while we are on this point. It really has to do with the figures of the Department of Labour. How long is a name carried on the list of persons seeking employment after the last time that person reports to the office? I think that would be useful information to have while we are on this matter. If a name is left there indefinitely, obviously the lists might very well be far out of line.


Milton Fowler Gregg: If an applicant comes in and says, "I have got a job", or "take my name off", that is that, and the same applies if he writes or informs the office in any other way.

In the smaller areas the offices can get bona fide information whether an applicant has a job. If so, they strike him off. With respect to the larger offices, it is not very often in the wintertime, as I pointed out earlier in my remarks, that the staff has the time to go through the list and strip out all those who they know are not in reality applicants for jobs. An attempt is made from time to time to keep the lists revised so that they will represent live applicants.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I have one more request I should like to make which has to do with the publication of the consumer price index for the city of Hamilton. The bureau has been requested on former occasions to publish this index and has given what amounts to a reasonable explanation why it has not considered it necessary. But I should like to point out that it would be extremely valuable to industry and labour alike in Hamilton where so many wage contracts are negotiated and where the consumer index plays a very appreciable part. I ask the minister to ask the bureau to reconsider their decision in this matter and to include the city of Hamilton in the consumer price index publication at an early date.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That matter has caused some concern. At the time the new price index was introduced certain labour contracts were based on the old index and we undertook to publish the old index for a year in the expectation that wage agreements would in the meantime be negotiated and established on the new basis. That happened except in the automobile industry, I believe, and we continued to publish the old index for a period beyond the year to suit the automobile industry. I believe that General Motors was the only one that had not transferred to the new index. However, it is my understanding that every wage contract in the country today is based on the new index, and I must say I have not had any request for the old index for some time. The publishing of two indices is expensive. At one time we considered making General Motors pay for publishing the old index but it was quite a sizeable bill and we decided not to do that.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I did not ask for the old index. I asked that the city of Hamilton be included in the publication of the consumer price index.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, I apologize. The chief statistician says that he can probably do that. He will certainly look into
Supply-Trade and Commerce the matter and, without making a definite commitment, I think it is probable it will be done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Board of grain commissioners-
438. Administration, $179,361.
Mr. Nicholson:: My question is hardly relevant but in view of the fact that the minister was absent yesterday afternoon on very important business I should like merely to ask a question without starting a debate. Could the minister state what the initial price for wheat will be for the 1954-55 crop? If he cannot state it this morning, I wonder whether he could do so before the end of the session. Could he also indicate whether all the 1953 wheat crop can be accepted at the present initial price? If he cannot make a statement now, I would appreciate it if he would do so before we finish.


Clarence Decatur Howe: A good deal of point has been made that in other years we announced the initial payment early. We did that with the thought that it might influence the planting of wheat, oats and barley, that is, that it might influence the farmer as to how he used his cultivated land. We have always had in mind how we would like him to use his cultivated land. That is why we gave a guide. This year we do not have any guide. We thought that each farmer had better figure that out for himself. I must say I was surprised to find how few people seem to be interested in the views of the government on how they should use their land.


William Earl Rowe: The blind leading the blind.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no purpose whatever in publishing that price today. It is not going to be used by anybody. It is not going to influence anyone's planting plans because they have done their planting or if they have not they have summer-fallowed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They have got to do some of it over again, because of flooding.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are anxious to get all the information we can with a view to setting the initial prices as high as we think can reasonably be done. It is proposed to publish the prices towards the latter part of July so they will be effective on the first day of August. My hon. friend is only asking out of idle curiosity. It is not going to help anybody or hurt anybody or change anybody's plans.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In our part of the country there is a great deal of land they have not finished seeding yet.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not think that would change their plans very much at this stage. They have probably bought their seed anyway. In any case, the initial prices will be published in advance of the time when they will be used. As far as the second part of the question is concerned, my hon. friend knows as well as I do that the present initial price will be paid on all grain that is delivered to country elevators before midnight on the 31st July, 1954.


William Earl Rowe: On that point I should like to ask the minister whether there are any signs that the uncertainty of government policy so far as announcing the price is concerned has encouraged summerfallowing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, I think the only man who is uncertain about government policy is my hon. friend. Certainly I am not uncertain about government policy. If my hon. friend will read Hansard carefully or attend and listen carefully there will be no reason, I think, for him to be uncertain.


William Earl Rowe: A lot of farmers are uncertain.


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: In view of the statement the minister made in answer to the hon. member for Mackenzie that the initial price for the 1953-54 crop will be paid for wheat delivered up until the 31st July, I should like to ask the minister what will be the policy with respect to wheat on the farms after that date. He must know that many farmers will not have had the privilege of delivering equal quotas and that there will be a lot of grain left on the farms. What will be the policy in respect of wheat remaining on the farms on July 31?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The wheat
remaining on the farms on July 31, 1954, is no different from wheat remaining on the farms on July 31, 1953, 1952 or 1951. I will admit there is more of it, but there is always wheat remaining on the farms on July 31 of every year. The policy this year is going to be no different from the policy last year or the year before. If the hon. member will ask some of his friends who are farmers, they will be able to explain it to him in greater detail.


Edward George McCullough: I quite realize that, but the point is that this year the quota is going to be very low. I wonder whether the minister might state whether or not he expects the quota to be increased over the various provinces before that period.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The quota is changed from time to time, and I expect that the seven bushel quota will be uniform across the country. I expect there will be changes


in quotas. For instance, within the last week there was announced an additional quota of another three bushels of oats per acre seeded to oats. I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, so I do not know what the demand will be for wheat from week to week. If there is a demand for a certain grade, there will probably be a special quota issued for that grade. Whether or not the seven bushel quota will be increased, I do not know.


Edward George McCullough: I
should like to ask the minister a further question concerning the allocation of box cars. I have received representations from the various wheat pool organizations and from different elevator points in my constituency. Can the minister state whether or not the allocation of box cars is going to be made more satisfactory, so that the farmers may be able to deliver grain to the elevator of their choice? There seems to be quite a lot of resentment on the part of farmers that they are not able to deliver grain to the elevator of their choice, simply because of what they say is the discriminatory allocation of box cars.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not sure whether or not my hon. friend attended the meetings of the agriculture committee. If he did, he heard this subject discussed for days by all the experts in the country. The farmers' organizations could not agree on the method they wanted used. I may say at the moment, and I am confining my remarks to the moment, the allocation of box cars is decided upon by the organizations themselves. For instance, if grain is needed, it is ordered forward so much from the Saskatchewan pool, so much from the Manitoba pool, and the pool itself decides what elevator will deliver that grain. I think that allocation has worked out very well indeed. The fact that we will be able to complete the seven bushel quota, and I think we will, is an indication that all the authorities, the transport controller, the board of grain commissioners, the wheat board and the elevator companies themselves, whether farmer owned or privately owned, have co-operated in working out the quota system in an equitable way and in working out the distribution of cars among elevators in a way that would make the distribution possible.


Edward George McCullough: I
should like to make a brief statement taking exception to the minister's remarks to the effect that the allocation of box cars has been satisfactory. This would not seem to be in agreement with the letters that have

come to my office from various parts of my constituency. Only yesterday I had a letter from the local wheat pool at Creelman, indicating they are not satisfied at that point with the allocation of box cars. I should like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that under the present method of allocation of box cars the farmer is not allowed to deliver grain to the elevator of his choice. In Saskatchewan we have a situation where the farmers are more and more desirous of delivering their grain to the pool elevator system but are forced, because of the allocation of box cars, to deliver to the line elevator company. I do hope that next year we shall find the government taking steps to meet this situation, so that the farmers will be able to deliver their grain to the elevator of their choice.


Mr. Harkness:: When the board of grain commissioners and the transport controller were before the agriculture committee, we were told that every effort was being made to allocate box cars to those points where the five bushel quota had not been filled, and particularly areas where there was a very large amount of No. 2 wheat for which there was difficulty in finding markets. I wonder whether the minister could tell us now if that plan has been successfully completed and all those points have now had their five bushel quota?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; I was advised last week that practically all the five bushel quota points have been cleared. Nearly every point in western Canada has completed its five bushel quota, and is working either on a six or on a seven bushel quota at the moment.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There were a number of
people about ten days ago, of whom I am aware, who had not been able to get in the five bushel quota because of the difficulty in the elevator over grades. They happened to have a grade of wheat which could not be taken in. Can the minister tell us whether any special allocation of box cars will be made in order to look after cases of that kind? I know there are a few.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The elevators
themselves can do that if there is a demand for a particular grade. If a man wanted to deliver, say, a third of a car of rye somewhere and the elevator is not handling rye, I think he might have difficulty in doing so. Generally speaking all except the odd lots are being taken care of. We did manage to move the No. 2 northern wheat, which was a problem. We found a place for that, and we are cleaning up the major problems across the prairies. There are minor problems with
Supply-Trade and Commerce which I cannot deal, but with which I am sure someone will try to deal. It may be a little difficult and a little slow.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was not urging that the minister should deal with these things himself, but the board of grain commissioners and the wheat pool can deal with these problems. In view of the present situation and the difficulty farmers have had generally in securing cash because of the limited amounts of grain they have been able to deliver, and in view of the grade difficulties in particular elevators that have prevented some farmers from delivering their five bushel quota, it seems to me a particular effort should be made to ensure that enough grain is moved out of the elevators at these points to straighten out the problem. The farmer has nowhere else to go with his grain, and the man who has been unfortunate enough to have a grade that could not be delivered should not be discriminated against.


Mr. Sluder:: If I understood the minister correctly, he mentioned that elevator companies were apportioned the wheat board orders and then cars were allotted to the amount of those orders. Are those orders allotted to the various companies and the pool on the basis of a percentage of their past handlings or on the requirements of the wheat board at the moment?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are allocated on the basis of the wheat pool requirement. How the requirement is divided amongst the elevator companies, I am not sure, but I believe it is on some historical basis. The whole matter is being studied with a view to deciding on a method of allocation for next year and consideration will be given to the representations made in the agriculture committee. I would not care to say what the situation is at the moment, but I shall be very glad to give a report on it after the beginning of the next crop year, when the new system will be in force.


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Chairman, for three days we had a long and thorough discussion of the problem of wheat prices. I am wondering if the minister would mind checking with me to make sure that I have gathered exactly the right picture as to the disparity between the condition of the American wheat farmer and the condition of the Canadian wheat farmer.
If I have the picture correctly, the American wheat farmer is practically sure of getting $2.21 a bushel. The move the United States made to increase her export subsidy by ten cents did not affect the American farmer's well-being at all. That is, he did not lose a cent. Any money that was lost would be lost

Supply-Trade and Commerce by the American people as a whole. In other words, the American people as a whole came to the aid of their farming population to the extent of ten cents a bushel, in order to enable the exporting of that wheat. Do I get the picture right there?
If I am wrong I hope the minister will check me up immediately because, although I thought I knew the exact situation before we began the discussion, I am not sure now that I have everything clear. But up to the present time my picture is correct, is it not?
Now, in Canada this is the position: In the first place the Canadian government, instead of making the decrease of 10 J cents a bushel apply only to what is exported, as the United States did, has made it apply to every bushel of wheat in the Dominion of Canada, whether sold for export or not sold for export. In other words the Canadian government has levied-and I think that is the kindest word I can use; there are worse words that come to my mind, such as "robbed" and two or three others-but they have levied on the farmers of western Canada the sum of 10 J cents a bushel on every single bushel of wheat the farmer has on his farm, in the elevator or anywhere else.
Now, that just is about the picture, is it not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Do you want me to answer?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, I would like to have an answer.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have never known my hon. friend to be so completely wrong as he is on this occasion.


John Horne Blackmore: That is what I want the minister to straighten out.
Mr. Ho we (Pori Arthur): And I shall be glad to do it.
The position in the United States is that there is a support price for wheat. If a farmer can deliver his grain into approved storage-and there is an "if" there-and if he has not exceeded the acreage planted to wheat which he is allowed under the restriction of acreage regulations, he can borrow against that grain $2.21 a bushel. There are several "ifs" in there. As a matter of fact great quantities of free grain come on the market. They are sold by producers and are traded on the open market, and are at present selling for about $1.95 a bushel.
The millers buy their grain on the open market. They are paying about $1.95 at the present time for the grain they mill into flour, in spite of the fact that if the wheat can be put into approved storage the government will lend $2.21 on that wheat. Only


certain wheat qualifies for the loan. But if it can qualify, then as I say the farmer can borrow that amount against it. It is an irrevocable loan, and if you just walk away and leave the wheat you have your $2.21. If the price goes up you can go and redeem the wheat by paying oft the loan, and sell it for the higher price. That is the American system.
What has been the result? The result is that it has been exceedingly profitable for the big and highly mechanized farmer to produce wheat. You see plains in Texas which were never used for that purpose before, where the soil is not suitable for the growing of wheat but where, when fertilizers are used in great quantity, wheat can be grown. And they do grow wheat on those plains, and they get a very large production of a soft variety, which is not particularly suitable for merchandising. The effect of that policy is to bring in all sorts of marginal land which, on the basis of returns at market prices, would not warrant farming for wheat. That has been the effect in the United States, and we in Canada feel the brunt of that policy.
In Canada the government does not merchandise wheat. The hon. member says that the government takes away ten cents from the farmer. Well, the farmer never had that ten cents. The farmer grows the wheat and it is marketed by the wheat board. The commissioners of the wheat board are paid by the farmers, and the report is made to the farmers. The board is advised by an advisory board which contains representatives of various farm organizations, as well as representatives of the millers, and of the users of wheat. The board is a farmer organization created to market the farmers' wheat *-and to market it to whom? To market it to everybody.
The government enters the picture when it provides financing for the wheat marketing operation. At the moment the government is guaranteeing something over a hundred million dollars in bank loans to the wheat board. It also does its best to find markets for wheat, and to create trade policies to enable markets to be found for the wheat. And, as I say, we are successful, in that, in every market of which I am aware, we have sold at least our usual proportion of the market. The difficulty is that this year, as a result of a good crop in Europe and the using up of reserve stocks, the total amount of wheat going into international trade is very much less than it has been for several years.
When the hon. member says that the government takes ten cents from the farmer he should keep in mind that the government

does not market wheat at all. The government does not have anything to do with it. It is the farmers themselves who are marketing their wheat produced in western Canada. I hope my hon. friend understands what I have said, although it may be too much to expect. But I hope he will not say again that the government is taking ten cents away from the farmers.


John Horne Blackmore: Probably the minister
expects me to be a little more intelligent than I am, although I had thought I was fairly intelligent when it comes to understanding these things. It is just a matter of getting-


An hon. Member:: Money.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, money, the most important thing to understand in the world today. And, when you want to say anything, say it so I can hear it; don't murmur in your beard so we cannot hear what you say.
Nevertheless the move made by the government-and I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce himself was the one who announced the move-of a reduction of ten cents-


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I set my hon. friend right on that?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The reduction in the price of wheat was announced by the Canadian wheat board at one minute past one on Monday, the market having closed at one. It was announced in Winnipeg; and next day I announced it in the House of Commons. So let us not say that I announce the price. I announce it only after the board has made an announcement. And I gave all that information to members of parliament so that our friends could rise and make eloquent speeches for their constituents.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At what time did the minister know the board was going to make that announcement?


John Horne Blackmore: All this I greatly appreciate. The minister will realize that I did not make one of those speeches yesterday. I am seeking to get the exact facts so that everybody understands them. Then, after that, I shall make what I consider to be appropriate comments. Nevertheless the ordinary farmer producing wheat in the United States is able to store his wheat, as I understand. The minister spoke of approved storage. Have they a serious problem of approved storage in the United States?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Very serious.


John Horne Blackmore: Quite as serious as the Canadian farmers have?
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, just the same.


John Horne Blackmore: So that there is a vast amount of wheat still on the farms?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: And no payment possible?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh well, they can sell their wheat on the Chicago grain exchange. They can do that. It does not require to be in storage for that. They just have to be prepared to deliver the grain when the contract calls for delivery.


John Horne Blackmore: On the Chicago grain exchange. Is the price on the Chicago grain exchange pretty well covered by this $2.21-


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


John Horne Blackmore: -effective guarantee?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


John Horne Blackmore: How much does it fluctuate, in a general way?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is about $1.95. It has been as low as $1.92; it has been as high as $2.40 or $2.50, but at the moment it is about 26 cents or 27 cents below the loan value of the wheat, provided that you can deliver that wheat into approved storage and provided that your total acreage does not exceed the amount that you are authorized to plant in wheat under the department of agriculture regulations.


John Horne Blackmore: Then, if the farmer has played the game according to the rules, he has pretty well that $2.21 guarantee, I would imagine. What I am saying to the minister now is based on what I read in the newspapers in the west.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It depends on what newspapers you read.


John Horne Blackmore: I read pretty well most of them. When I go into a thing I generally go into it. I am not just quite sure of this. I am sure the minister told us a number of things today that did not come out in any of the debate we had during the last three days, not that the minister was trying to conceal it in any way. At least, if these things came out I did not hear them. I am not quite clear about the farm storage. Is there any way in the world whereby farmers in the United States can have approved farm storage?


Clarence Decatur Howe: A farmer can build approved storage on his farm, get it certified by the department of agriculture, and use it just as you can build a public elevator if you want to here in Canada and

Supply-Trade and Commerce get it licensed and you can store grain. That can be done on one side of the line just as well as on the other.


John Horne Blackmore: Does the United States government help the farmers with loans at reasonable rates of interest?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: Farmers who desire so to build on their farms?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They have had programs of that kind. I think there was a program three or four years ago to assist farmers in building approved storage. We assist grain companies or groups of farmers to build approved storage; that is, to build public elevators in this country. We assist them by giving them accelerated depreciation.


John Horne Blackmore: Suppose that a farmer in a given area was unable to get his grain in a public elevator, shall we say, in the United States, and he desired to build approved storage on his farm. He is free to do that, and he would get assistance from the government to do that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I don't know.


John Horne Blackmore: I understand that something like that is the case at present, but one can never be sure when he is reading the newspapers. One can never be sure that they have just the right picture or are giving the whole picture. That is why I am asking the minister. My understanding is that there is a good deal of assistance given farmers in the matter of building on their own farms approved storage, and that once a farmer or a group of farmers in a neighbourhood have built an approved storage on their farms they can get $2.21 loan on their wheat and go on with the program that the minister has suggested. I am correct in that, now?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: So far as my understanding goes, that is so. That means that practically any farmer or any group of farmers in the United States are able to obtain approved storage in which they can store their grain, thereby qualifying for $2.21 loan. I would be correct in assuming that from what I have read? Would the minister tell me if I seem to be wrong in that respect?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If he can deliver grain into approved storage he gets the loan, as I understand it.


John Horne Blackmore: But my point is this. If there is no approved storage available nearby he can get money with which to build storage right on his farm?


Clarence Decatur Howe: He can do that in Canada, too.


John Horne Blackmore: How long has it been since a farmer in Canada could get that kind of assistance from the government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We do not-


John Horne Blackmore: Where is the farmer in Canada who can build approved storage on his farm now?


Clarence Decatur Howe: A great many farmers have built approved storage on their farms.


John Horne Blackmore: With government assistance?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government will assist at the moment by way of accelerated depreciation.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What is meant by approved storage?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The department of agriculture in the United States approved it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am talking about Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In Canada it is licensed by the board of grain commissioners.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not think the minister should say that any Canadian farmer can build approved storage, because there is no way of approving storage on his farm that I know of in the way of ordinary buildings or anything along that line. The minister is now talking about the building of country elevators.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is a different thing altogether. The minister made one statement a little while ago that I really must take exception to. He said the wheat board was a farm organization. The wheat board is no more a farm organization than the board of transport commissioners is an organization of the employees of the railway companies. It is an agency of the government. It is set out in the wheat board act, and the members of the wheat board are not appointed by the farmers; they are appointed by the government. The policy followed by the wheat board is dictated by the government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let us be accurate, Mr. Chairman. By what authority can the government dictate to the wheat board? Have you read the wheat board act?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, 1 have read the wheat board act, and I have also heard the evidence of the wheat board officials before the agriculture committee on several occasions.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Can you quote that evidence? If you have heard it you must be able to quote it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Let me finish.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let us get the
record clear as we go along.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The record is absolutely clear, Mr. Chairman. There is no question about that. A while ago the minister said that the wheat board announced this price of a drop of ten cents a bushel but that policy I am quite sure was dictated to them by the government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You are quite wrong. My hon. friend is making a false statement.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Have I the floor, Mr. Chairman?


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. The hon. member for Calgary North has the floor. The hon. member for Calgary North will admit, as other hon. members would, that it has been the habit, particularly in committee, when one hon. member thinks that another hon. member has misquoted or misinterpreted, to rise immediately and endeavour to set the record straight. He can do that only with the permission of the hon. member who has the floor.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The difficulty here is that I had not finished my statement, and the minister did not know what I was going to say. When I had made part of my statement he misinterpreted what I was saying and immediately rose to his feet and interrupted me. The point is this. I said that as far as this ten-cent drop is concerned the minister said the wheat board announced it at one minute after one o'clock, and then he announced it later in the house. I do not think he wants any of us to believe that he did not know anything about it until the wheat board announced it. As I say, as a matter of fact, I do not think there is any doubt about it, this was the policy which was adopted really by the minister and the government, no doubt on the recommendation of the wheat board.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have denied that and I deny it again.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not doubt for a minute it was on the recommendation of the wheat board. As far as policy is concerned, as I say, in the meetings of the agriculture committee, the officials indicated very clearly 83276-388J
Supply-Trade and Commerce that these policy questions are settled by the government. Every time a member asks questions of the officials of the wheat board, of Mr. Mclvor or anyone else, which impinge on matters of this sort, the answer invariably is that that is a matter of government policy and they should direct such questions to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). They say that the government announces policy and that they cannot say anything about it. One gets that sort of answer in regard to any question about future prices, the likely initial price, or interim payments. To all questions of that sort you get the answer that it is a matter of government policy and the Minister of Trade and Commerce must answer such questions and it is not for the officials of the wheat board to make any statement in that regard.
In view of that situation I think it is ridiculous for the minister to come in here' and try to persuade hon. members that the' farmers' organization makes its own rules-and decisions and it can do what it likes and" do what the farmer wants done.


An hon. Member:: One o'clock.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I have already indicated, the wheat board is an agency of the government and its policy is directed by the government, for it is the same as all other government agencies in which the policy is directed by the government.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


William Alfred Robinson: Item 438. Shall this item carry?


Edward George McCullough: Before this item carries I should like to ask the minister a question in regard to a Washington dispatch appearing in this morning's Globe and Mail where it indicates that the Eisenhower administration has apparently agreed to sell $1 billion worth of surplus farm products and in addition, according to the report, is intending to give away $300 million worth of surplus farm commodities. Does the minister care to comment on this dispatch, because apparently already the United States Senate has passed a bill which would provide for the disposal of $500 million of farm products. I should like to know whether or not the minister feels this will undermine-the price structure of Canadian farm commodities and perhaps will necessitate a further decrease in the price of wheat to Canadian farmers.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have known about the contents of the bills that are before congress for a long time. They are not dissimilar to the provisions that are in force at the present time. Naturally we do not like give-away programs in other countries, but the Americans have used these programs with great discretion. I know of no serious result to Canadian agriculture from the operation of the bills up to the present time. That is all I can say.
I should like to say a word about responsibility for fixing the prices of Canadian grain. If my hon. friend will refer to the wheat board act, and will look at section 5 of the act with regard to sale and disposal of grain, he will find that in subsection 1 it provides as follows:
Subject to regulations, the board shall sell and dispose of grain acquired by it pursuant to its operations under this act for such prices as it considers reasonable with the object of promoting the sale of grain produced in Canada in world .markets.
I hope that will dispose of that problem. The hon. member is quite right in one particular, namely that in fixing the initial price the consent of the government must be obtained because the initial price is a contract on the part of the government to pay that price throughout the year. In other words, it may involve the public purse. But the price at which grain is sold is entirely a matter for the wheat board and has been so treated by this government and, I think, all ministers of trade and commerce since I have been in the government; that is for the past nineteen years.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept that as being the case. In the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee on agriculture and colonization this year, at page 19 we see this, as the minister says. We are talking about wheat policy:
Under the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, as amended, the board administered an annual pool . . .
And so on. Then it goes on to say this:
By order in council P.C. 3381 June 23, 1952 (Canadian wheat board regulations) the initial price for wheat delivered to the board between August 1, 1952 and July 31, 1953 was established at $1.40 per bushel . . .


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is exactly what I said.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes; the minister says that is the case. Then he says they have got nothing to do with setting the price. The next thing it goes on to say is this:
Under order in council P.C. 3381 June 23, 1952 the board was required-
(Mr. McCullough' (Moose Mountain).]
And I call attention to the words "was required".
-to sell wheat for domestic use at the same price as it sold wheat for export under the terms of the international wheat agreement.
In other words, under government policy, the board was required to sell wheat at this international wheat agreement price which at that time was quite a bit below the class II price for wheat or in other words, what wheat could be sold for in the open world market so far as there was an open world market. As a result of that, of course, the farmers in western Canada had to subsidize the price of bread in Canada to the extent of the difference from time to time between the class II price and the international wheat agreement price. That situation no longer prevails but it prevailed until a comparatively short time ago. It was done under an order in council and was part of government policy. That is just one example of how the price at which the board is required by the government to sell wheat works out.
As far as the general contention I make is concerned, I do not think there is any doubt about it that this is a government board. A number of us from time to time have argued that it should be a producer-controlled board. Without going into that matter at all, there is no question that it is not a producer-controlled board. It is a government-controlled board and naturally when the government decides a matter of policy, whether it is selling price or anything else, the board, if it gets its order to do this, that or the other, has to carry it out. I do not think there need be any argument about that matter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can assure my hon. friend-I have already done so-and I hope he will take my word for it, that the board has never contravened this section of the act which provides that the board shall sell wheat at a price that they determine.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Here is a specific case where it was required by the government to sell wheat at a price less than that which could otherwise have been obtained.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the item carry?


Edward George McCullough: No,
Mr. Chairman. I think that statement of the minister must be challenged. From what he indicated before the recess at one o'clock, I gathered that the Canadian wheat board carries out a policy in its own discretion, as one might say. I think we should have a clarification of that matter. I have always felt-and I believe it is agreed-that the Canadian wheat board follows out government policy. I should like an answer from

the minister as to whether it was not the decision of the Canadian cabinet that the wheat board would lower the price by 10} cents on June 7. After all, as the hon. member for Calgary North has just stated, some of us think there should be more adequate producer representation on the Canadian wheat board. In my opinion it does not function as a producer board but rather functions as a board set up by the government to carry out government policy. I think I must challenge the minister on that statement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I can answer categorically. The price of wheat was never discussed in cabinet. I myself happened to be in the southern United States just after the cut in the United States wheat prices took place, and I was told upon my return that the wheat board had also cut its price. That was the first I had heard of it. I assure you that the price of wheat is never discussed in council. If I am around, I am usually told in advance as a matter of courtesy. But certainly it is never a matter of government decision.


Edward George McCullough: I accept-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Do not argue about that, because I have told you a fact.


Edward George McCullough: I accept the minister's statement, Mr. Chairman. However, I should like to ask him if the advisory committee which has been set up and which has among its personnel some what might be termed farm representation, convened or met when the Canadian wheat board lowered the price of wheat?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the item carry?


John Horne Blackmore: No, Mr. Chairman. It is a fairly safe assumption, as the hon. member for Moose Mountain has indicated, that the farmers did not ask the wheat board to cut the price. Consequently, when the wheat board acted, it was not acting as an agent of the farmers, under the direction of the farmers. Well, if the wheat board acted upon its own authority and responsibility, then it acted on that responsibility realizing that in so doing it would be responsible to parliament through the appropriate minister who in this case is the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister tell me where there is anything wrong with that reasoning? I think he will have to agree that is absolutely correct.
When I first rose I asked if it were not true that the American farmer was getting
Supply-Trade and Commerce $2.21 a bushel, that he was being helped by the people of the United States generally to the extent of 50 cents a bushel on all wheat going into the export market. The minister can hardly question the accuracy of that statement. Of course he went into a lot of details; but nevertheless, fundamentally and basically, without all the frills, that is a statement of fact.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can give my hon. friend a statement of fact. He did not mention the export market when he asked if farmers in the United States were getting $2.21 a bushel. If he had asked whether wheat going into the export market was subsidized to that extent, I would have said yes.	_


John Horne Blackmore: There must have been something left out in my wording because it certainly was in my mind to ask just that. What I wish to make perfectly clear to all the Canadian people east and west and in every direction, if it is not clear to them, is that the United States farmer is receiving essentially $2.21 a bushel for wheat while the Canadian farmer has now been cut to $1.72} per bushel, if I remember the fraction correctly. Practically every person who has ever been in the United States knows that the cost of production is lower there than it is in Canada. Practically everyone knows that the cost of living, the cost of commodities generally, with some exceptions, is lower there than it is in Canada. That is all that is necessary to show what shameful discrimination has been practised against producers of wheat on the Canadian side of the line contrasted with what is given producers of wheat on the United States side of the line. That is the first matter.
I should like to go on to the question of keeping our price competitive. From what I have read it is true that all the farm organizations, all the newspapers in the west, the grain handling companies, wheat pools and others are behind the minister when he says that Canadian wheat must be kept competitive on the world market. The minister is backed by the people in that respect. I am not saying that is not necessary but I am going to raise this question. Suppose that all the wheat that Canada is going to sell in the next six months is 150 million bushels. I think the minister will be quite happy if he can sell as much as that. All that was necessary in order to keep the price of that wheat competitive was to provide an export subsidy of 10 cents or 10} cents per bushel on that wheat. In other words, there was no

Supply-Trade and Commerce reason at all for cutting the price domestically in Canada or cutting the price of wheat in our elevators or on our farms. All we needed was to pay an export subsidy.
I wonder whether the minister would question that. If we had provided an export subsidy in the same way that the United States did we could have kept the price of Canadian wheat right where it was a month ago and could have still made our wheat as competitive in the world market as it is today. Is that not so?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government of Canada with the consent of parliament can give $15 million to any class of people it likes; but I cannot imagine just why it should give $15 million to people who, we were told in the house, are enjoying the most prosperous period in their history. We are told by our socialist friends that Saskatchewan, for instance, was never more prosperous, and I believe it. In my opinion that is a fact that does not need denying. Just why we would pick out the wheat growers of Saskatchewan to give $15 million of the taxpayers' money to, I do not know. Perhaps my hon. friend would elaborate on that when he carries on with his questioning.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes. The minister's hon. friend will elaborate on several things before he gets done. I am perfectly prepared to do so. I gather from what the minister said that if the Canadian government had seen fit to give an export subsidy of 10 cents a bushel on wheat going into export it could have kept Canada's wheat price competitive without lowering the price of wheat anywhere in Canada. I think the minister will agree with that. The question he raised was whether or not Canada could or should do it. I will deal with that in a minute, but let it be known and recognized throughout Canada that our wheat could have been kept competitive by an export subsidy which would not have had to be paid on the hundreds and hundreds of millions of bushels that are in store in Canada, but only on that portion going into the export market.
That is the first thing to get perfectly clear. If all our producers really realized that, I am not so sure that they would be entirely behind the minister's device in respect of keeping Canada's wheat competitive on the world market. I want to draw the minister's attention to this consideration:	We have the Bank of Canada.
The reasons for having the Bank of Canada are numerous, but I gather that money could have been borrowed from the Bank of Canada by the government to grant that export subsidy. It could have been borrowed at no cost
{Mr. Blackmore.]
to the government because even if it were borrowed at interest the interest paid by the government would have gone back into the Bank of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Funny money.


John Horne Blackmore: Never mind a lot of nonsense! Remember, what we are doing now is not funny. By the time wheat goes away down in the price war with various nations of the world it will be anything but funny. Incidentally, is there any reason for calling Bank of Canada money "funny"? If there is, we had better revise the Bank of Canada Act. The point is that exactly the same money that is coming out of the Bank of Canada today would be used. Is there any reason why such borrowing could not have been done? If there is, let some of the wiseacres whom I hear having something to say get up and explain. Personally I think there is no technical or economic reason why that could not have been done.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think my hon. friend is perhaps the only man in Canada who understands this debt-free money. The rest of us think money is something that has to be earned, is hard to get and is a valuable commodity. My hon. friend does not think so, but I do not think we can settle that today.


John Horne Blackmore: You see, the minister is quibbling. He is trying to sidestep the issue.


Mr. Mclvor:: No.


John Horne Blackmore: The simple fact is that every dollar that comes out of the Bank of Canada in the regular way is a sound dollar according to Canadian standards. If the millions of dollars that would be necessary to provide an export subsidy on the price of Canadian exported wheat in order to keep it competitive in the world market were created by, and taken out of, the Bank of Canada, every dollar would be sound. I challenge the minister or anyone else in the house or in the country to prove it would not be sound.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member is free to prove it and I will challenge him to prove it.


An hon. Member:: Who?


John Horne Blackmore: Anybody, yourself or fifteen like you. This is the matter that faces us. This is the problem we have got to settle. It is just as simple as that. Now, we say that money has to be earned, and yet it must be granted that the banks create money! Surely, the minister knows that.

Certainly, he knows it, and for years and years in Canada when wheat harvesting and marketing time came, the banks were empowered to expand their money, to print $5 bills, $10 bills, $50 bills and $100 bills, to buy that wheat and put it into the export market. No one will question that who knows about banking at all.


An hon. Member:: Carried.


John Horne Blackmore: I know the hon. member would like to see the item carried. He would like to get this hot potato off his hands. What has been the procedure for generations in this country could certainly have been employed in dealing with this matter of subsidizing exports and we would have been saved the enormous losses which have already been suffered in the last few days all across western Canada.
Now, the next thing I should like-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suggest that my hon. friend might take that considerably further. I do not see why he just associates that kind of money with wheat alone. Why not associate it with everything?


John Horne Blackmore: With what?


Clarence Decatur Howe: With every transaction as well as wheat; why not remove the necessity for suffering or struggling or any cause for discomfort? Why not use this money created by the Bank of Canada?


John Horne Blackmore: Because the Bank of
Canada could not safely create money beyond the productive capacity of the nation, beyond the goods and services that are in the nation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: A man who does not work still has productive capacity. Why should he not be granted the benefit of this great discovery?


John Horne Blackmore: All of this is sensible questioning we will grant, but the simple fact is there are in Canada millions of people who are working and willing to work and who are producing goods in great quantity. They have produced so much we are now laying them off by the thousands and saying we do not need them any more. Let the minister answer that. Out in the west we have wheat to such an extent the government does not know what to do with it. There is no difficulty of getting the goods produced. The goods are right there, not only the wheat but a great many other commodities. Bearing that in mind there is just no way in the world of economically explaining why the Bank of Canada could not be used to pay such export subsidy on Canadian wheat as will enable the government to keep it on a competitive basis in the world market.
Supply-Trade and Commerce
There is one more thing I wish to mention, and that is the matter of farm storage and the payment for wheat stored on the farm. I have said already-in fact, I think I will read what I said in the committee concerning what I think of the government's policy in dealing with wheat this year, and what I think of the wheat board-that the wheat board, in my opinion, has done a magnificent job. Here are my words, as I read them from page 140 of the minutes of the agriculture and colonization committee of this year:
Even if it were, what would it indicate? I think personally that while it is fine to be critical, it is fine to be appreciative. As far as I am concerned I think that the wheat board has done a magnificent job.
Now, that is what I said about the wheat board. Two pages later on I made this statement:
When I said a few minutes ago that X thought the wheat board had done a magnificent job, I did not mean by that that I expressed approval of the way the government has managed the wheat situation in the west this year.
Then farther down, I said:
Under the conditions that now prevail, what the government has done in making farmers provide storage at their own expense and then hold the grain with no reward whatsoever, and in preventing them from receiving the money that they have already earned 18 months ago, is simply an outrage which cannot be expressed.
I just wanted to make that quite clear. A few minutes ago I think it was made quite clear that in the United States any man who desires to provide acceptable farm storage on his own farm can obtain money to do so and receive $2.21 a bushel for his wheat. If a similar privilege were extended to Canadians, you would find acceptable storage on a large percentage of Canadian farms and payment to farmers for wheat stored on farms and we would soon have a recurrence of prosperity in the country.
Where would the money come from to enable the farmers to build those bins and to be paid for that wheat therein stored? There is no reason under the sun why that could not come out of the Bank of Canada. When the minister thinks he can explain that away, and not just try to laugh it off or quibble it off, but explain it in a genuinely responsible manner such as we have a right to expect, then we shall be getting somewhere. Why could the Bank of Canada not be used to finance the building of suitable storage on the farms of western Canada to enable the farmers to receive the $2.21 or, in Canada, the price prevailing on June 6? We have not asked for as much as the United States farmer receives. But perhaps our farmers could receive the price prevailing in August of last year.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
I hope that is fully understood. No matter how any person may be disposed to look at the problem now, I ask him to contrast the possible effect of these measures I suggest in Canada with what might happen if you had a genuine price war. Remember, the Argentine has been subsidizing wheat export for some time. The United States gave as a reason for her move the fact that the Argentine was subsidizing many of her farmers' exports. Where does the Argentine get the money to subsidize exports for her farmers, when Canada cannot? It was said to be a fact that she was selling so much wheat in foreign countries, the United States was forced to do something. Just suppose that continues? Australia has already lowered her price. And suppose this price cutting practice extends all over the world. Suppose Russia enters the field and begins to subsidize grain so as to put it on the export market? This thing could go on until the price of wheat went down to $1.25 a bushel or some similar price. Just imagine what that could do to the Canadian economy, if it goes farther than that, as it could very well do, with the world wheat supply in surplus. Those are things which we have to bear in mind before we decide whether or not the government has adopted a wise policy.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I shall leave the rest to the future. No one except the people in this house, so far as I know, and certainly no one in western Canada has anything but the gravest anxiety over this whole situation; the effect which a fall like that could have on our industry all through Ontario and Quebec is a terror to contemplate.


Edward George McCullough: I should like to comment on the statements made by the minister, particularly the question as to why the Canadian government should pay a ten-cent subsidy to western farmers at a cost of somewhere around $15 million. I believe that such a statement might well provoke a 40-minute speech from a member coming from the prairies. However, I just want to say that this problem has been debated for the last two days, and I have no intention of reiterating what I said during that debate.
The minister said also that those of us coming from Saskatchewan have intimated that we have had one of the highest periods of prosperity in our history. Well, that is probably true, but in the last two years our cash income from agriculture in the prairies has decreased by some 30 per cent.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Where, in the
prairies?
[Mr. Blackmore.l


Edward George McCullough: In
addition to that we have had a situation where the farmer's costs have been going up and his cash income has been going down. We have not the complete picture for the last year, in the fiscal period ending March 31, but I am sure when the information is available we will find again that the cash income to the agricultural producers has decreased. Nevertheless I do point out that the western farmers during the period of control, when we were selling to the wheat board after 1943, could have enjoyed higher prices, but were content to take the stabilized price for wheat. And we have always agreed to that sort of bargain. We do not want high prices, but we do feel that when there are large stocks of wheat, then the producers in western Canada should be protected.
Then I might say the minister's statement that the wheat board operates and sets policy without consultation with the government will be found nothing less than completely astounding not only to Canadians generally but to western farm organizations who have always felt, I believe, that the wheat board did operate under and carry out government policy.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just to keep the record straight I might say that last year the returns to the farmers of western Canada for wheat, oats and barley were the highest in history.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I cannot
allow to go unchallenged the minister's statement that the farmers of western Canada are better off now than ever before. The Minister of Agriculture made that statement in a long and specious speech in which he tried to substantiate it, when his estimates were introduced. That statement is not correct. All we have to do to show that it is not correct-that, indeed, the very reverse is true-is to look at the budget figures produced by the Minister of Finance. If we turn to page 3760 of Hansard we find that the net income received by farm operators from farm production in 1951 was $2,142 million and that in 1953 it was $1,642 million, or an even $500 million less than in 1951.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does my hon.
friend suggest he is referring to the prairies?


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is for all the farmers
in Canada; but there has been a bigger loss on the prairies than there has been in the eastern part of Canada-
Mr. Hows 'Port Arthur):	That is your
statement.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -so far as farming is concerned. In 1952 the net income was down to $1,909 million, which is exactly $267 million more than was received last year, in 1953. In other words, in one year-1953- the farmers were worse off to the extent of $500 million, or roughly 25 per cent, than they were in 1951, and $267 million worse off than they were in 1952.
Since that time the price of grain has been going down. There is no question that the returns to farmers this year will be considerably down from the figure of $1,642 million last year. Therefore any statement that farmers in western Canada are better off now than they have ever been before is absolutely ridiculous, and the figures put out by the Minister of Finance show that it is ridiculous.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has used as his authority for the statement something said by the Saskatchewan government. Any statement made by the Saskatchewan government-made, no doubt, to boost their position with the people of Saskatchewan; made, in other words, for political reasons- is about the worst argument the minister could use to support a statement in the House of Commons. I am surprised he would use it in trying to support a completely untenable position.


Mr. Quelch:: Mr. Chairman, I notice that the federation of agriculture for the three western provinces has asked the minister to make a statement with regard to the initial payment. Perhaps I should read what appears in the Manitoba Co-operator. It says:
The federations of agriculture of the three prairie provinces June 9 asked the federal government to indicate immediately that Canada does not intend to participate in a "fire sale" of wheat. It can make this clear to the world, the federations believe, by making an immediate announcement that the initial price for the 1954 wheat crop will be maintained at $1.40.
Does the minister consider that there would be any objection to making a statement of that kind? It would certainly relieve the anxiety.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I replied to that wire from Mr. Ball, although I forget exactly what I said. My hon. friend perhaps was not in his seat this morning when I explained in some detail why it was not wise to make a statement at this time. Seeding is already or shortly will be completed. It would not influence planting, and I think it is in the interests of the producers to be sure that as many as possible of the facts are in the hands of the government before initial prices are set. Nothing will be gained by setting a price before midnight of July 31, 1954; but 83276-389
Supply-Trade and Commerce we intend to set a price before then. The later we wait, the more facts we will have to give us a basis for that price.


Mr. Ferguson:: I have listened to the debate which has taken place in the last two days. I hope this is not a repetition of the old familiar music that preceded what happened after 1930 in the Dominion of Canada.
On every hand we have an abundance of everything. People want to work, and they are willing to pay. They are willing to give service for what they receive. During the war we spent hundreds of millions of dollars for munitions. Today we have an abundance of wheat we do not know how to dispose of. The province of Ontario is teeming with foodstuffs in all the fields, east, north and south. Our cattle are standing up to their knees in lush pasture. Beef prices have dropped by 35 per cent. People are unemployed across Canada. The shipyards at Collingwood and at Midland are virtually closed down. What is the cause of all this?
Let us pray to God that what we are seeing now is not a repetition of the thirties. Let the Canadian people dispose of their heavy surplus, rather than let it rot and deteriorate. We threw our munitions away; we got rid of them, and put them to the use we thought was proper. Let us give some of our surplus away to a starving world. Let smiles come to the faces of Canadians when they think of their action in disposing of their surplus. Let them do something of which they can be justly proud. There are people who need these foods we have in such abundance.
Our trouble in Canada is that of getting rid of what we produce. How the communists must smile when they look west of the iron curtain to the North American continent! How they must smile when they see us sitting here in parliament, worrying and fretting about how to keep our people going in all walks of life! This applies not only to the western wheat farmer. Surely the simplest method in the world would be to get rid of that surplus for the benefit of those who need it, and get back to a position where we can produce again from the fertile land with which God has blessed this country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian government elevators-
440. Operation and maintenance expenses, $1,380,542.
Howard Charles Green: Would the minister explain the situation at the port of Vancouver in two particulars. When he spoke on February 18 outlining a change in the price of wheat it was indicated that the price at Fort William-Port Arthur would be lower than that at Vancouver. One of the arguments he used in

Supply-Trade and Commerce support of that policy was the fact that the port of Vancouver was working at full capacity. As reported at page 2197 of Hansard we find him saying-
While the port of Vancouver has heen working to full capacity-
And so on.
When he had completed his remarks I asked him whether the government had in contemplation any extension of the grain handling facilities at Vancouver. His reply was as follows:
I have had no information of any contemplated increase in facilities.
Yesterday I asked the same question of the Minister of Transport when a vote for the national harbours board was under consideration. My question is reported at page 6087 of Hansard. I asked this question:
Then I understand the board is making no recommendation whatever for any increase in grain handling facilities at Vancouver; is that right?


Mr. Chevrier:: There has been no recommendation made to me for that purpose.
From these two answers I take it that there is no intention of increasing the grain handling facilities at Vancouver at least in the near future. I believe that the people of that city are worried about that fact, particularly in view of the statement made by the minister in February that the port was being worked to capacity. Mind you, there were expressions to the contrary by different people on the coast, but I am not in a position to know whether the minister's statement is entirely accurate or not.
That brings up one other question I would ask him to deal with today. I refer to this new policy of setting a different price at Vancouver from that at Fort William and Port Arthur. In answer to a question asked on March 1, which is to be found aV'page 2520 of Hansard, the parliamentary assistant set out that this policy of having an equal price on the west coast and at the lake-head had been effective from September 27, 1943, to February 16, 1954, which of course was the date on which the minister announced the change in policy. On the coast we have always understood that it would be set government policy to maintain the same price both east and west; but when the minister was questioned on it on February 22, as found at page 2303 of Hansard he said:
The purpose was to equalize prices at destination-
In other words, no longer at Vancouver and at Fort William and Port Arthur, but at destination.
-and that will be the purpose in the future.
I should like the minister to make it clear today whether or not that is government

policy; whether this new course is to be followed in the future. I believe there has been some decrease in the difference between the two prices since the change was made in February, but we should like to know whether the government intends to follow the plan of keeping equalized prices at destination rather than at Vancouver and at the lakehead.
I point out to the minister that it is a much longer haul from the west coast to the United Kingdom. It takes far longer to get the grain around, and that of course is a handicap for us. It is very difficult for anyone on the west coast to see any justice in fixing a lower price at Fort William and Port Arthur than is set at Vancouver. To us it looks like a pretty clear case of discrimination.
I hold in my hand an editorial from the Vancouver Sun. The Sun of course is a Liberal paper. The minister smiles. As it happens, I have to run in the city where the Sun is published and at election time it certainly is a strong government supporter. I must admit that it is an outstanding paper, one of the finest papers in the country, and is not afraid to take a stand against the government when it thinks the interests of Vancouver are at stake. That has been its history as long as I can remember and I give the paper great credit for it. Here is this editorial in the issue of February 19, 1954. It is headed:
Wheat price-rigging aimed to kill port grain trade.
Incidentally, all three Vancouver papers have come out and have taken the same stand on this question.
The Sun detects an eastern conspiracy to deprive the port of Vancouver of its geographical advantages in the grain trade. We call upon the provincial government and every business organization in British Columbia to demand redress.
Eight Hon. C. D. Howe told the Commons yesterday-
This was the day after the minister's first announcement. I continue:
-that the federal government has cut the price of grain at lakehead and east coast ports "to equalize grain movements".
In plainer language this means that the government is rigging prices to divert business away from Vancouver. Prices will remain high enough at Vancouver so that it will no longer be cheaper to ship from here by water than to pay high freight rates on the long rail haul to the eastern seaboard.
Commons heard Mr. Howe explain that the United Kingdom has been buying all its wheat at Vancouver and shipping it through the Panama canal.
Obviously the federal government couldn't fill in the Panama canal-so it's done the next best thing. It's made a price differential in favour of the east to enable the United Kingdom to buy at Montreal or Halifax at the same delivered cost. And get quicker delivery too.

This is just about the most barefaced piece of discriminatory manipulation that could be conceived.
These are pretty hard words from a friend. I continue:
Why in the name of a united nation shouldn't Vancouver be permitted to perform the economic job for which nature fitted her?
Then the Sun went on to deal with those statements that no more grain could be handled at Vancouver and therefore the price had to be lowered at Fort William and Port Arthur so that the over-all sales of Canadian wheat would not be kept down.
The Sun puts no credence in the excuse that ''Canada has been losing business because Vancouver shipping facilities were plugged."
If that was the real reason the government could easily remedy it. It could instruct the national harbours board which runs the port of Vancouver, to build enough facilities to handle the traffic. Perhaps some artificial stimulation of the eastward business might be justified in the interval while the unplugging was proceeding. But that would have been a temporary measure to ease a temporary difficulty.
The government doesn't contemplate that at all. Mr. Howe says not a word about increasing the handling capacity of this port and not a word to suggest that the discrimination isn't permanent.
The Vancouver Sun worked and fought for twenty years to develop Vancouver as a world grain centre.
As a matter of fact it was many years before the people on the west coast could persuade the rest of the Canadians that wheat could be shipped through the Panama canal.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was not one of
them; I was building elevators there in 1916.


Mr. Sinclair:: And good elevators, too.


Howard Charles Green: I hope the minister will now be able to persuade his colleagues in the government to get back to the policy of having the same price at the two points.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister did not discriminate against Fort William.


Howard Charles Green: I continue:
We were among the first to recognize Burrard inlet as the natural funnel through which must flow the produce of Alberta and western Saskatchewan farms.
We were told that wheat going through the Panama canal would be ruined because it was down near the tropics, and all this sort of bunk, in order to prevent the wheat being shipped from the west coast. I continue:
Now that the prosperous trade has been built up Vancouver simply can't permit the flow to be dammed at its source either by eastern influence or at the caprice of a government wheat marketing monopoly.
The wording of that editorial of course is very strong, but it represents the feeling of
Supply-Trade and Commerce the great majority of the people on the coast, no matter what their political allegiance may be.
If this policy of setting a different price at Fort William and Port Arthur as compared with Vancouver is merely temporary, then I can see not a great deal of reason to complain. But what does worry me is whether or not it is to be the permanent policy. It seems to me that if this is to be permanent policy it fails to take into consideration the fact of the longer time required in getting grain from the west coast to the United Kingdom, which is a drawback in the minds of the buyers in the latter country, and it fails to take into consideration the geographical facts of this nation. The original policy, I think, was the correct one. The price should be the same at Vancouver and at the lakehead. I hope the minister can assure us that that policy is to be continued and that the change made this spring was only of a temporary nature. Perhaps the minister can deal with the two points I have mentioned.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend is entirely confused. The present policy at ports is covered by legislation as provided in the Canadian Wheat Board Act. It provides that the initial price for the delivery of grain at Fort William, Port Arthur, Vancouver, and Churchill will be the same. That covers the price on the delivery of the farmers' grain to the ports only. There has never been a policy of selling at the same price out of these ports. Those selling prices have always been different and the difference has been the amount the traffic would bear and it relates to the competitive price of wheat out of these ports.
At the time we revised the wheat price there was a premium of ten cents per bushel on barley out of Pacific coast ports, and whenever Churchill opened we got a very substantial premium on wheat out of the port of Churchill. Usually we made an adjustment on wheat when a premium was warranted and we would hold the price at Fort William and put a premium on at Vancouver. Since we had been selling heavily out of Vancouver which is a port where grain can be handled for transit for a much longer period, we did not think the condition of the market was such that it would warrant putting a premium on at Vancouver and charging that premium on the sale of wheat to Japan and South American countries.
We felt that the demands of the market were such that a cut in price at Fort William, holding the Vancouver price steady, would be the best way to make an adjustment, rather than to hold the price at Fort William

Supply-Trade and Commerce and put a premium on the grain out of Vancouver, although one is much the same as the other.
I know of no continued policy for the selling price of wheat out of these various ports in Canada on a uniform basis. I know that the delivery price of the farmers' grain to these ports is uniform. That is provided in the wheat board act. But certainly the same shipping price out of these ports is not warranted. Let us suppose that we make Vancouver the only port and say that Fort William and Port Arthur are obsolete, and we move all the wheat through Vancouver. What would be the effect on the producers? At the present time the producer in Regina is paid an initial price of $1.40 less freight to Fort William. If Fort William was closed he would be paid the initial price less the freight to Vancouver, which would be a very much larger deduction. Now, let us take the situation at Winnipeg. The initial price there would be $1.40 less freight to Vancouver, which would certainly eat up the 40 cents and probably a bit more. We are accepting eastern grain at Vancouver at the present time to relieve congestion, but normally we cannot accept grain at Regina for shipment to Vancouver at a price based on the Fort William delivery of $1.40 less freight. We cannot accept grain on the basis of Fort William and then ship that grain to Vancouver at a very much higher freight rate. It may be good for the producer at Vancouver but it certainly is not good for the producers as a whole to sell grain at a price that is not warranted by the physical facts.
My hon. friend will therefore see that the only practical way in which to market wheat in Canada is to use all the ports based on the greater return given to the farmer and to prevent that return being swallowed up in freight rates. It is necessary to keep the ports competitive. They always have been kept competitive and they cannot operate otherwise. As long as we have a condition in this country under which it is to the advantage of the buyers abroad to buy all the grain out of one port, then we will have to sell all the grain out of one port and be prepared to make uneconomic hauls inside Canada. There is an extraordinary situation this year and because of that the people of Vancouver are complaining they are being discriminated against, but they have handled 25 per cent more grain through their port than ever before in history. If that constitutes discrimination, then it is a very strange form, and if I were a Vancouverite I would hope that that kind of discrimination would continue.
[Mr. Howe (Port Arthur).)


Howard Charles Green: I would like to point out to the minister that I think he is in error about the amount of grain handled through Vancouver. I believe they have handled more this year than last but I do not believe it equals the record of grain handled in the best crop year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, yes.


Howard Charles Green: That is not the information I have. It is higher than it was last year but at one time the port of Vancouver handled over 100 million bushels.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This year it has already handled 100 million bushels, -which is 25 million bushels ahead of last year, at this time, and this year they will handle at least 135 million.


Howard Charles Green: Well, if they do handle 135 million that will not be anything like double-


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not enough? Tell that to the C.C.F.


Howard Charles Green: The minister should not get annoyed and try to kick me around, because I will not take it from him. He can try it on some other hon. members. I am asking questions in a perfectly-


Clarence Decatur Howe: You are making
statements.


Howard Charles Green: -straightforward manner, and I do not intend to be kicked around. That is not the way we make progress in this house. On February 18 the minister said this, as reported at page 2197 of Hansard:
It has been our policy to price our wheat for export the same at all three points.
That was a statement of policy made by the minister. The minister walked into this house with a written statement and it therefore was not a case of speaking off the cuff.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What is the date?


Howard Charles Green: This was a statement made by the minister on change of price on February 18 of this year. He read that statement to this house.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What was the
date?


Howard Charles Green: February 18, 1954, at page 2197 of Hansard, and the part which I have quoted will be found in the second paragraph. The first half of the paragraph reads as follows:
The new prices that have been issued do not really represent a lowering of the prices. We have three marketing points. One is Vancouver, another is Fort William-Port Arthur and the third is Churchill. It has been our policy to price our wheat for export the same at all three points.
Either the statement the minister made then was wrong or the statement he made

today is wrong, and I would like him to clarify the situation because this is of vital importance to those of us who represent the west coast. I would like to know from the minister which statement is correct.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have found the reference and it must have been in relation to the current period and not over the years, because we have had premiums on wheat out of Vancouver. We have had premiums on wheat out of Vancouver because we could sell it higher at Vancouver than out of Fort William. That has happened within my recollection. I think that what that statement refers to was that at that time we were selling wheat at the same price out of Vancouver. Although strangely enough there was a ten-cent premium on barley shipped at that time out of Vancouver. As I mentioned, there was a correction. There is no seven cent spread today. The price has been adjusted in order to make the wheat from the two ports competitive in the British market.


Howard Charles Green: Well, that is why I think it is unfair. The wheat legislation all refers to prices at Vancouver or at Fort William-Port Arthur.


Clarence Decatur Howe: These are the farmers' prices.


Howard Charles Green: That can be found throughout all the legislation. It has always been the same and on the same basis the minister's parliamentary assistant, in giving the written answer to which I referred, confirmed the policy contained in the minister's statement on February 18. The parliamentary assistant to the minister, in giving the written answer to which I referred, confirmed the policy which I read from the minister's own statement of February 18. These were the questions asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia and the answers given:
Wheat-Prices at Vancouver and Fort William


Mr. Argue:: 1.	When did the Canadian wheat board first establish the price for wheat at Vancouver on the same basis as at Fort William-Port Arthur?
2.	Has the wheat board selling price for wheat basis Vancouver exceeded the selling price basis Fort William-Port Arthur?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	September 27, 1943.
2.	Yes. Since February 16, 1954.
So the minister's own department has given an answer that there has been a difference in the price only since February 16 of this year, two days before the minister made his statement. Obviously the policy has been changed. The minister may speak about the premium on barley-I do not know anything
Supply-Trade and Commerce about that-but so far as wheat is concerned, the policy of this government has been that the price should be the same at these two exporting centres. I hope the minister can assure us that that will continue to be the policy once this temporary difficulty is over.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The explanation is that the date he has given, namely, September, 1943, was the date on which the wheat board took over all stocks of grains in Canada and sold them as stocks owned by the compulsory pool. At that time wheat was at the maximum under the agreement. We could not sell above the price in the agreement to agreement countries. We were selling higher to class II countries. If he would look at class II prices at that date, he would find that there was a premium. But selling at the maximum rate under the agreement,, wheat could be sold at either port regardless: of the differential in freights and otherwise. That is the reason why the price was held. When we came off the ceiling, when wheat was no longer competitive at the ceiling, then we had to make the ports competitive in order to allow them to function. I think that is the explanation.


Howard Charles Green: From now on the price is not to be kept the same at Vancouver and at the lakehead?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not necessarily. The price will be higher at Vancouver or it probably will be higher if ocean freights go down; or it may be higher if ocean freights are very low, as they are today. In any event, it will be competitive so that grain which normally moves on a freight rate favourable to Vancouver will continue to be sold from the port of Vancouver, and vice versa.


Howard Charles Green: What about the grain handling facilities in Vancouver?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Vancouver is a port open the year round. It does not require great storage facilities. I should like to see another few million bushels of storage there, although this year-which, as I say, has been a record year for the port of Vancouver- we have had no difficulty at all with storage. The purpose of additional storage would be to take care of slides in the mountains or interruptions of transport in one way or another. However, our stocks at Vancouver have been kept steady, at least about 12 million bushels. Normal stocks in Vancouver are about 8 million bushels, which is a good cushion having regard to the business we do there. At the moment there seems to be no present need for additional capacity at Vancouver.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister stated that the price which it was laid down in the grain act-I think it is in the wheat board act- should be the same at all three ports, is the price paid to the farmer. Actually, however, the price paid to the farmer is the Fort William price less the freight.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, no.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is certainly the case in Alberta.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, no.


Douglas Scott Harkness: When I take my grain into the elevator-and it has always been that way-the price I receive is the price minus the freight to Fort William. That is the price to the farmer. That has always been the case. They never take off what the freight is to Vancouver. It is the Fort William price minus the freight to Fort William. In other words, the whole thing is directed in the way * of Fort William-Port Arthur and it works to the advantage of the Manitoba and Saskatchewan farmers as compared with the Alberta farmers, actually.
The minister said that if you had the price the same at Vancouver and you took the freight from some place in Manitoba or in eastern Saskatchewan off that price, these people in Manitoba and Saskatchewan would be at a great disadvantage or that they would suffer. That is quite correct. But that is the position we in Alberta have been in right along. Our natural shipping point is Vancouver. I do not think there has ever been any year that all the grain we produced in Alberta went to Vancouver. As a matter of fact, from the cost point of view I think the breaking point is somewhere along the Alberta-Saskatchewan border. It is cheaper to ship from that point east. It is cheaper to ship to Vancouver from approximately the Alberta-Saskatchewan border or a little way inside Saskatchewan. For all Alberta and a small part of western Saskatchewan it is cheaper to ship west. Nevertheless, not all of the grain by any means in that area has always gone to Vancouver. A good deal of it has always gone east. As I say, the price that the farmer receives in Alberta is the Fort William price less the freight. If we could get the Vancouver price less freight we would always have been better off. As I say, the thing has always been pointed in the direction of Fort William-Port Arthur to the disadvantage of Vancouver and to the disadvantage of the Alberta farmers as compared with farmers in the other two prairie provinces.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I think my hon. friend will find that he is wrong. If he
fMr. Howe (Port Arthur).]
is in the area where there are preferable rates to Vancouver, his grain will have the advantage of that lower rate, even though the grain goes to Fort William. During the war years when there was not so much grain moving to Vancouver, the grain in western Alberta was sold on the basis of the freight rate from the shipping point to Vancouver, even though the grain went to Fort William. The minister earlier included Churchill with Fort William, Port Arthur and Vancouver, as I understood him. There is on the order paper Bill No. 441, which I understand the minister is not supporting and which would put Churchill in the same position as Vancouver, Fort William and Port Arthur. I wonder whether the minister would be good enough to check his remarks when he is reading to see whether he said that-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe the minister has changed his mind.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -or whether he just anticipates that Bill No. 441 is going to pass so that the farmers in the area where there is a preferred rate to Churchill would be in the same position as are the farmers in western Alberta who have the advantage of the lower rate from the shipping point to Vancouver, even although the wheat may go to Fort William or Port Arthur.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend has scored twice. He has pointed out an error on the part of the hon. member for Calgary North and he has pointed out an error on the part of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Of course the price at any point in Alberta is based on $1.40 less the freight to Vancouver.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then I have been badly gypped every time I have sold grain.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Grain shipped to Churchill is subject to the Fort William price less freight. We have debated that point here. Churchill is not a delivery point. If wheat were selling at the maximum, we could not get more for wheat than the maximum under the agreement. We could not get more for I.W.A. wheat at Churchill than we are getting at Fort William or at Vancouver. But the price of grain in the country is not based on the Churchill price. My hon. friend is quite right.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I can see a considerable change coming. When the St. Lawrence-great lakes waterway is opened Vancouver will have to look out.


Victor Quelch: I wonder whether the minister can tell us what the effect of the 7-cent cut was upon the competitive position between

Canada and the United States of America? In other words, could that have had any effect upon the United States of America making a reduction of 10 cents?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The American prices at their ports were out of line as were ours. When we cut the Fort William price 7 cents, they cut the price delivered at a few ports along the Atlantic seaboard, possibly New York and Baltimore.


Victor Quelch: That is at the time we made the 7-cent cut?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: 
Clarence Decatur Howe: The price at Vancouver in spite of the cut, which is now 6 cents, is still a more attractive price if shipped from Vancouver, but there is a time element that more or less balances and then there is a slight difference in the quality of the wheat, Manitoba wheat as against Alberta wheat.


Edward George McCullough: What government elevators at the lakehead are loaned or rented to private companies? Can the minister give us some details as to the contracts with these companies, the revenue received and the reason why the government does not operate these elevators under government control?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is only one elevator owned by the government at the lakehead which is leased to private interests. That is the government elevator near the boundary between Port Arthur and Fort William. It is in Port Arthur. The reason it is leased to the private trade is the old matter of diversions. The government had no country elevators, no collecting points for grain for its own elevator and to get grain it had to pay diversion charges to country elevator interests that were in a position to supply grain. It was found more profitable for the government, and there seemed to be no purpose in doing otherwise, to lease the elevator to a grain company that had its own system of country elevators, and that has been done. It has been leased for the past twenty-five years, I believe.


Edward George McCullough: Would the minister indicate the name of the company and the revenue received?
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Clarence Decatur Howe: The McCabe
Grain Company. The lease is for ten years. The basic fee is $75,000 a year. In addition, the lessee has to pay a quarter of a cent per bushel on the excess over 9 million bushels received, the lessee has to pay 7-6 pe; cent on capital expenditures, the lessee has to provide the insurance, the lessee has to pay taxes, rates and assessments and the lessor has to pay for maintenance expenses.


Edward George McCullough: The
answer of the minister would seem to indicate that the construction of this elevator by the government has not on an amortized basis brought in any revenue or that the contract is one resulting in a profit to the government. Is that true?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The elevator was amortized years ago. It was built in 1913, over forty years ago. It is the first elevator I ever worked on. The simple fact is that in recent years the government was never able to net as much as $75,000 a year by operating the elevator on its own account.


Edward George McCullough: At this period in our history we are making certain efforts to safeguard our people and our economy in case of a future war. We are spending a lot of public money on civil defence, and in my opinion, inasmuch as it would be one of the main things that would affect our people, perhaps attention should be given to the distribution of storage of our Canadian wheat. When I think how vulnerable we would be with the government having only three main storage centres for our stocks of wheat it seems to me rather important that consideration be given to storage by the government in various sections of the country. If the government has given any consideration to the matter, would the minister comment on the feasibility of large storage on the prairies under government sponsorship or ownership. My mind goes back to what we sometimes term the hungry thirties when we had to ship back to the prairies seed and feed for our livestock, and I suggest that it would seem to be rather important that the government should give consideration to this matter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government of course has government-owned storage on the prairies. It has 5J million bushels at Saskatoon, 54 million bushels at Moose Jaw, three or four million bushels at Edmonton, about the same at Calgary and a couple of million bushels at Lethbridge. But the fundamental fact is that storage is storage no matter who owns the wheat. I do not know that grain stored in a government elevator is

Supply-Trade and Commerce any more valuable than grain stored in a private elevator or any less liable to damage. With all the precautions that Canada can take by way of civil defence, I think diversity of grain storage is almost completely taken care of by the present situation. Grain is stored everywhere. You could knock out any large section of the country and it would not make the slightest difference. It might make the burden of the wheat board a little easier, but that is about all. I suggest that is not a problem at the moment.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I note that there was an excess of revenue over expenditures in the neighbourhood of $280,000 to $290,000 last year with respect to the government-owned elevators. Can the minister tell us what the revenues were from the elevators operated by the government and what they were from the elevators leased by the government? How many elevators does the government now operate through this branch? Is it two or three?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The board of grain commissioners operates elevators at Prince Rupert, Saskatoon, Moose Jaw, Edmonton, Calgary and Lethbridge.


An hon. Member:: Churchill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Churchill is not operated by the board of grain commissioners. It is operated by the national harbours board.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Its revenues do not enter into this picture?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not Churchill.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You operate six?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. We made $200,000 odd out of six elevators. If we had seven we would have made another $75,000.


Douglas Scott Harkness: How much of the profit came from the six elevators operated by the government and how much from the ones they lease?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is $75,000 from the one leased and the balance of the profit comes from the ones we operate.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is a profit of about $200,000 from the six you operate.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Mr. Regier:: I listened with a good deal of interest to what the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra had to say, and I have also followed this matter with interest for a good number of months now. I am afraid that to the people of British Columbia this issue will still be about as clear as mud. It is as muddy as are the waters in many of the eastern Canadian rivers. We have a great deal of

respect for our responsible elected public officials at home, and when city councils, aldermen and so on express their opinion that this is a measure of discrimination we have to pay a good deal of attention to them. I regret that the reply we have thus far received has not convinced me, and I am sure has not convinced British Columbia, that this is not a measure of discrimination.
It is very well known from one end of Canada to the other that the most expensive way of moving Canadian wheat to world markets is via the great lakes route. The hon. member for Fort William assured us a while ago that all this would be taken care of after the St. Lawrence seaway was built.
Many of us out west are really wondering whether this is a measure designed to tide over eastern shipping interests until the great St. Lawrence seaway is completed. Over the past number of years we have seen a reduction in the ocean-going rate. The farmer of the west fought a long and hard battle to find an alternative route by way of Hudson bay, and then saw the efforts of the government directed towards not using these money-saving facilities. When world events and conditions now make it less costly to ship our grain through west coast ports to the markets of the world, again the government hand moves and uses its influence and power to force grain to go by the more expensive eastern route. The people of western Canada are not going to be satisfied until they receive a clear explanation. I sincerely hope the minister will be able to make a much clearer public statement.
I may be dumb, but I do know that the city council of Vancouver is not dumb. The city council of Vancouver has publicly stated that in their opinion this is a measure of discrimination against the shipping facilities that now exist on the west coast.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian government elevators-
441. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $299,000.
Douglas Scott Harkness: I notice that this item is for the construction and acquisition of buildings and works. Is it implied that during this current year the government is proposing to acquire lands and start the erection of another elevator, or is that implication incorrect? If so, for what is the $299,000?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This vote covers the following items: Moose Jaw, new building for an addition and extension to structure, $35,000; a septic tank, $5,000; Saskatoon, completely new building to replace old contractor's shed, $80,000.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What kind of shed was that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: An old contractor's shed; sewer and water main, $29,000; Prince Rupert, dust-tight switch room, $25,000; power wiring, $8,000; dust control system, $124,000; engineering contingencies, $15,000.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Unfortunately, it would appear there are no new buildings contemplated. If it is not for that purpose, it is really for repairs and some small buildings around the elevators which are in existence. This will not increase the storage capacity in any way. I am disappointed in that because, as we have indicated here and in the agriculture committee, we believe that is a necessity at the present time. The larger crops we are producing now call for more storage space. I believe it is time the government started a construction program so far as these elevators are concerned. The elevators in existence were constructed at a time when the average crop was around 300 million or 350 million bushels. During recent years the crops have been in excess of that, in fact, almost double.
It is not to be expected these very heavy crops will continue, but I do not believe there is any question but that, with improved methods of cultivation and the greater use of fertilizers, Canada is going to have an average crop considerably higher than it was when these elevators were built. In other words, over a long period of time we are going to have bigger crops than we have previously had, and therefore more storage space will be required. I would hope the government would proceed at once to initiate a program of increasing storage space by building more elevators.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I might point out that the government is building elevator space at Churchill, at Montreal, and at Halifax. The work happens to be under the national harbours board.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
442. International economic and technical cooperation branch, including the administration of the Colombo plan and of certain United Nations co-operation plans, $118,486.
Howard Charles Green: Can the minister explain how this staff is divided between the Colombo plan and other assistance plans?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I might explain that the funds for the Colombo plan and the approval of projects comes under the Department of External Affairs. I am sure that a full explanation was given in the committee on external affairs. The Department of Trade and Commerce is simply the administrator of the program. If the Department of
Supply-Trade and Commerce External Affairs approves certain projects, the Department of Trade and Commerce undertakes to carry out those projects.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And your administrator does a very good job, too.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think so. I think he is a very good man. We have not very much to do with assigning the nature of the plan.


Howard Charles Green: The item reads, "and of certain United Nations co-operation plans". What are those plans?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are certain United Nations scholarships that are paid for by United Nations which we administer, as I understand.


Howard Charles Green: Does that include technical
assistance to the underdeveloped countries?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; we administer that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
734. To provide hereby, notwithstanding anything contained in the Financial Administration Act or any other act or law, for payment out of the consolidated revenue fund to Junio Moreira, a former locally engaged employee, of a pension in accordance with the terms of Argentine law, from January 1,1953, at an annual rate of 16,785.08 Argentine pesos, notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of April, 1954, which is, $1,250.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister offer a word of explanation for this item? It seems to be a new one.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am told that this man is a long-time employee of the department, and under Argentine law he would be entitled to a pension. He is not pensionable under any plans in Canada, and if we wanted to exercise our immunity we would not have to pay him a pension. There is no fund in Canada which could appropriately pay him a pension. Naturally, we believe that, being good employers in the Argentine, it is proper that we regularize his pension which he would have obtained if he had been employed by a private employer; that is the pension we are granting him here.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National research council-
289.	Salaries and other expenses, $14,294,367.
Mr. MacLean:: Has the minister any statement he would like to make of a general nature concerning the research council?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Clarence Decatur Howe: We had a fairly long debate on the national research council recently, and I do not think I could contribute anything new.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: When we were considering the estimates of the Minister of Transport, I asked a question concerning the removal of Ripple rock and was informed that this was not a matter that came under his department. I understand that the project now comes under the direction of the national research council. I was wondering whether the minister could give us a statement on the present situation of the project? If the minister is not in a position to give us details, can he tell us when he expects results of the findings in connection with the experimental borings that were conducted? He will recall that the question as to whether certain means could be employed for the removal of Ripple rock was the subject of investigation. Perhaps this is the proper place to ask the question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am told that the investigation that has been going on for over a year is not completed even yet. One method of removing the rock, by tunnelling, is feasible if there are no fissures in the rock. If there are fissures in the rock it cannot be tunnelled. I am told most of the drill holes are now in, but the information is not consolidated, and I am not in a position to say what the recommendation of the research council will be. However, I shall make a public statement as soon as the council has submitted a recommendation to the government.
I may tell my hon. friend something which I think he suspects, namely that attempts have been made for many years to find a feasible way of removing Ripple rock, but to date we have not found a feasible plan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is in good hands now.


Howard Charles Green: I understand they put a diamond drill under the channel, and then up under Ripple rock. They have had a core of the diamond drilling for some months. I asked the minister about it earlier in the spring. My information is the core proves that they can tunnel without danger from fissures.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I hope that is so, but they have not so reported to the government. The report has not yet been received.


Howard Charles Green: There has been no official report to the government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Howard Charles Green: What about the research they are doing in connection with the improvements at Vancouver harbour?


Clarence Decatur Howe: A model has been built on the campus of the University of British Columbia, and I am told a report is expected shortly. A model study of the harbour is being made.


Howard Charles Green: If both these reports are favourable, will it take long to get started on the work?


Clarence Decatur Howe: To do the actual work in the field, do you mean?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a matter for the Department of Public Works. I should not think it would take too long- perhaps two or three seasons.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National research council-
290.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $1,787,265.
John Angus MacLean: I notice there is a large reduction in the item this year. I presume it is because some building program is nearing completion. What is the change in the building program?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The construction
program is as follows:
Building research laboratory and equipment	$128,000
Radio and electrical engineering laboratory
and equipment	 90,000
Plant engineering and transport building
and equipment	 450,000
Central warehouse building at Montreal
road, and equipment	 250,000
Acoustic field station and equipment ... 24,000
Alterations and extensions (including revote of $246,000)	  644,950


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Atomic energy control board-
292.	Grants for researches and investigations with respect to atomic energy, $300,000.
John Angus MacLean: What grants are given to universities or other institutions for research under this item?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The grants are as follows:
McMaster University	 $18,000
Queen's University	 15,000
University of	British Columbia	
20,000University of	Saskatchewan	
15,000McGill University	
70,000University of	Alberta	
10,900University of	British Columbia	
25,000Queen's University	
14,100
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited 

 100,000
Other grants	 12,000


John Angus MacLean: I have a question regarding Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. I notice in the last annual report the following paragraph:
The company has been named the custodian of the Sir Frederick Banting fund. Grants from this fund may be made only on the recommendation of a committee appointed by the government for this purpose, and are limited to projects in the field of atomic energy in its broadest sense.
I take it this fund is separate.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


John Angus MacLean: What amount has been granted from it, and what is the situation in connection with it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Sir Frederick Banting fund was raised privately, chiefly by a number of corporations, as a memorial to Dr. Banting. The custody is in the hands of a committee representing the donors. It was formerly administered by the national research council and it was felt by the donors that it would be more appropriate to the purpose they had in mind to turn the fund over to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to be used for special research in atomic energy problems. But the projects covered by the fund are outside the normal work of government in that field.


John Angus MacLean: Can the minister indicate what progress is being made in the production of so-called cobalt bombs? Has a further supply been made available; also radioactive isotopes for research and other projects of that nature? In what quantities are they being made available, and is priority given to institutions in Canada for radioactive isotopes which may be required from time to time by universities and other research institutions?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I understand that the market for radioactive isotopes is pretty well taken care of by the existing supply. I do not know of any particular delay in getting delivery now if anyone wants to order, whether outside or inside Canada. As my non. friend knows, a new facility is being erected to process isotopes; that is a fairly busy occupation.


John Angus MacLean: What is the position regarding the cobalt bomb? Have any of them been made available to additional hospitals in the last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, as they are ordered by hospitals they are being supplied. The closing down of the pile at Chalk River interrupted the supply to some extent, but some have been produced. Indeed they are
Supply-Trade and Commerce dedicating a new machine at Port Arthur next week. From time to time new facilities are being established.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I do not want to let this opportunity pass without expressing the appreciation of the citizens of the lakehead of the cobalt bomb addition to the general hospital. This shows that those in charge of research are not considering atomic energy for war purposes only. This is just an expression of appreciation on behalf of our citizens up there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (research program-
293.	Current operation and maintenance, $8,379,765.
Howard Charles Green: This is for current operation and maintenance of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. I understand that some changes have been made in the United States atomic energy law. Can the minister tell us whether or not those changes will make it easier for Canada to get information from the United States concerning the atomic energy developments? The McMahon act, as the minister knows, was very strict about exchanging information, and I think has interrupted atomic energy development to some extent. It was hoped that those changes being made this year would improve that situation. Can the minister tell us whether or not that is so?


Clarence Decatur Howe: So far as I know there have been no changes in the atomic energy law of the United States as yet. There has been a good deal of discussion about changes, but there has been no actual change in the law. The exchange of information is still limited, as it has been, although the wish has been expressed by the President and by other authorities that there be a relaxation.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any legislation before congress now on this question?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, I believe there is.


Howard Charles Green: Is that legislation of a nature that will make the exchange of information easier?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, in a good many fields it would make it easier. I am not very familiar with the draft legislation. It can be quite different from the final legislation, but that is the purpose of the legislation, to make the exchange of information easier.


Howard Charles Green: Does this vote include the cost of operating the new plant at Port Hope for

Supply-Trade and Commerce refining the uranium oxide into uranium metal, or is that process not to be under way during the present fiscal year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The operation at Port Hope is a part of the Eldorado operation, which needs no assistance. They just built a $22 million plant at Beaverlodge without any assistance from this government.


Howard Charles Green: Will this new refining plant be completed during the present year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It will be completed during the next year.


Howard Charles Green: I have had complaints from an irate shareholder in one of the privately-owned mines in the Beaverlodge area to the effect that the government mill is not taking in the ore from the mines operated by private companies to the extent that it should, and is holding up the development of the area. I do not know whether that statement is correct or not. Perhaps the minister can tell us what the situation is in that regard.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The refinery is busy handling the ore from its own operation and ore from every other operation that I know in the area. There may be some development ore that the company is not in a position to handle, -but it is trying to keep up with the requirements of the field. I believe further expansion of capacity is under way at the present time or will be under way shortly. But a process of that kind has to be geared to a particular type of ore. It is a chemical process, and changes in the process may be necessary in order to handle ore from another section of the field. It may be that that is a factor; but I believe that Eldorado is attempting to handle the situation to the best advantage for all concerned.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister have that situation looked into?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, I will be glad to do that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
294.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment and to authorize Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to undertake construction of works at Deep River for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, $4,805,010.
John Angus MacLean: What do the works and buildings which are authorized to be built by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at Deep River consist of? Are they laboratories or accommodation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just housing.


John Angus MacLean: What public buildings in the way of schools, laboratories and so forth are provided at Deep River at government expense?


Clarence Decatur Howe: All the schools. It is a government town. The government own everything in town, shops, schools and so forth.


John Angus MacLean: Are the inhabitants of the town responsible for erecting any community buildings of any sort at their own expense?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The residents provide certain recreational facilities, skating rinks and playgrounds. The scientists are there only temporarily. They are here today and gone tomorrow, you might say, and the only practical way to run any community of that kind, with that type of employee, is to operate as a government town, and that is being done and has been done from the start.


John Angus MacLean: I take it, it is felt that the same principle should apply in the case of Deep River as applies to married quarters on military stations and that sort of thing?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


John Angus MacLean: The facilities are provided?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: The explanation of this vote on page 359 says that it covers a portion of the cost, 26 per cent, of new reactor representing facilities to be used for research purposes. The balance of the cost of the new reactor is provided under loans, investments and advances. Is that reactor for the development of electric power?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is the new
experimental reactor which is now under construction and which will be used for experiments associated with power development, but this is not the reactor which will be built solely for power. We are attempting to build a homogeneous reactor. The reactor now under construction is primarily designed to produce plutonium and isotopes, and to be suitable for certain experiments associated with the production of power.


Howard Charles Green: Then, in addition, there will have to be a power plant constructed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: Is there provision in these estimates for the construction of such a power plant?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, just for the studies at present under way which are part of our scientific program. It is hoped that the cost of the power plant will be borne

largely by the users of power. The Ontario Hydro Electric is very much interested. But we are not making financial provision in these estimates for the construction of the power plant.


Howard Charles Green: When will this new reactor be completed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Early in 1956, I am told. It has been changed a good many times to keep up with progress in the field since it was first started and, of course, the conception of using it to develop the power pile has introduced changes, but I am told the present date is early in 1956.


Howard Charles Green: How soon after that date will the power plant be constructed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We cannot say. The power pile is in process of study and as soon as everyone is satisfied that we have the right type designed we will start building the plant.


Howard Charles Green: It will be some time after
1956?


Clarence Decatur Howe: You mean before we start with the construction?


Howard Charles Green: No, before the power plant is completed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, yes, it would be after that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
538. To provide for working capital advances to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve, $5,319,800.
John Angus MacLean: Would the minister briefly explain the large increase from $300,000 last year to about $5,319,000 this year? I am not being critical in any way because the increase is probably fully justifiable, but I would appreciate it if the minister would give a word of explanation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has two operations, one a scientific operation which is paid for out of government estimates. The other is a commercial operation which is expected to be self-sustaining. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra referred to the fact that a portion of the cost of the new pile is being paid for out of the estimates, but another portion is being capitalized. This particular vote is simply an advance to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited for working capital to enable it to pay its bills until the product can be sold commercially, when this money will be recovered.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister tell us what the total cost of the new reactor will be?
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am told it will be between $35 million and $40 million.


Howard Charles Green: What are the figures on the power plant? Or is it too early for that yet?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is too early for that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
507. Departmental administration, $2,214,867.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Hon. members will find this resolution at page 67 and the details commencing at page 570.


Mr. Brooks:: Is the minister going to make a statement now or later?


Mr. Lapointe:: No, Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to make any statement at this stage of the proceedings.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, I have been sitting here waiting for these estimates and it has been a long, long, day waiting for them to come. I think we are all pleased that there is a change in the consideration of the estimates. I have nothing against the estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but it does seem to me we have discussed wheat for practically 50 per cent of the time. I have heard about the price of wheat, storage of wheat, the sale of wheat, and what ports it will sell from, at least four or five times, and it becomes rather boring when you hear it about the fifth time. One of the sad features about the whole thing is that I do not think all the discussion has helped to arrange for the storing of one bushel or even the sale of one bushel of wheat.
Getting back to the estimates on veterans affairs, I am a little disappointed that the minister has not seen fit to give us a general statement on veterans affairs on this first item, though I know that as the discussion continues and as we deal with the different items we will probably get all the information we require.
Besides, Mr. Chairman, we have already had a committee on veterans affairs and in that committee and in the different bills which have been before the house there has been quite a discussion already on the different phases of veterans affairs. With regard to the committee, Mr. Chairman, I might say that we are all very pleased that there was a committee set up this session. The minister and other hon. members will recall that we asked for the setting up of a special committee on veterans affairs at the beginning of the session.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
On numerous occasions we have also requested that a standing committee on veterans affairs be set up. It is nice to sit on the veterans affairs committee. You meet not only members with whom you have been associated on former veterans affairs committees, but also new members and, more particularly, you again meet the representatives of the different veterans organizations and you hear about the problems of the veterans from one end of the country to the other. You also meet the officials from the different departments and through them you get a very good picture of the situation as far as veterans problems are concerned.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, when the committee was first set up we were very much disappointed with the terms of reference as far as that committee was concerned, and at that time we tried to have the terms of reference enlarged. Most of us who sat on committees in 1945 and 1946 remember how broad the terms of reference were at that time. We could discuss practically any and all problems relating to veterans affairs. Since 1946 our terms of reference have been much more restricted, until now it hardly seems to be a veterans affairs committee at all. We are restrained from discussing some of the main problems affecting veterans and we are told that practically our only duty on the committee is to review such legislation as the government may see fit to send to us. This is something which rather irritates, indeed exasperates, the members of the committee, but I will have more to say about that matter later.
We are now considering the estimates of this department. I do not think there was ever any great objection to the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The only criticism that we have seen to what is being paid out to veterans in the matter of pensions, war veterans allowance and hospitalization and under the Veterans Land Act is not as to the amount. There has never been any objection to the amount but sometimes there is objection to what we think is the cost of administration. Even to that there has never been any great objection. The attitude of the members has, in my opinion, reflected the feeling or the opinion throughout the country, namely, that all we do or all the money we spend with regard to veterans affairs or for the veterans of this country is money well spent. I do not think there has ever been in this country a feeling that too much has been done for the veterans of Canada who, on two occasions, made great sacrifices not only for their own

homes but for the homes of the people of this country and of those living in other democratic countries.
We have often heard the statement made- although I think those who make it have probably never really made a study of the veterans legislation in other countries-that the legislation in Canada is the best in the world. This statement is glibly made in the House of Commons by members who, I venture to say, have never even read the legislation of the United States, for instance, or that of Australia, New Zealand or some of these other countries.
A few years ago I had the opportunity of reviewing the legislation in the United States and also some of the legislation in Australia. While our legislation compares favourably- in some matters it is better and in some it is not as good-I would doubt whether the people in the United States would agree that we in Canada have the best legislation. It is a matter of comparison. Then again, why should not Canada have the best legislation? Why should not Canada, for instance, have much better legislation for veterans than have countries like Great Britain, France, Belgium; Holland, Italy or any of those old countries?
Canada during the last war particularly did not suffer as did any of those old countries. France was devastated. Great Britain's cities and towns were ruined, and she spent practically all her finances in order to carry on the war. The same thing is true of Italy, Germany, Japan and all these other countries. In contrast, we here in Canada in no way suffered any of these tragedies, such as the destruction of our cities, our means of communication, transport and so on, as did these other countries. I therefore contend, Mr. Chairman, that the only countries with which we could make a comparison are such countries as the United States, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, which countries were not devastated as were the old countries of Europe and Asia.
With regard to paraplegics, for instance, I noticed the other day a statement to the effect that in the United States they receive something like $340 a month and are also provided with a car. Then a few months ago I noticed an article in some magazine with regard to old soldiers' homes in Australia. Here in this country we have a few old soldiers' homes, but I do not think we have anything that can compare with the old soldiers' homes in Australia or with the way in which the Australians are looking after their old veterans in that connection.

As to the matter of pensions, I suppose we have pensions comparable with those provided in any other country, but what has been the basis for the setting of the rate of pensions in this country? It has not been the highest salaries paid; not by any manner of means. We do not expect it should be and the veterans do not expect that it should be. It has not been the average salary. We all know that the pensions in this country were based on the salaries or wages which labour was receiving in this country, and those of the unskilled and cheapest labour at that. As to the young man who had left college, school, farm and so on and who went to war, if they were killed their families receive pensions; but the amount they receive would not in any way compare with the provision which would have been made for the wives and children of these men had they not been killed. The same thing applies with regard to the men who were wounded and maimed. We speak about their receiving a 100 per cent pension. What is the amount of a 100 per cent pension? I think it is $125 a month. The cheapest labour in this country today will receive $125 a month.
I am not mentioning these things, Mr. Chairman, in order to belittle our system in this country. I do so just to point out that, when we hear people say that we have the finest veterans legislation in the world, we should not take the statement too literally but should warn our people that they must not be too smug in this matter. Suppose we had the best legislation in the world. That is not the only consideration. I think that what we should give to our veterans is the best that we can afford to give them. The provision we make should not be based on what is done in other countries, but rather it should be the best that we can afford to give in this country. In that connection I should like to state that our veterans and veterans organizations in this country have always been fair in their demands. I have been amazed and well pleased at the moderate demands made by veterans when they come before veterans affairs committees. After the first war and even after the recent one, the veterans of Canada never tried to raid the treasury of this country, as was done by veterans in another country which I could mention.
We also speak of hospitalization. As far as veterans are concerned, the hospitalization in Canada is good. There has been an evolution. But again I ask this question: Should it not be good and should it not be the very best we can give? These young men were maimed and wounded not for the benefit of themselves but rather for the benefit
Supply-Veterans Affairs of this country. Many of them since the first war and now the second war have had to spend all their days in hospital. I remember, when I was in England after the first war, visiting a hospital in the southern part of that country. In the wards of this hospital were some 25 or 30 young men on water beds. I was told by the nurses there that those young men would never be moved off the beds they were on at that time. There are thousands of our young men in hospital who have been there since the first war and who will be there for the rest of their lives; and that statement now applies with regard to young men who were in the second war. I therefore say that in the matter of hospitalization, while we are proud of our institutions, there is every reason why the very best should be given to these men.
It is not my intention at this time to discuss the bills that were referred to the veterans affairs committee. They were thoroughly discussed in the committee and in the house. The committee considered Bill No. 82, having to do with the War Service Grants Act, Bill No. 101, which gave the Korean veterans the same benefits as those extended to veterans of world war II, amendments to the Pension Act and amendments to the Veterans Land Act. In my opinion the most important bill which the committee had before it was that dealing with the Veterans Land Act.
We realize that housing for veterans is one of the big problems in Canada today. I was favourably impressed with the officials who administer the Veterans Land Act and who gave evidence before the veterans affairs committee. I was impressed with their earnestness and sincerity and what I believe to be their great desire to help veterans through the Veterans Land Act and to make the new amendments a success so far as housing is concerned.
I come now to a matter which was a great disappointment as far as many members of this committee, in fact I think all, were concerned. I think I can say that all members of the house were greatly disappointed that no amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act were presented for consideration by the veterans affairs committee. As far as I am concerned, when I understood the committee would be set up I thought that the main problem which would come before it would be the matter of the war veterans allowance. It is not necessary for me to go into the history of war veterans allowances. The pages of Hansard for the past twenty-four years are filled with the history of this legislation, one of the finest acts that we have in our veterans legislation.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
But it was felt by members that the legislation had not kept pace with the requirements of veterans allowance recipients. I would say that 75 per cent of the letters members of parliament receive and 75 per cent of the complaints received from veterans organizations throughout the country arise as the result of inadequacies in the War Veterans Allowance Act. There are two great weaknesses. The first is the basic rate which today is $50 for a single man and $90 for a married man. The second great weakness is the ceiling on income or the amount of permissive income.
The War Veterans Allowance Act was considered by the veterans affairs committee of 1952, and we were surprised that these problems were not definitely solved at that time. True, the war veterans allowance was increased by $10 but the ceiling on income was reduced instead of being increased. Many hours were spent in the committee considering the matter. Many representations were made by veterans organizations pointing out these two great weaknesses in the War Veterans Allowance Act. Since that time they have increased instead of decreasing. After two years, when a veterans affairs committee is again set up for the express purpose, we thought, of reviewing and solving the problems of veterans, nothing is done respecting the problem which I and veterans throughout the country consider the most important.
The members who were on the 1952 committee will recall that at that time the Canadian Legion and every other organization strenuously objected to the bill then being considered. They pointed out that the basic rate did not even provide a bare subsistence for these older men who are unable to work and have no other means of support. They pointed out that $50 a month was not even sufficient to meet their barest requirements. As far as the ceiling on income of $120 a year is concerned, it meant that the veteran who had a small pension could not receive his pension and the benefit of the war veterans allowance. It did not permit the retired workman who had a small annuity to have the advantage of his annuity as well as the war veterans allowance. It did not even permit the war veteran recipient with two or three spare rooms in his house to rent those rooms and receive compensation for them in order to assist in meeting the expenses of the home. It did not even permit the man who had a small piece of ground in the country or near a town to take advantage of his garden or his few cows or hens without having some reduction made in his war veterans allowance.

I say that this ceiling has worked and is
working today great hardship on the war veterans allowance recipient. In the special committee this year we heard again the evidence of the representatives of the different veterans organizations. Having in mind the many letters that we are continuously receiving from veterans all over the country and the personal knowledge which I venture to say every member of the house has, having in mind the original intention of the War Veterans Allowance Act which was to assist men over 60 years of age who on account of war service were pre-aged some ten years, taking into consideration also the advanced age of these men of the first war, their average age today being 64 or 65, some of us who were members of the committee felt that we should make representations to the house asking that the terms of reference of the committee be enlarged so that this matter might be considered, especially when we saw that no bill was forthcoming from the government.
I took the opportunity to move the following motion in the special committee and I should like to read it now. It reads as follows:
That this committee submit a report to the house requesting that the terms of reference of the committee be enlarged to enable it to consider the War Veterans Allowance Act and make recommendations in respect thereof, at this session of parliament.
After considerable debate in the veterans affairs committee the chairman of that committee, for whom I have a very kind regard on all occasions but this, I am satisfied went out of his way to make what I consider a very unfair, illegal and unjust ruling, as far as this-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I think the hon. member will be able to make his point quite satisfactorily without casting reflections upon the conduct of the committee.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am giving my opinion, Mr. Chairman. I will say this. He gave a ruling which I feel was unjustified and which, if the rules were properly carried out, cannot be justified. He gave a ruling entirely contrary to a ruling that has been made under similar circumstances in a previous committee in 1951, when we had terms of reference almost identical with those which we had in 1954. At that time a study of the War Veterans Allowance Act was permitted, although that was not in the terms of reference. The only difference between the terms of reference in 1951 and in 1954 was that in 1951 there was included an item from the estimates. The chairman said that because there was this difference in 1951, the statement of the chairman in 1951 was correct for

the particular terms of reference at that time, but would not apply to the terms of reference in 1954. As I say, there was no difference-


Mr. Tucker:: The hon. member was not there. I pointed out also that the terms of reference in 1951 also conferred the power to make recommendations which our terms of reference did not include.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Perhaps it might be advisable if I were to point out to the committee at this time that what is under discussion is the departmental administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and not the conduct of a select committee of this house. The last thing I want to do is to endeavour to curtail any fair criticism any member may wish to bring about veterans legislation, existent or non-existent. I am going to ask him to do that without criticism of the conducting of a select committee set up by this house, and particularly of the conduct of the chairman of that committee.


Howard Charles Green: Surely you are not ruling that we cannot discuss the proceedings of a committee that has made a report to the house. This committee dealt with veterans affairs and a report has been brought in and tabled concerning certain recommendations. The proceedings are all printed.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra must have misunderstood me. I did not make the suggestion that the proceedings of the committee could not be discussed. I referred in particular to existent and non-existent legislation, which is the point the hon. member is now making. The manner of the conduct of a select committee of this house, not its findings but its conducting by its chairman, can only be discussed in this house on a substantive motion. That is not a question of departmental administration. I feel the hon. member whom I interrupted realizes quite well the point I am trying to make, and will see that I am not endeavouring in any way to interfere with the course of his argument. 1 am just endeavouring to head him off, before perhaps we might find we have overstepped the rules.


Howard Charles Green: This is important because we all have a right to speak on this first item. I submit to you we have a right to discuss what took place in a committee. The reports are available, and every word is printed. Surely Your Honour is not ruling that we cannot refer to these printed reports.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: No, I am not.


Howard Charles Green: May I finish?
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I say he cannot discuss the conducting of the committee or criticize the conduct of the chairman of the committee on the estimates.


Howard Charles Green: That is not what the hon.
member was doing. He was dealing with actions taken by the committee. Surely he is quite in order in doing that.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I think the hon. member for Royal realizes the point I was endeavouring to make.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I have heard a good many committees discussed during the discussion of the estimates, -the agriculture committee and other committees. I was suggesting that we felt the war veterans allowance should have been discussed. I feel that we made every effort we could to have the terms of reference of the committee enlarged so the matter could be discussed. We felt the war veterans allowance was the main problem that should have been before the committee. As I say, that resolution came before the committee and was ruled out of order. I shall make no further comment upon the chairman's ruling.
The veterans affairs committee submitted a report to show that the members felt that the consideration of war veterans allowances was probably the most important matter that should have been considered. In one paragraph of the report they said that, in addition to representations in respect to the said bills, representations respecting changes in the War Veterans Allowance Act, to raise the amount of allowance possible thereunder and also raise the level of permissive income, should be made. We felt also that that was not sufficient, and we had good reason for so thinking. In 1952, after certain motions were turned down in committee, we expressed the pious hope that is expressed in this report that the war veterans allowances would be considered by the government. The matter has not been considered for two years, and the same recommendation was made two years ago, yet there is still nothing done. We felt that to make such a recommendation now was no assurance either to us or to the veterans that anything would be done.
Hon. members may say, why the great hurry? As I pointed out, the recipients of the war veterans allowance are not yotmg men. Today the average age is between 64 and 65. These men are growing older every day, and they are dying off very quickly. A month or a year or two years means a great deal to them. Anyone who reads the Legionary, as I am sure most do, knows that there is a page called the "Last Post". On that
6160	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs page you can see dozens of names every month of men, between the ages of 64 and 68, who have died. Brigadier Melville, the chairman of the pension commission, told us that the death rate of the veterans was increasing very rapidly. He was amazed by the great number of widows who were applying for pension. We were told also that the paraplegics of the first war have all passed on, that none of them is remaining. So I say we felt that in pressing for this to be done now- not a year or two years hence-we were carrying out what we believed were the wishes of veterans bodies, and also what should be done to give justice to these veterans. In this connection I should like to read a paragraph from the Legion brief of May 19, 1954:
It is the earnest hope of the Canadian Legion that the present committee will realize the need and assume the responsibility of recommending immediate action in this matter.
And the matter concerning which they ask for immediate action is that of war veterans allowances. I am not going to labour the point further. I do not think it is necessary to do so; but by failing to enlarge the terms of reference of our committee and failing to allow us to consider a bill amending the war veterans allowances, I feel a great injustice has been done by parliament so far as the recipients of war veterans allowances are concerned. I express the hope that between now and next November the government will see fit to correct this great injustice. And if it is not done at that time, then one of the first things we will have to do at the next session of parliament will be to discuss the War Veterans Allowance Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not do it before this session ends?


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, I shall take a few minutes on this first item, because it is about the only place I can say what I want to say.
Two principles arise out of the last veterans affairs committee that should be brought home clearly to members of the House of Commons. The first of these is the value of the committee itself, and the second is this warning: Don't tie the hands of the committee before you set it up.
Ever since I have been in the House of Commons I have been of the opinion that a continuing committee on veterans affairs, operating as a standing committee of the house, would serve a very useful purpose. It could review and consider week by week or month by month, in company with representatives seeking veterans legislation, what might be wrong with the present legislation


and what new legislation might be required. In this way there could be a continuous survey of veterans problems.
While it was handicapped in one respect, this committee demonstrated that when its hands were not tied by previous decisions it was flexible and realistic and could do some good work. I shall not discuss the four bills which came before the house more than to say that the committee made amendments to those bills simply because it was not hamstrung before it began its sittings.
For example, under the War Service Grants Act veterans who served in Korea and had enlisted prior to 1950 found, upon being discharged, that they were not entitled to unemployment insurance. Through the chairman and the parliamentary assistant this matter was brought to the attention of the committee. The proposal was a reasonable one and it was not long before the parliamentary assistant had consulted his minister and others and returned to the committee with an amendment correcting this injustice.
Then there was another amendment to the same act in connection with which we were not hamstrung by previous decisions. I refer to the application of gratuity credits to dependent parents. When the matter was discussed in committee the act was changed from a provision whereby the parent had to be wholly supported by the deceased veteran to one whereby only partial support was necessary. I know of several cases in which I was interested where the difficulty was cured by this amendment.
When the Veterans Land Act came before the committee it was amended in 15 places. This shows that if the committee is permitted to work without restriction it can and will do a good job. In this connection I should like to straighten out something that appeared in a newspaper report dealing with the first principle I stated when I stood in my place: Don't tie the hands of the committee before you set it up. This report appears in the Ottawa Citizen of Friday, June 11, 1954, at page 5. It is a Canadian Press dispatch and while I do not know who wrote it, I am certain no one in the parliamentary press gallery wrote the headline, which states "Second Veto for Raise in Vets Pensions". That headline is absolutely incorrect. Then I shall refer to the first paragraph of the dispatch which, also, is in error. It states:
For the second time in two days, Walter Tucker (Liberal, Rosthern), chairman of the Commons veterans affairs committee, yesterday ruled out of order a motion aimed at increasing war veterans allowances.

The paragraph is in error when it states the motion was to increase war veterans allowances. It was for a completely different purpose, that of asking the committee to broaden the terms of reference.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Asking the house.


Clarence Gillis: To ask the house to broaden the terms of reference. The rest of the story is all right. Then, I should like to say a few words on the other principle: Don't tie the hands of the committee. The matter of broadening the terms of reference was raised by the hon. member for Royal. As he said this afternoon, the committee had before it a proposal from the chairman to write into its report a recommendation that the government give greater consideration to war veterans allowances in respect of those who served in the merchant marine during the last war. Under his authority the chairman was not permitted to accept the motion of the hon. member for Royal. I have served on that committee long enough to know the rules.
However, he found himself in this position; a much less favourable one. Before the matter came to the committee at all, the Legion had approached the cabinet, and the cabinet is the government. It was indicated in the press that the cabinet, with the Prime Minister as its spokesman, had definitely said there was to be no change in war veterans allowances at this session of the house. That was a pretty definite government decision.
On two occasions the house had ruled out of order a proposal to broaden the terms of reference of the committee when the matter was under discussion. I like to be fair in these matters. In what kind of a position did we place the members of the government who were members of that committee, in deciding to broaden the terms of reference or increasing veterans' allowances, when three decisions against that proposal had already been made; one by the cabinet and two by the house before the committee had an opportunity of discussing it at all? From my own experience on that committee in the last fifteen years I am reasonably sure that if that committee gets any proposition, and if they are not hamstrung before they start, they will do a reasonable job in the best interests of the veterans of this country.
In the committee, as I stated when the hon. member for Royal moved his motion, the easy thing for an opposition member to do is to rise and beat the chairman, because the chairman is helpless. He has no alternative. He goes as far as he can under the
Supply-Veterans Affairs rules and regulations that apply to that committee. There is no doubt in my mind- and there was no doubt in my mind-that the hon. member for Royal was out of order.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is not the attitude you took in former veterans committees.


Clarence Gillis: But the circumstances were different this time. Three decisions had been made by the government and hon. members. That is what I am objecting to.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: No decision was made on this.


Clarence Gillis: There were two decisions made.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Not on this.


Clarence Gillis: Two of them were made in this house and one was made by the government as announced by the Prime Minister to the Legion. I hope we have learned a lesson from that, so that when we set up that committee we set it up free to deal with veterans problems, without having three strikes on it before it starts to discuss the proposition. I have said that a good many times and I reiterate it now. Let us not get the committee in a position where people are fighting for the political advantages. Let us set it up free and unrestricted, and let us not examine legislation that has been conceived by someone else. Let us look at the legislation as it is and let us, along with veterans organizations, determine what is fair and reasonable in the matter of changes to be made. Then I think we can keep veterans affairs out of politics and the veterans will get a better deal all-round.
There are lots of places where I can fight politically with the government, in the house and out of the house, but there is one problem in this country that I have never for one minute tried to capitalize on politically, and that is veterans affairs. It should be outside of that; it is too big for that.
I do not forget the 1951 and 1952 committees when the War Veterans Allowance Act was before them. The main emphasis at that time was on permissible earnings, casual earnings; the right of the veteran to hold his veterans allowance and at the same time take some employment that would increase his income and enable him to augment the veterans allowance, instead of immobilizing and penalizing him if he took employment of any kind. I do not agree with the hon. member for Royal when he says nothing was done about that other than expressing a pious hope. At that time the main emphasis was on casual earnings. He will remember, as I remember-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The main emphasis was on the ceiling, and it is today.

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Clarence Gillis: It is the same; there is no difference. It is a difference in words. At that time the department dug out material as far back as 1919, and we gave that problem a thorough overhauling. I hold in my hand directive No. 25, issued in 1953, which shows that substantial changes were made in the casual earnings and in the methods of going off veterans allowances, taking employment for part of the year and going back on the allowance again without any difficulty. I am not going to read it. I am sure every member of the veterans affairs committee must have a copy of this directive. Substantial changes were made.
Previous to the changes being made, as indicated in the directive, I received many letters on this matter of casual earnings, asking that the ceiling be raised and wondering why they were immobilized, asking that they be permitted to take employment for a month, two months or three months of the year, and so on. They said, "if I take a little job on an elevator or selling tickets at a theatre, or some kind of employment that a person can get in the summertime, why should I be deprived of my veterans allowance?" I have had no complaints since that was straightened out in accordance with the directive. Then the main issue became that of raising the basic rates.
As far as I am concerned, if we had a chance to discuss and vote on that, there would be no question where I stand. I am sure there is no doubt in anybody's mind, in this house or outside of it, who knows me as to where I would stand on that matter; but that matter was not before us and we could not get it before us. We were prevented from getting it before us largely by the action of this house in making two decisions against it before it ever got to us.
I have another directive in my hand which is along the same lines. It has to do with casual earnings as they apply to farmers in the computation of their income. I am not going to read it because it is available to all hon. members. It is the issue of May 3, 1954, and is directive No. 6. It is worth having in your file. Anyone who is interested in veterans affairs should have both of these directives in his files. These directives are all supposed to go out to the district offices, which are responsible for advising the veterans in the district, but quite often this material gets sidetracked. When I saw this I suggested in the house that revisions should be made so that the branches and people in the area at least would become familiar with it.

These are some of the things that that committee did. I am arguing for that committee. I am not defending the government, but I am arguing as to the value of that committee. I am sure the hon. member for Royal did not mean what might be taken out of his remarks if you did not know him: a straight condemnation of a committee of this house by a man who has been a member of it for some considerable time. He said that it is of no value and that instead of setting it up as a continuing committee as a lot of us want to see done, the government should say: let us get rid of it; it is no good anyway, since some of the older members have said so.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I never said that.


Clarence Gillis: I know the hon. member did not say that, but that could be read out of what he said; that it is of no value; that it only issues pious hopes; that it has not done anything and it has never done anything; why should we be wasting our time? If I ever get the idea that the committee is a waste of time, I will not be a member of it. I will not be wasting my time on it. I consider it one of the most valuable committees in the House of Commons.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If it is not hamstrung.


Clarence Gillis: If it is not hamstrung. Let us not help to hamstring it the next time by voting on something in this house that we should do in the committee.
While I am talking about veterans allowances I would like to say this to the minister. There are two points about veterans allowances that would not take very much money to straighten out, and they are outstanding grievances. One is the veteran who served in England during the first world war. That veteran should be entitled to war veterans allowances. England was not a theatre of war during the first war; it was a theatre of war in the second war. A veteran who served in the second war and who got to England, and who may be 30 or 35 years of age, may some day receive veterans allowances. The man who served in England and stayed in England through no fault of his own, because he was ordered to stay there, sees, when he reaches the age of 60 or 65, the young veterans drawing allowances to which he himself should be entitled. He feels it is a pretty rank piece of discrimination. I say that something should be done to correct that.
Now, the second point, and this is an outstanding grievance, relates to the widow of the imperial veteran. With the deadline of 20 years residence there were many of them who were perhaps three, five, or eight months

short of being residents in Canada for the regulation 20 years. That widow is living alongside Mrs. Smith who was lucky enough to have a husband who lived in Canada for the full 20 years and who therefore receives the full war veterans allowance. But the woman next door, because her husband happened to be taken away a few months before, does not qualify under that deadline and she cannot get the war veterans allowance.
There would not be very much money involved in alleviating the condition of such people. When you talk to people in that category and tell them you are in favour of putting $100 million into the Colombo plan they come right back and say, "Why not start a Colombo plan for us?" The amount of money involved would not be so great when one considers that this is really an outstanding grievance.
I would suggest that when the government considers the report of the committee, which suggests that the war veterans allowance should be considered in the matter of increasing the rate, that these two points I have just mentioned, both of which are outstanding grievances, be given further consideration. That is all I am going to say at the present time, Mr. Chairman, but I may have some further remarks to make on certain other items.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Chairman, when the veterans charter was first introduced in 1945 I believe it was the finest program for the re-establishment of veterans that could be found in any country in the world. As time went on, of course, it became necessary to make adjustments to that charter and for that purpose the veterans committee has been set up to deal with the amendments and bills referred to it from time to time. In the early days the terms of reference of that committee were wide open and we had the right to discuss any feature of the veterans charter but, unfortunately, during the past few years the terms of reference have been tightened up and our action has been limited to the bills referred to us. As a result of that it has not been possible for the committee to deal with what might be considered the major grievances in the veterans charter and that, of course, is the war veterans allowance.
I want to deal with one or two of the bills which were referred to the committee and deal first of all with the Veterans' Land Act. When the Veterans' Land Act was before the house I suggested to the minister that the superintendent should be prepared to give us a complete review of the operations of the department. At this time I would like to commend the very fine report that was given
Supply-Veterans Affairs to the committee by the superintendent of the Veterans' Land Act. It was a very comprehensive report; it showed that the program is working, I think, very satisfactorily; and it showed there are very few veterans in arrears. I think at the same time we must keep in mind the fact that generally speaking crops have been good and prices have been satisfactory. It is quite possible that if we run into a few crop failures and prices happen to fall the situation might not be quite so satisfactory.
The main criticism I have heard of the officials of the Veterans' Land Act has been that they have been a little bit too tough; that they are a bit too conservative in their appraisals. The superintendent himself admitted before the committee that there is probably some justification for that criticism. On the other hand, I would not be too critical of the superintendent on that ground because I have in mind the criticisms we have made throughout the past about the officials of the old Soldier Settlement Act. That was constantly criticized on the grounds that the settled veterans were put on land for which they had to pay too high a price, and that they should never have settled veterans on land of that type. I presume that the present superintendent is going to try and make sure that that type of criticism will never be levelled against him in the future.
Now, one of the amendments under the act provided for an additional loan of $3,000 which I think is a good thing. On the other hand, I regret that the government set the rate of interest at 5 per cent instead of 3J per cent. I hope the government even at this late date will reconsider that action. The reason given was that the main purpose of the additional loan was to make it possible for the veterans to get loans they were not able to get as veterans under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, and as the rate of interest was 5 per cent under the Farm Improvement Loans Act the rate of interest for this additional $3,000 should also be set at 5 per cent.
But that ignores one very important fact, namely, that the Veterans' Land Act has nothing whatever to do with the Farm Improvement Loans Act. It also ignores the fact that when the Veterans' Land Act was established and the veterans came back from overseas many of them were encouraged and advised by the officials of the Veterans' Land Act not to settle right away but to wait. Prices were high and they were advised to hold back in the hope that the prices would fall and they would be able to make a better deal with their $6,000. But what happened?

Supply-Veterans Affairs Prices went up by about 50 or 60 per cent and as a consequence of the veteran having taken the advice of the officials of the Veterans' Land Act-and I am not criticizing these officials because most of us thought the same thing-the veteran found himself in a far more difficult position. Whereas with his $6,000 he might have been able to settle on a good holding in 1943, 1944 or 1945, by 1947, 1948, 1949 and onwards, the price of land had gone up by 50 per cent and in some cases 100 per cent, along with the price of everything else, and so it was practically impossible for the veteran to become re-established with $6,000. In most cases the veterans who did manage to become re-established had a certain amount of capital of their own and in some cases they were helped out by their parents.
Now we find a situation in which it is desirable to make an additional amount of $3,000 available. According to the superintendent and the minister the purpose is to make it possible for the veterans to obtain additional land and improve their property. The government realized they needed to expand their holdings and with the price of land being high it had not been possible in many cases for the veteran to get a large enough holding. As a result of the price of land increasing this $6,000 was not sufficient to enable the veteran to buy a sufficient amount of land which could be considered as an economic unit. We are therefore allowing the settler to have an additional $3,000. But that being the case what justification can there be for setting the rate of interest at 5 per cent instead of 3i per cent?
This grant is being made in order to make it possible for the veterans to establish an economic unit, but I would again point out that it has nothing whatever to do with the Farm Improvement Loans Act and I therefore hope the government will give further consideration to that matter and make the rate of interest 34 per cent across the board. As things stand now we will have the veteran paying 34 per cent on some of his loan and 5 per cent on the balance.
As I said, I think the officials implementing the Veterans Land Act are doing a good job. They have a reputation today of being tough but the time to be tough is, of course, when prices and crops are good and when farmers are prosperous. If the time comes when conditions are bad I hope the minister will encourage his officials to be a little more lenient in order to make things a little easier for those in that position. I agree the time to be tough is at the beginning and then loosen up later on.

I now want to say a few words with regard to the Pension Act. A great deal of concern was expressed by the Legion in their brief over the delay in awarding pensions. It will be recalled that the act, as originally sent to the committee, instead of improving that situation, worsened it. Fortunately, the government decided to agree to an amendment to the bill and the situation was put back as it was before the bill was drafted. But it still does not go as far as the Legion asked that it should go. The Legion asked that the pension be awarded from the date of application. I hope the government will see fit to give further consideration to that matter at some future date.
I now want to come to the question of the main grievance against the veterans charter today, namely, the grievance against the war veterans allowance. There again I want to state that I am not for one moment criticizing the officials of the war veterans allowance board. I think Colonel Garneau has done a good job. I have never heard any criticism against him or his officials. I think they go as far as they can go under the act. In my opinion the trouble is that, the act being what it is, they are not able to go far enough.
There has been some criticism of the chairman of the committee for ruling a certain amendment out of order. Generally speaking, I think he made a good chairman. I think most of the members of the committee will agree with that statement. Personally I am not overcritical of him for having ruled out of order that motion to get the terms of reference widened. Even if that amendment had been allowed, it would either have been voted down by the Liberal members of the committee, or if it had not been voted down by the members of the committee, I presume it would have been voted down when it got into the house, because two amendments that had been moved at the time the committee was set up had already been voted down. While it might have been a good political move to make, I do not think it would have done much good even if it had carried in the committee.
When the War Veterans Allowance Act was before the committee in 1952 the allowance was raised from $40 a month to $50 for a single veteran and from $70 to $90 for a married veteran. But at the same time the amount of the permissible earnings of a married veteran was reduced from $250 for the year to $120. That reduction caused a great deal of hardship for the small pensioner -that is the war disability pensioner-or for the person with a small superannuation allowance or any other type of pension. What

it meant was this. A married veteran with a disability pension of $30 a month did not receive any help whatsoever as the result of increasing the war veterans allowance from $70 a month to $90 a month, because the ceiling permitted was $1,200 for a married veteran. That was my main criticism at that time, namely, that although we had increased the allowance from $70 a month to $90, it would not help the small disability pensioner in any way, shape or form.
I think the tragic part of the picture with regard to the War Veterans Allowance Act is that it does not today provide enough for a person to live on. Furthermore, it denies a veteran the right to help himself by adding money to his income in order that he may have a fairly decent standard of living. It makes it impossible for a veteran to help himself. The recipient of the war veterans allowance today is therefore forced to exist on a subsistence standard and there is nothing he can do to help it.
Not only is there nothing that the veteran can do to help himself, there is nothing that his relatives can do to help him and there is nothing that his friends can do to help him. If they start to make money available to him, then the amount of his allowance is reduced by that amount, unless the matter is hidden, unless he conceals the fact that help is being given to him. Moreover, if it becomes disclosed at a later date, the allowance is cut down and the amount of overpayment is charged against his future allowance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Even old age security is of no help.


Victor Quelch: Yes; even old age security is of no help to him. I think all of us know of many cases of real hardship. Veterans have come to us and said that their sons and daughters wanted to help them and have asked the question: How can they help us without our having the allowance cut down? There is no way they can help unless it is done by not disclosing the fact that help is being given. Yet no member likes to encourage a recipient of war veterans allowance to do anything that is not legal because if he does so, and it is found out, of course naturally the member of parliament would be blamed for having given him a bum steer. I myself have been in that position on several occasions, but I have been discreet. I would say that the officials are very sympathetic. They use good judgment. If there is one department that bends over backward to try to help the veteran, it is the branch of the war veterans allowance.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
Another highly unsatisfactory condition is that today we find that old age pensioners in some provinces are getting a far better deal than are the recipients of the war veterans allowance. For instance, in Alberta and in British Columbia that is the situation. I do not want anybody to bring politics into the matter. It just happens that Social Credit governments are in power there. That is not the reason I am referring to the matter. I am merely mentioning that in the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia a married couple receive an old age pension of $110 a month whereas recipients of the war veterans allowance receive $90 a month. That is a rather bad situation, where a civilian can receive $20 a month more than a war veteran; therefore the war veterans allowance should be increased. Mind you, Mr. Chairman, the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Old Age Security Act are not altogether dissociated from each other. There is a connection between them, whether we like it or not.
First of all, let us remember that the war veterans allowance is not available to all disabled veterans. It is available only to those veterans who actually served in a theatre of war. Very often there is a narrow margin between a veteran who is able to get a pension and a veteran who is not able to get one and who has to accept the war veterans allowance. I can see that at times it must be an extremely difficult thing for the pension commission to decide what veteran will be able to get a pension and what veteran will have to depend upon the War Veterans Allowance Act for his living. Of course, the pension commission is allowed to use the section with regard to benefit of the doubt in order to help it in that matter. 1 can quite well see where, at times, it must be a hard decision for the pension commission to make.
In this connection it is well to remember that in the year the War Veterans Allowance Act was first established-I have forgotten the exact date, but it was in the 1930's-it was established upon the presumption that a veteran had pre-aged by ten years. I have not the statement here but I read the statement by the former prime minister to that effect. The veteran having pre-aged by ten years, it was decided to allow the veteran to have the old age pension at the age of sixty instead of waiting until he was seventy. That being the case, and the war veterans allowance having been established on that basis, what possible justification can there be for maintaining a means test upon the recipient of the war veterans allowance at sixty when the recipient of the old age pension at seventy has no means test upon him?
61EE

Supply-Veterans Affairs On that basis war veterans should automatically have the means test lifted at 60. Otherwise the presumption basis means nothing.
That could mean a great deal to the recipients of war veterans allowance because the majority of the war veterans are over 60 years of age. I have here a statement which was made by Colonel Garneau in 1952. According to that statement at that time the actual percentage of veterans under 60 years of age compared with those 60 years of age and over was in the ratio of 25 per cent to 75 per cent. The percentage with respect to widows on allowances under 55 years of age was 16-58 per cent and for those 55 years of age or over 83-42 per cent. These figures total approximately 32 per cent for those under 60 years of age and 68 per cent for those 60 years of age and over, taking in all recipients.
That would mean that if we recognize that veterans of 60 receiving the war veterans allowance should have the means test lifted entirely, 68 per cent of the recipients of the war veterans allowance would have the means test eliminated. I think all members would agree that would make a tremendous difference to the war veterans today. In the first place it would mean that all those receiving disability pensions would be able to get the full amount of the war veterans allowance. All those getting small incomes from other sources would be able to get the full amount of the war veterans allowance. I hesitate to go one step further and say that it would mean that they could also draw the full amount of the old age pension at 65. I am not going to say that because I do realize that there seems to be a duplication there, and if you are going to argue that the one is based upon the other I do not see how you can say they can get both.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Retired judges get both.


Victor Quelch: But by the time they reach 70 we should be prepared to give them both the allowance and the old age security pension which is contributory.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Retired judges get two pensions. Some senators get both their indemnities and the pension.


Victor Quelch: Yes, but I am using an argument which I will admit does not work very well in that direction. However, I believe it is a most important argument to use. First, on the basis of that presumption, the veteran at 60 is certainly entitled to have the means test lifted, and by the time he is 70 I think we could very well pay him the full amount of the old age pension and the war veterans allowance. However, I admit

I have not made a very good case for the latter although I have made an excellent case for the first proposition, namely, that the means test should be eliminated.
The Legion has not gone that far. They have not asked that the means test be eliminated entirely. They have asked that the means test be raised to the approximate level of the income tax exemptions. They suggest that the ceiling on permissive income in the case of the single veteran should be raised to $1,200 and the ceiling on permissive income in the case of the married veteran should be raised to $2,000. The justification for that of course is that when that exemption was established under the income tax it was established on the basis that a person with an income of less than that could not live on less and therefore should not be taxed. For the same reason, if a single man cannot live on less than $1,200 a year and a married man cannot live on less than $2,000 a year, then the ceilings on income should be raised to those amounts in order to make it possible for the veteran to live a decent life. No veteran can live a decent existence under the miserable ceiling now prevailing.
I should like to draw the attention of the minister to the fact that in 1952 the committee made a recommendation regarding the war veterans allowance which reads 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 and particularly with regard to permissive income.
This year the committee made what is in reality a similar recommendation. It asked the government to give sympathetic consideration to the recommendations of the veterans organization. I hope the minister and the government will give the matter further consideration and find it possible to go at least as far as the recommendation of the Legion, even if they are not prepared to adopt my proposal to wipe out the means test at the age of 60.


Mr. Philpoii:: Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the last words I will be privileged to say in the house at this session will be along exactly the same line as my first words in the house, the strongest appeal I can make for some consideration for people on war veterans allowances, both with respect to the limit of the allowance and, in particular, the ceiling on permissive income. I want to take the few minutes before six o'clock to talk a bit about the work of the special committee.

I was trying to think the other day of just what we had done in this session of parliament and what we had left undone, whether I was proud of having done anything or ashamed of having done something. I was trying to total up the things that really mattered, and one small thing came to my mind. I had the privilege of writing a letter to the minister with regard to adopted children of war pensioners. I tried to use what influence I had to get him to put them on a par with natural children, and I think the greatest thrill I got at this session was to see the minister take steps a few days later to make provision for that in the law.
I hasten to add that hon. members on this and the other side of the house, who for so many years have fought so well for the veterans, no doubt suggested that long before I did, but perhaps I just happened to write at the particular time. I v/ant to pay tribute to two members of the veterans affairs committee for the work they did. In my humble opinion the finest job was done by our chairman, the hon. member for Rosthern, who did an extremely difficult job to the satisfaction of all concerned. I also got a thrill when on the last day of our sittings I heard the clerk say that we have the highest rate of attendance of any committee of the house. I admit that a good many of our sessions were pretty hot, but I think if members of the four different political parties will look back on the work that was done in that committee they will agree that we were all trying to achieve the same purposes.
We have heard today about a resolution that was ruled out of order. I have not heard anything yet about the one that was ruled out of order by the same chairman the day before, and which happened to be a resolution moved by two British Columbia Liberal members, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard and the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond. Its purpose was to more or less implement the proposals in the Legion brief for higher war veterans allowances and a higher permissive income.
The second hon. member to whom I want to pay my tribute is the modest member for Cape Breton South. A few weeks ago I heard him make a speech on international policy which I thought was one of the most important things I had heard in the house this year. Although it did happen to be an expression of C.C.F. international policy, it was an important speech, and if I were a Russian diplomat I certainly would have paid very close attention to it because it seemed to me to be a speech coming from the heart of an honest man. The work done by the hon. member for Cape Breton South in the veterans affairs committee this year was a peace-making job.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
We were faced by a practical difficulty. The terms of reference of the veterans affairs committee were narrower than most members of the committee wished to have. I know quite well every member of that committee would have been delighted had we had before us the War Veterans Allowance Act, and had we been able to make recommendations for concrete increases in those allowances and in the ceiling on permissive income. Some hon. members may recall that I ventured to suggest when we were unsuccessful in having the terms of reference widened, that we would find ways and means of discussing the war veterans allowance. This turned out to be the case because in the debate we had over the precise form in which we were going to lend our moral support to the Legion brief I think the hon. member for Cape Breton South and the chairman, as well as one or two other members of the committee from other parties, put their heads together, and we all know what the end result was. The end result was that in the second to the last paragraph of the final report of the veterans affairs committee we gave our wholehearted support to the Legion brief and the submissions they made for increases in the war veterans allowance and a rise in the ceiling on permissive income.
I want to say also that I thought the work of the veterans affairs committee this year showed itself as very valuable. I heartily support the proposal made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South that this veterans affairs committee be made a permanent standing committee. We should not have to have it set up specially every year. I shall cite just one small example of the benefits we have this year from this committee. The hon. member for Cape Breton South discovered that there was a weakness in the Unemployment Insurance Act, in that it excluded certain categories of veterans. He took that up with the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and we all know the sequel. The sequel was the introduction of a new bill to remedy this grievance.
I must say that I go home from this session with mixed feelings. I am frankly disappointed that the government did not feel able to completely accept the recommendations of the Canadian Legion concerning war veterans allowance, and particularly in regard to their feeling on permissive income. I could not agree altogether with the hon. member for Acadia, for whom I have great respect, about that business of the old age pension. I believe that if the permissive income were not even put as high as the Legion requested, which was $1,200, if it were even set at $1,080, that would solve

Supply-Veterans Affairs the difficulty because that would amount to $40 a month. This would mean that a man could draw his $50 a month that he now draws, and when he gets to age 70 he would automatically be entitled to the old age security pension without any deduction because he would still be under the ceiling.
I want to say once again, Mr. Chairman, just as strongly as I can that I urge the minister and the government to give sympathetic consideration to the people on war veterans allowance. I say that not just because there are hundreds of them in my riding or because we have thousands of them in British Columbia. When I wake up in the morning and begin to read the newspaper and I see, for instance, that last night in some little rooming house perhaps in one corner of my riding some old worn-out exwarrior turned on the gas, I must confess I do not feel too happy. Usually, when they examine his accounts they find that he just could not get by on $50 per month. I, for one, have no hesitation whatever in saying that in the two far western provinces, Alberta and British Columbia, the fact that the old age pensioners draw $55 a month is a real source of grievance to the people who served their country in time of war and who are now forced to live on $50 a month.
Once again I urge the minister to continue to give sympathetic consideration to this proposal. I cannot state publicly that I know where the minister's sympathy lies in this regard. May I urge upon the minister and the government again, as I have so many times before, to continue to give to the war veterans allowance every sympathetic consideration. In addition to that, in the coming months they should give even extra consideration to what seems to me to be by far the most important part of this whole question, and that is the ceiling on permissive income. I have no way of knowing what was in the minds and hearts of the people who had to make a decision that this government was not able to afford an increase in veterans allowances this year. I, for one, might hazard a guess that had the Legion not asked for an over-all rise from $50 to $60 per month, but had confined their request to the more important grievance, the low limit on permissive income, perhaps we could have obtained at least one of the things which I think every hon. lady and gentleman in this house wishes as much as every other.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Since we are sitting again at seven o'clock, may I call it six o'clock?


William Alfred Robinson: May I remind hon. members that pursuant to special order the committee will resume at seven o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at seven o'clock.
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I should like
to make a few brief remarks on this first item in the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs. First of all I should like to compliment the minister on the veterans legislation that was put forward by the government, considered by the special committee on veterans affairs and subsequently passed.
I should like to mention particularly the amendments to the Veterans Land Act, because I think these are certainly very beneficial to the veterans who served in all fields of hostilities, and they are most commendable. I would say the same with respect to the amendments to the Pension Act, with the exception of that one section which had to do with the setting of the salaries of the commissioners. And of course I cannot refer to that at this time. In any event, on the whole the legislation referred to the special committee was commendable.
For a few moments I should like to deal with two recommendations set forth in the brief of the Canadian Legion and which thus far have not been acted upon by the government. The first item in this connection has to do with the submission by the Canadian Legion with respect to dependent parents. The fact that the government recognized that a dependent widowed mother should be placed on the same footing as a widow was recognized in the original legislation. However after 1951, when changes were made in pension rates, the pension of a widow was raised to a maximum of $100 a month from $75, whereas that of the widowed mother remained at $75. Without going into the details in the Legion's brief I would say that in my view they presented a capable argument on the point, and showed that pensions for widowed mothers of veterans should be increased at the same rate as widows' pensions were. As the principle was recognized in the first place I cannot see any logical reason for not continuing it.
The matter of war veterans allowances has been probably the most contentious in the field of veterans affairs during this session of parliament. All of us realize that the

special committee on veterans affairs had very limited responsibilities. It considered only certain legislation proposed by the government, and its activities could not extend beyond that. When the various government bills referred to this special committee were being considered evidence was heard from various veterans bodies, and from others; and inevitably, of course, the matter of war veterans allowances did creep in. My recollection is that at one time or another most members of the committee expressed the view that war veterans allowances should be increased, or that they were sympathetic toward such increases.
I agreed thoroughly with the remarks this afternoon of the hon. member for Cape Breton South when he said that the activities of this special committee should not have been hamstrung from the start, and that a standing committee on veterans affairs should be established. I hope this will be done at the next session of parliament.
However a most interesting situation arose when the hon. member for Royal, if I may coin a phrase, tried to "unhamstring" the activities of this particular committee. The hon. member made a motion which, in effect, attempted to enlarge the activities of the committee, in which he suggested that parliament be requested to change the terms of reference of the committee so that the subject of war veterans allowances could be considered. It was interesting to note that all government members on the committee as well as two members from one of the other parties to my left voted against this request.


Elmore Philpott: May I ask a question? That is not right, at all. The government members voted to uphold the ruling of the chairman, who had dealt with points of order for about two hours, and gave a ruling showing how the amendment was clearly out of order. In view of the fact that we had expressed our hearty support of what the thing was supposed to be doing, I think everybody understood exactly what the score was.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The hon. member for Vancouver South said he wished to ask a question. I would like to know what his question is.


Elmore Philpott: Was not the vote to which the hon. member referred a vote to uphold the ruling of the chair, and not on the substance about which the hon. member is talking.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The vote certainly was to uphold the ruling of the chair; that is true. But in effect what was being voted on was 83276-390i
Supply-Veterans Affairs a motion by the hon. member for Royal to request parliament to extend the activities of the committee. And I believe the hon. member for Vancouver South knows perfectly well that that was the effect of the motion. It is true of course that from a technical point of view we were voting to uphold or to reject the ruling of the chairman. In effect however what happened was what I have just mentioned.
In his remarks this afternoon the hon. member for Vancouver South referred to an earlier motion by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard with respect to war veterans allowances, and which members of the government party from British Columbia were prepared to support. The motion was ruled out of order at that time. The only observation I have to make is that when it was ruled out of order I failed to understand why the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard did not appeal the chairman's ruling, which he was entitled to do, and which the hon. member for Royal actually did when his motion was ruled out of order. However all these facts are available to hon. members, and I can see no point in continuing the discussion further. Everybody who reads the report of the special committee on veterans affairs can see what occurred; but I just mention this in passing. It seems strange to me that some hon. members, who I am sure were genuinely sympathetic-in fact I think most members of the committee, if not all, were generally sympathetic-to war veterans allowances, failed to act in this matter when the opportunity to do so arose.
In their brief to the government the Legion set out clearly, concisely and reasonably the reasons why they felt war veterans allowances should be raised from $50 a month to $60 a month for a single man and from $90 a month to $120 a month for a married person; and also that the ceiling on permissive income should be raised. I believe the amount suggested was from $750 to $1,200 for a single person and from $1,200 to $2,000 for a married person. It is my understanding, and I am open to correction on this by the minister, that the suggestions made by the Legion would cost about $3 million a year, which does not seem to be a very extravagant amount. I am quite sure that most citizens would not object to paying another $3 million a year to help our older burnt-out veterans.
In his budget speech this year the Minister of Finance announced that owing to certain tax reductions there would be a decrease of $36 million a year in income. Without going into details, these tax reductions were brought

Supply-Veterans Affairs about by the removal of taxes on fishing rods, golf clubs, electrical appliances, perfume, pinball machines and things of that sort. I do not think there is a citizen in Canada who would object to having taxes to the extent of $3 million remain on pinball machines, perfumes, golf clubs and so on, if some of our older veterans who are not able to support themselves could be paid the war veterans allowance. For that reason I feel that it certainly should have been considered by the government.
Of course there are many sad individual cases of people who need increases in war veterans allowances, and one could cite them at great length. To illustrate the fact that I honestly believe that war veterans allowances ought to be increased, I should like to read a section, and only a section, of a letter that I received recently. The writer of this letter is a Mrs. A. Williams who resides at rural route No. 1, Drumbo, Ontario. I shall quote only the pertinent parts of the letter. They are as follows:
There is, however, one thing of interest to me, that of the veterans allowance. As a receiver of this allowance, I would at this time like to explain, if I may be permitted a little of your time, that the general public are wrongly informed of this. A while ago great write-ups in the news that the veterans were getting an increase (331 per cent) in their pensions. This covered all pensioners whether receiving $100 or $20 pensions, this they did. Then more write-ups that the government were increasing the veterans allowance from $40 to $50 single men and from $60 to $90 for married. Naturally the public were under the impression, the vets were being exceptionally well cared for. I am just one of many, but would like to explain just how this worked in our case. In 1950 my husband, unable to work, applied for the veterans allowance. He was receiving a small pension of $28. When the inspector found that I couldn't work either, owing to a heart condition, they allowed him $66.66, which they said was the maximum, making our total $94.66 per month. In 1952 they gave the 331 per cent increase and then the increase in veterans allowance. So we receive $34 pension now and $66 veterans allowance (66 cents less veterans allowance), making now $100 per month, but where do they get a raise in veterans allowance? Naturally the public figured we received an extra $30 on top of the $60 we were already receiving, which if it really were so, would only be $130 per month. I am sure there are many others like us, and we trust this matter will soon be passed in the house, for I assure you it is most difficult to manage with taxes, insurance and living, etc., increasing and no increase in income to cover same.
Without taking up any more time, may I say I have no doubt that other examples will be cited during the remarks this evening. I should like to mention one further matter. I am sure the government is aware of the fact that most of the recipients of war veterans allowance are not young men. They are men of 50, some are getting close to 60 and others are also getting close to the time when they should receive old age pensions.
.
In view of the fact, as has already been pointed out, that many of these people are passing away, and passing away rapidly, the government should bring down legislation, if at all possible this session, and if not at this session at the beginning of the next session, to increase the war veterans allowances, as has been recommended by the Canadian Legion.
This matter was not lightly gone into by the Canadian Legion. They have looked into it very carefully, and I cannot see that in any way the requests of the government are unreasonable. The request of the Legion should be given most careful consideration and legislation along these lines should be brought down as soon as possible before any more of these burnt-out veterans pass away.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I have just a few words to say. We should give credit where credit is due. The government has done a fine job in helping the young men of the second world war. Many of us know young men who had not completed their education but who had hopes of doing so, and when the war broke out everything went by the board and they went overseas. The way in which these young men were sent back to school is an outstanding epic in the history of Canada. Some of them graduated in arts; some of them graduated in law and medicine. It is a credit to the government, but it is no more than the young men deserve.
I have had a little to do with the present Minister of Veterans Affairs. In the last ten years I have spent some weeks in Maniwaki, P.Q. There was a veteran there of the first war, an outstanding bushman who knew bush work, who was a specialist. When the second war broke out he was practically told by the enlisting officer that he was not doing his duty unless he used his gifts to head up men in the forestry battalion. He went. Eight years ago I advised him to get a pension. He was not fit to work. He could not hold his job. But there was a streak of independence in him which would not allow me to help him get his pension. Not six months ago he was unfit to work and was not able to take care of himself. I placed his case before the minister and he was received into hospital. He is now getting a pension which was his due. It is a credit to the minister.
I would like to add my tribute to the land settlement committee for the work it has done. I recommended a farm to the land settlement committee at Fort William. I took the man's word for it that it was fit to support a man, his wife and family. The committee then asked me to go out and see the farm for myself. There was a fine house on the farm, good stables, and some equipment, but it amounted to only 40 acres. That

farmer did not sell his farm to the credit of the land settlement committee. Of course, I lost a friend, or perhaps he was a friend. The land settlement committee has done a fine job and it is too bad it was not permitted to do the same kind of job after the second world war.
I heartily support the plea for an increase in the war veterans allowance. These men have given their best and they are not the men they were when they went overseas. They deserve the best this country can give. I also support the plea made on behalf of veterans who have reached the age of 60 and who served in a theatre of war; I do not think there should be a means test in their case when they reach the age of 60.
When I was home at Easter I spoke to a man who had four Christmas dinners in the trenches. You can visualize that man now with his feet all wet, sleeping in his clothes, with no comforts, and not knowing when he would be called across the river Jordan. I think we can rely on the Minister of Veterans Affairs to see to it that our veterans get a pension without a means test at the age of 60.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not see any reason why the veterans affairs committee should not be appointed permanently, because it is practically always the same members who serve on that committee. It is a very important committee and I just wish to say that I appreciate the services of the chairman. I also appreciate the services of the chairman of the pension board for the treatment given veterans at the lakehead-when I have presented cases for their consideration. I have failed in only one case, and cases are brought to my attention almost weekly.
I remember one case in particular-and I hope to revive it again-concerning a man who was in the first world war. One doctor, who was a specialist in his own line but who was not a soldiers' doctor, found he had shrapnel in his liver and being a Scotsman he went to work when he was not fit and finally had to be taken to the hospital. That man never got a pension and after a little while he passed on. In addition, his widow never received a pension and I hope some day that that woman will be treated as she ought to be.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I am one of those who was very glad the government finally responded to the pleas of members of the house in regard to the setting up of a special committee on veterans affairs this year. Once again I wish to associate myself with other hon. members who not only this year but throughout the years have suggested that this committee should be a standing
Supply-Veterans Affairs committee of the house which could deal with the rapidly changing circumstances we meet from day to day which in turn call for a regular review of veterans legislation each year. Such a committee would give the veterans' organizations an opportunity to appear before it and bring to the attention of the committee the changes which may be necessary to make legislation more effective and serve veterans and their dependents to better advantage.
Before continuing I must say that the chairman of the committee in general did a good job indeed. All the members of the committee expressed that view before the committee concluded and I wish to say, in connection with the votes on the disputed amendment, that he is to be congratulated on doing his homework. I expressed my appreciation before and I might add here that he took a very long time to explain the reasons for his decision, he was very fair indeed in connection with the votes, records and conduct of the proceedings.
The committee did very good work on the four bills which were brought before it. I am not going to deal with them now at length. There were some very helpful amendments to the Canadian Pension Act, the War Service Grants Act, the Veterans Benefit Act. In dealing with these bills I know all the members of the committee appreciated the assistance given by the officials of the department.
I might add at this point that we are not criticizing the administration's officers. We are not criticizing their administration when dealing with the estimates. We are dealing with the question of legislation and criticizing the government on that score. In my opinion, and I think I am expressing the views of the members of the committee, the administration of our veterans legislation is in excellent hands so far as the officials are concerned and here I am referring to the Canadian pension commission and the war veterans allowance board and all the other administrative officers. I am sure the members of the committee appreciate the work they are doing to give effect to the will of parliament.
What we are trying to do this evening is to get the government to improve that legislation. As we have said before, we have excellent veterans legislation and I think without question it is the best in the world. But, as one hon. member said previously, that is not the sole standard. We should give what the Canadian nation can afford and within that amount do the best we can for veterans and their dependents. That is why we are urging certain amendments to the legislation this evening.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
Before leaving the question of the four bills dealt with in the committee I wish to support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Acadia with regard to an amendment to the Veterans Land Act. Generally speaking the amendments provided a great improvement in the act and will be of benefit to large numbers of veterans in Canada who have been unable to obtain satisfactory sites for home building under the present legislation. There are two points in particular on which I wish to support the hon. member. We are very sorry that the administration of a certain section of the act, after the preliminary work is done, is to come under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Not that we are critical of that corporation, but the Veterans Land Act administration has a good record on behalf of veterans all across the country, and I am quite certain that the veterans of this country who are taking advantage of that act, or desire to take advantage of it, would prefer to come under the direct, efficient, and fair administration of the officials in charge of the Veterans Land Act administration.
I would like also to support the hon. member for Acadia with respect to his criticism of the increase in the interest rate. Now, the committee was helped a great deal by the representations made by the various national organizations, namely, the Canadian Legion, the British Empire Service League, the National Council of Veterans, the Canadian non-pensioned veterans widows and the Canadian merchant navy veterans association. Before passing on I want to say that I think it is only fair to express some admiration for the very valiant little body of widows who come to Ottawa once a year to present their views to the committee or, if the committee is not sitting, to the minister, his officials, or various members of parliament.
I shall always have the great distinction, Mr. Chairman, of having been the chairman of an unofficial veterans affairs committee called together by government and opposition members at which these ladies made their representations last session. I think at the time the minister was somewhat concerned about what was going on. One of the dear old ladies said to me, "What shall we do?" She said, "We want to have our say". Others said, "We have briefs". I said, "Do not turn up with a brief in your hands; keep it in your handbag. If Colonel Brooks asks if you have any representations to make, you can pull it out and make your representations". Everything went off very well indeed in that unofficial committee. I think these women
fMr. Herridge.]
all deserve a great deal of credit for having an interest in this question. I know they have been of assistance to the minister's officials on occasion because of their close association with veterans and their dependents in necessitous circumstances.
The Legion, as usual, made its excellent representation. I think all members of the committee would agree that the Legion has made a great contribution towards the development of veterans legislation in this country. I am sure that is a view that is accepted by all members of the committee. The record of the Legion proves that it has always had a sense of responsibility which included their responsibility to the veterans and their dependents in this country and as well their responsibility to the Canadian people, the taxpayers of Canada. On that account I think their representations are listened to with particular care. Whether people say so or not, they recognize that the Canadian Legion do not make representations to the cabinet, to the veterans affairs committee or to any other persons unless they are based on extremely strong grounds indeed. That is the foundation of the representations made to date.
The Legion came before this committee after making representations to the cabinet early in November. Certain officials of the Legion came before this committee and made further representations and they made an exceedingly helpful submission indeed. They dealt particularly with the necessity for an amendment to the War Veterans Allowance Act to increase the amount payable to single people to $60 a month and to married persons to $120 and to raise the permissive income.
I said that the Legion has a strong sense of responsibility. We all recognize that fact. They do not ask for something that the people of Canada cannot afford to pay or for something that is not badly needed. In addition to that consideration, the fact that their representations express the opinions of the rank and file and of many people in Canada is indicated by the resolutions that members of the House of Commons have received, not only from Legion branches- which is to be expected-and other veterans organizations but from women's organizations, from chambers of commerce and from other community organizations who recognize the need for some assistance to the veterans at this time, as well as letters from their own constituencies. I am sure every member of this committee has received a continuing correspondence which indicates the need for amendment of the legislation. The hon. member for Vancouver South, when speaking

this afternoon, indicated the need by mentioning certain facts. I think he mentioned the fact that one old veteran had committed suicide by gassing himself.


Elmore Philpott: More than one.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: More than one, the hon. member says. He also mentioned that their papers and correspondence indicated that the major cause of their trouble was economic, in that they could not exist on the present war veterans allowance.
Then there are the newspaper editorials. When you find large daily and weekly papers throughout Canada supporting the plea of the veterans, not on one occasion but repeatedly, there must be some extremely sound grounds for the representations of the Legion and for the representations that members of the house have made for amendment of the War Veterans Allowance Act. Newspapers try to reflect public opinion and, in order to maintain a certain popularity, to express in editorials and news items opinions that reflect what the people are thinking in the areas which they serve.
Before concluding I want to deal briefly with one editorial and to indicate the situation in British Columbia. I know that British Columbia is a bit of a thorn in the side of the minister and some members of the government with respect to veterans affairs but that is because the British Columbia people are the most progressive people in Canada. They are always looking ahead, and seeking improvements.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Modest people.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I was pleased to be associated with the hon. member for Royal in doing the things the people of Canada want us to do in this respect.
Here is an editorial from the Vancouver News-Herald of Wednesday morning, May 12. It is headed: " 'Burned Out' Veterans Living in Squalor; will Ottawa continue to be Callous?" Then we have another one here dated May 20-which shows that it is a current issue in British Columbia-which is headed: "In Their Time of Need, Ottawa Fails the Men who gave all but Life for Nation". Then there is another editorial of a subsequent date in similar vein. But I want to read this small news item which is headed: "Burned Out Vets Get Help Offers". I may say that this is from the News-Herald of May 20 of this year. It reads as follows:
The News-Herald is being flooded daily with calls from Vancouver citizens interested in the plight of "burned out" veterans, telling of tragic cases or offering help.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
The offers, from people in all walks of life, are only a drop in the bucket when one considers there are 10,000 men and women in Vancouver being forced to live on the $50 a month granted "Old Sweats" by the Veterans Allowance Act.
They cannot all be helped privately. Many will be forced to continue their pitiful existence: People like Fred B.
Fred is 61 and an accountant. Out of his $50 pension cheque he has 17 cents to keep him until the end of the month.
"I don't want charity from the government or anyone else," Fred maintains. "I want a job. Surely there is some place where my experience and ability would be valuable.
All the veterans allowance does for me is to keep me alive so that I can suffer the pangs of hunger over a long period and worry myself ill.
When the government can find time to discuss and endorse the raising of politicians' salaries,-"
I agree with that.
"-you'd think they could spare a little time to consider the plight of men and women in positions similar to my own.
When an election comes around we are the people. We are voters, 'loyal constituents,' the hand of friendship is held out. Once the owner of that hand is elected he proceeds to use it to pat his fellow party members on the back or to wave us aside as he says, 'Sorry, can't worry about you burned out bums this session.' "
We are extremely anxious to see something done about these unfortunate comrades this session. One could go on and read endlessly letters and news items that indicate the plight that many veterans and their dependents are suffering at the present time.
When we came to discuss this matter in the veterans affairs committee many of us realized that a unanimous resolution was adopted by the special parliamentary committee on veterans affairs in 1952 urging action on the war veterans allowance, that nothing was done to increase the over-all allowance for all who are entitled to receive war veterans allowance in Canada but only certain minor adjustments were made which were of benefit to the persons concerned. But even those adjustments are totally inadequate under present conditions. We felt that the Legion's representations to the committee-we had full knowledge of the situation as had all members of the House of Commons- further emphasized the need.
Because we know of the situation in the country, we felt that something should be done this session, and we felt that something should be done because the government has said "No". I do not believe in lying down when the government says "No". I believe that that is the time to start working all the harder. I am convinced that the work of the members of the House of Commons in connection with this legislation will finally produce results. Because the government said "No" to this crying need on the part of veterans and their dependents in Canada,

Supply-Veterans Affairs the hon. member for Royal moved his resolution urging that a recommendation be included in our report that the house extend the terms of reference of the veterans affairs committee-


Clarence Gillis: That was not it at all. The hon. member wants to be correct on that point. That was the motion that the hon. member for Royal moved. The hon. member for Royal moved that the committee would go back to the house in order to have the terms of reference extended.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is just what I am saying.


Clarence Gillis: That is not what the hon. member said.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Oh, yes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Pardon me; that is exactly what I said, namely that it be included in the report made to the house to ask the house to extend our terms of reference.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Exactly.


Clarence Gillis: No, Mr. Chairman. Of course the chairman should be correct in this. There was already before the committee a report suggesting that very thing, namely, that the government give further consideration to the matter of the war veterans allowance and the merchant services. The motion of the hon. member for Royal had no reference at all to the report that the chairman had already read to the committee.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I want to correct the hon. member, Mr. Chairman-


Clarence Gillis: I am correcting him now.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The hon. member needs to be corrected also, because there was no report before the committee at all.


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member for Royal just made a political motion; that is all.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I object to that. The hon. member for Cape Breton South has supported these so-called political moves at every meeting of the veterans affairs committee. My motion was not political. As I pointed out there, if there was anything to be gained by playing politics the government would be the first to play politics and the first gainers would be the veterans. We had nothing to gain at all. The hon. member says that it was a political move, but may I say that time and time again since 1940 he has supported motions of the same kind in the veterans affairs committee. It is said that the hon. member is looking for a senatorship, and it has been noted that he has been showing more [Mr. Herridge.l
consideration for the government, especially in the veterans affairs committee, than he ever showed before.


Clarence Gillis: The only suggestion I ever heard about a senatorship came from the communist press, and it would seem that my hon. friend is trying to help his own party by using their smear tactics in the house.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Anybody who says you are using smear tactics is using smear tactics himself.


Clarence Gillis: I am more interested in getting something for the veteran.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You did not show it in the committee.


Clarence Gillis: The motion of the hon. member for Royal was an impossibility and he knew it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I did not know it.


Clarence Gillis: I was interested in getting a report back to the house that said something about the matter rather than having six or seven opposition members vote for something that would have no effect whatsoever.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I was just dealing with the historic sequence of the motion moved by the hon. member for Royal prior to any report being made by the committee. I am not going to outline that any further.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Chairman, if the matter is in doubt I think that exactly what did happen should perhaps be put before the house. The draft report, which was drawn up by myself at the suggestion of several members of the committee, was before the committee and it was finally adopted in exactly the same form. It appears in volume No. 14 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the veterans affairs committee. The draft report was before the committee and it recited the fact that representations had been made urging changes in the War Veterans Allowance Act to raise the amount of allowance payable thereunder and also to raise the level of permissive income. We recommended that the government give sympathetic consideration to such submissions. To that there was an amendment moved that we ask for an extension of our terms of reference so that we could consider the War Veterans Allowance Act.


Clarence Gillis: At this session.


Walter Adam Tucker: The argument of the hon. member who has just spoken was to the

effect that even if we got the terms of reference extended we could not make a stronger recommendation than we were proposing to make and he suggested that if we endorsed the report unanimously it would be much better than passing a resolution to extend the terms of reference. That is exactly what the hon. member for Cape Breton South pointed out.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Did the hon. member who has just spoken say that my motion was an amendment to the report? It was not an amendment to the report at all. It was moved before the report was considered.


Walter Adam Tucker: The draft report had been handed to the members of the committee.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The motion was made before that time.


Walter Adam Tucker: Then the motion was made by the hon. member after that draft report was before the committee.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for
Kootenay West.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the chairman of the special committee for the information he has given. That is exactly what I was explaining. I have a pretty good idea what happens in the committee and what goes on, and I am simply mentioning-


Clarence Gillis: You were away for most of it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member for Cape Breton South said that I was away for most of it.


Clarence Gillis: That is right.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am never away from the house or a committee unless I am ill or on some official duty. I was away from a few meetings on account of having to open an airport in my constituency, and I regretted having to be away at that time. Possibly the hon. member means on that account I overlooked some of the discussion.


Clarence Gillis: That is right.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That may be right, but anyway my point is that the hon. member for Royal moved this motion and we saw fit to support it because it asked for action this session. I am not going into the question of the chairman's ruling or anything else, and I am not going to deal with that point further because what we are anxious to do is to get some action on the part of the government to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act. It is the sense of urgency and the need that caused members to urge action at this session.
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You do not get it by lying down to the government either.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No. The time is short. These old veterans are getting older and older. They are dropping off and many of them will not have the opportunity to receive the benefits of the legislative amendments that are required. That is why we fought for action at this session to increase the amount to $60 for a single veteran and $120 for a married veteran and to raise the permissive income, and we will continue to fight on behalf of our less fortunate comrades. This afternoon an hon. member suggested a figure of $3 million. I am not sure whether that is correct, but whether it is $3 million, $4 million or $15 million what a pitiful little sum it is out of our total production and wealth that is required to make happier the lives of these veterans and their dependents for whom we are fighting tonight and will continue to fight. They have not many more years to live, but I trust the government will take action soon so that many of them will enjoy the benefits of the legislation for which we are asking.


Miss Bennett:: Mr. Chairman, I have been rather late in making remarks in the house but sometimes it is better to be late than a little too early. I am very happy that the first remarks I make rather extemporaneously should be with respect to the veterans of this country and in connection with a subject that is very close to our hearts. It has really done me a great deal of good to see how the house has considered these matters before it and the importance that various hon. members have placed on the subject that we are discussing.
In listening to the hon. members who have spoken one point comes to my mind that I do not think has been raised and it has to do with veterans pensions and allowances as they concern dependent parents. We have been speaking of the pensioners themselves and of their widows, and I should like to say a few words about dependent parents. What I am going to say arises out of my own experience with two cases that have come to my attention within the last few months. Not long ago a mother came to me whose son had been killed in the first world war. Over the years she has been receiving a pension of $40 a month on behalf of her deceased son. She became eligible for the old age pension and received the pension. In due course she was notified that she would no longer be eligible for the pension awarded her under the veterans legislation. That was a very great hardship because I think the understanding is that the old age pension

Supply-Veterans Affairs comes as something extra, something to help men and women to have a little extra in life.
The effect of not raising the exemption for veterans and the allowances they are permitted to have before the pension is taken away from them is really to penalize the veterans, and I think we are also penalizing the parents because we are making it a penalty to receive the old age pension.
It is fundamental that the minister and the government should consider this question and place it in its proper perspective. I believe the parents of sons who have gone overseas, and who have not returned, people who have given everything they have to this country, are still entitled to receive the reimbursement for the actions of their sons and daughters, and at the same time should be entitled to the pension every other man and place it in its proper prospective. I country receives. On behalf of these parents I ask that this matter be given consideration by the minister and by this government.


Mr. Hosking:: I do not intend to take up very much of the time of the committee this evening, but there is one point I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. It concerns the bachelor who has earned rehabilitation credits, but because of the regulation controlling these rehabilitation credits finds it impossible to draw them. If a person has no dependents, it is not much satisfaction for him to take out insurance that can be paid only at his death or at a time when he is so old it is not of much value. If he is living in a boarding house there is nothing that he can buy for which he could use his re-establishment credit. If he is not working at a job where he requires an automobile or some other equipment necessary for the job, he cannot spend the credit on that.
There must be some people who are in a position where they cannot draw their reestablishment credits. I would think that at this time it would be proper, when most of the veterans have re-established themselves, that those who have not used their re-establishment credits and who cannot draw them by reason of the regulations, should be permitted to use those credits to purchase a 20-year endowment insurance policy. A change could be made in the regulations to permit the veteran to do this. Then, he would have this money, along with some more he might have added to it, upon which to draw. I would sincerely recommend to the minister that for the sake of the veterans who are entitled to re-establishment credits, and who have been unable to draw them, a change should be made in the regulations.


Frederick George Hahn: I was pleased to see that the Department of Veterans Affairs saw fit to change so many of the acts applying to veterans at this session. This gave veterans an opportunity to take advantage of the improvements in these acts. I am pleased also to see that we have such a stalwart in the person of the hon. member for Fort William, who is so interested in helping people. I believe we could all say it does not matter who it is; he is always ready to assist the war veterans or anyone else out of his great generosity. I should like to say that I hope the government itself will endorse some of the things he advocates, and that he can get a little closer to the heart of the government so that we can get a little more for these war veterans who are on allowances. For a few moments I was afraid we were going to hear the truth about the truth about the truth about the War Veterans Allowance Act, similar to what we heard in connection with the wheat situation a few days ago. However, we finally got that straightened out, and the facts were put properly by the chairman of the committee.
I am not a member of the veterans affairs committee, and therefore have a possibly somewhat different point of view in connection with this War Veterans Allowance Act. I am the representative of the New Westminster riding which probably, on a per capita basis, has a greater number of recipients of war veterans allowance than any other riding in the dominion. There are approximately 9,200 war veterans in the province of British Columbia who come under that act. I would say that represents about a quarter of the total in all of Canada. Because of the fact we have a fine climate and everything that goes with it on the lower mainland, most of them apparently have settled in my particular riding. The hon. member for Fraser Valley says the same is true of his riding.
Possibly I should take a moment or two to draw your attention to the history of this particular subject, but I do not believe it is necessary. All of us are familiar with how the resolution was introduced, how everyone tried to take part in the debate and how we were stopped; how the terms of reference were limited and the matter was referred to the committee for study. We were all very frustrated by the thought we were not going to be able to do anything for the war veterans before the estimates came down, and such proved to be the case.
Then some hon. members, including myself, gave notice of a resolution asking that this question of the burnt-out pensioners be raised. The purpose behind such

a resolution-I am not going to discuss it at any length-was to draw the attention of the government to this problem in the hope that if they did not do something this year they would do something next year. I will not be like the hon. member for Assiniboia and sit down, but if the government will promise to do something about the matter I shall remove my resolution from the order paper tomorrow.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, presented a resolution along similar lines to the veterans affairs committee. I would have you note that they are members of the party that is in power. I might say there were literally dozens of people in this house who, during the throne speech debate, indicated the desirability of increasing the war veterans allowance. Now, because of the fact that the terms of reference to the veterans affairs committee were so limited, there was a great deal of disappointment expressed amongst three groups of people particularly; members of parliament, the war veterans themselves, and the people of Canada as a whole. The members of parliament were somewhat disappointed because every party in this house has indicated from time to time that they wanted an increase in that allowance. The veterans themselves felt that they were not "off the beam", and that they were not asking too much in their brief.
The fact is that they had been assured during the recent election campaign that everything would be done to institute these particular claims. Many of the claims were endorsed by members of the Liberal party in British Columbia. I must say that those gentlemen had the decency to stand up and reiterate those requests. The people of Canada do feel quite badly about this. They feel, and I would number myself amongst the group, that we have broken faith to a large degree with the war veterans. We have promised them something in the way of assistance for the past two years, and they are still looking for it.
This government has been frank in telling the veterans when they first came there would be nothing for them. As a result of that each one of us was deluged with a large number of letters asking that we entreat the government to take another look. I am sure the Prime Minister and the Minister of Veterans Affairs received the same letters and telegrams, or copies of them, that were received in my office. And still the answer was, no. Some of the letters read: We do not have enough food. Or they might read: We have enough food and enough money for 83276-391i
Supply-Veterans Affairs taxes and utilities, but we have nothing left to buy clothing. The story is a difficult one, and I received telegrams from every branch of the Legion in my riding-and there are 8 of them. I am sure every branch in Canada must have sent telegrams to the minister asking him to help them get this allowance.
Why did not the minister entertain the question, or take another look at it? Was it a question as to whether the government could afford to spend $3 million? Well, the answer is this: Can we afford democracy? In many instances these men, while they did not give their lives, most certainly were willing to do so if need be. Yet, at their request, apparently we are not willing to give them a decent living.
I do not want to go into the gruesome details about suicide, and the like, which have been mentioned. But that is some indication of the need. The question could be asked: What can we give? There, again, they were willing to give their lives. What prayers did the people of this country offer when the Germans were standing at the gates of Paris? The people were ready to give practically anything so long as the boys would stand there and either hold the line or push the enemy back. Those men were not found wanting; but apparently now we, as a parliament, are found wanting. Perhaps I should not say "parliament"; I should say the government. I know parliament would endorse this plea if hon. members were given the privilege to vote upon it.
In connection with the problem one must keep in mind that there are several different types of veterans, each of which must be dealt with on his own merits. I should like to read to the committee two brief articles appearing in issues of Corps-Vet, a magazine published in New Westminster. I suggest these articles will indicate to some degree the nature of the problem in my riding. I know the minister is familiar with some of the facts, but I do not think he knows all of them. There is one of which I would ask him to take particular notice-because we have many grave problems there. The article to which I shall refer first is written by J. H. Thompson, who is secretary-manager of the New Westminster Legion. If I were to give him a title I would call him Mr. Canadian Legion. This article is headed "Jungle Town", and states:
As we go to press the population of our little known "Jungle Town" thrives with activity-or perhaps I should say, inactivity. The inhabitants are a motley bunch-human flotsam-who at the first hint of winter's snow hit the road for the Pacific coast. Here, along the dikes of the Fraser river, they share their frugal and miserable existence with the old-timers who have been established for many years in the area. They are the personification of the seedy side of our enlightened race.

Supply-Veterans Affairs < * Some are alcoholics who, in a few short years, become winos and rubby-dubs-the drinkers of extract and shaving lotion. Others are ex-convicts, petty thieves or just plain deadbeats-while a small minority are simply broke with no place to turn fdr assistance. From November to March they 3Jve in near animal fashion in shanties built from tar paper and box wood-many without the luxury of a floor while the river provides their plumbing and fuel supply.
. Through necessity they share their worldly wealth -which is food and wine. Forage parties are on the prowl every day-some depend on the more simple and direct method of begging coins from citizens on the street-others line up at the welfare agencies for a small grocery order. If the "loot" for the day is good, some of the groceries are converted to cash for the purchase of wine and extracts and the celebration is on. A few days Jater they emerge from the shacks weak and exhausted-sick in body and mind-then the cycle starts all over.
You might well ask-"Who are these characters? Where do they come from? Have they always been misfits in our way of life? and What are the authorities doing about it?"
Each and every one has a story to tell-sordid- but human nevertheless. Many came from good homes-others from the tenement and skidrow districts of our Canadian cities. To the vast majority $he key that opened this depraved life for them was alcohol-and yet we know that each and every one of these derelicts who allowed alcohol to ruin ilieir lives, did so for a reason. We do know that close to forty per cent of Jungle Towners are veterans. A few years ago the veterans from world war II in this category were exceptional, now they outnumber the old diehards.
' This problem is, and will remain, a challenge, npt only to the authorities but to the legion. After two world wars we realize only too well how messy wars can get-and it's not all on the battlefield. ISTb two humans will react to warfare in a like manner-some can go through it and become readjusted to normal peacetime living without any trouble-others may take years to become rehabilitated.
I shall not read further, but I believe placing this article on the record has served a, useful purpose. Some years ago veterans of world war II were the exception in Jungle Town, whereas today 40 per cent of them are veterans. Certainly they are there in greater numbers than the diehards. This Article appeared in the issue of February, 1954. Then I would quote the following article from the issue of June, 1954. It is headed "Too Little", and states:
Charlie had served his country well-perhaps too well-for in so doing the effect of battle fatigue through two major wars had taken its toll . . . Charlie and his wife found they were obliged to exist and raise their young family of four youngsters on the war veterans allowance.
In desperation, like many more in this low income group, they moved their few worldly possessions from the city to a small acreage in the country where land was cheap and taxes low . . . and where a small garden and a few chickens can do wonders to fill the tummies of four growing youngsters. With the small nest egg he had somehow managed to set aside, a small two room shack was laboriously erected. Charlie was no carpenter
'Mr. Hahn.]
and his health was rapidly becoming a problem. However, necessity won out and at last they had a roof over their heads.
From this humble beginning they planned and tried to save every odd penny to enlarge their home-sleeping six in a small bedroom left much to be desired. Finally by scrounging and more sacrifice the long planned-for addition was started and the frame work erected and then fate once again stepped into the picture.
I should add that this man was one of the war veterans who would be entitled to an increase in the war veterans allowance. He went on to try to complete the building of this shack, but failed. He could not do it himself. It was a case of the Legion stepping in to help. The article goes on to say:
As we go to press the job of rebuilding their home is completed but for many months-perhaps years-our service bureau will be giving this family a friendly and helping hand . . .Charlie has finally answered the last roll call and passed on to a more pleasant and peaceful life.
This man tried to help himself. He is the fellow we should be interested in, and we should be interested in him right in this parliament; to assist him in every way, shape and form to become a citizen who wants to continue to feel that Canada has not let him down.
These men could not come to Ottawa. They sent their emissary, and the emissary has had to go back and say, "The job was not accomplished. It was not completed, so far as war veterans allowances are concerned." That is the part that those veterans are particularly interested in. I would tell this government, Which has been so often aptly likened to the ostrich, which has so large a body and has so little sight, that it has denied us the privilege of discussing this vital question until the dying days of this session. We are justified in saying that this question should have been brought to the attention of the house when we asked for it, and it should have been discussed earlier.
So far as the increase itself is concerned, it may be argued from time to time that it is supposed to be equivalent to the old age pension, it is supposed to take its place. I point out to the minister that in Alberta and in British Columbia today the old age pensioner, if he is that destitute, is entitled to $40 plus $15 a month, or $55 a month, which is more than we are giving to our war veterans, the men who helped to defend our country.
In connection with these other items, I heartily endorse the idea that the permissive income should be increased. I do not understand just exactly why there is a ceiling on the permissive income. It may be possible to explain it, and I should like to hear the

explanation. I shall be glad to listen to it. It should be increased from what it is today to $1,200 for a single man and $2,000 for a married man, which is barely sufficient to keep body and soul together when one can receive such a low permissive income.
One other question has been raised, namely, the eligibility of the imperial war veteran who has married a Canadian. I have a case in mind of an imperial war veteran who married a Newfoundland girl quite a number of years ago following the first war. This particular man has lived on and off in Canada and in Newfoundland. He has also been in the United States, but he has not been here for the full 20-year period and therefore he is not eligible, even though his wife is a Canadian by birth. I do not think that that is quite playing the game. The reason for the man to come to Canada originally was that he wanted to be a Canadian. I think the 20-year period is too long. Other instances were pointed out earlier. A widow does not become eligible because her husband may have died before he had put in the 20-year period, and therefore she never becomes eligible even though she may be a Canadian by birth.
In conclusion I should like to summarize my suggestions as follows:	First, increase
the allowance as requested by the Legion to $60 and $120 respectively, second the permissive ceiling should be increased; third, make the Canadian imperial war veterans of world war I eligible for the burnt-out pension and the allowance before they have resided here 20 years; I would say that possibly 10 years is sufficient; fourth, a permanent committee on veterans affairs should be set up.
I see no reason for not setting up a permanent committee on veterans affairs. I do not believe anyone does. This problem has to do with war veterans allowances. Those are not all the veterans problems we are going to have. There are many committees that we name each year that never meet. If we do not need to meet we will not meet. Certainly we should have a standing committee on veterans affairs.
My fifth suggestion is that this government take notice now of this problem and at the earliest possible date implement the increase in the allowances along the lines of the war veterans request. My final suggestion is that in future the committee be not hamstrung in its terms of reference because if it is set up for the purpose of discussing veterans affairs or any other affairs, let it discuss all of them.
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Mr. Enfield:: I do not want to let this opporr tunity pass, even at the risk of prolonging the debate a little, without paying tribute to those who were responsible and still are responsible for the administration of the Veterans Land Act. I had the pleasure of sitting on the veterans committee. It was my first committee, and I must say that I found it a most valuable experience. I think members of that committee were unanimous in their endorsation of the brief we had presented to us by the director of the Veterans Land Act, Brigadier Rutherford.
I would like to spend a few moments discussing that briefly. I am particularly interested in this because in my riding I have some 1,124 different small holders units constructed under this act, and it is a very vital part of York-Scarborough. There must have been some moments of anxiety when the Veterans Land Act was first introduced. It was said primarily to be a scheme to settle the veterans on the land, I think probably with tongue in cheek. Everyone knew that it also was a housing program, particularly in the metropolitan areas. In some cases, and perhaps in most, that is what it has really developed into. Of course problems arise in that connection when you get away from the original principle of ah act. However, the act has been a tremendous success. We know that as of December 31, 1953 some 63,000 veterans were settled on holdings, either as full-time farmers or on small holdings in Canada.
The soundness of the scheme depended on two things. First, you had to have a well drawn and executed act, well administered; and, as I said, we have had unanimous endorsation in that regard. On the other hand, the other factor has been the veteran himself. In this regard we have found our veterans to be most industrious, most capable and most ingenious in utilizing the benefits given to them under this act. They literally carved themselves a home out of the wilderness in some cases. As I say, under the benefits of this act the veterans have really come through in a grand way, and I am happy to see that we are extending the benefits of the act. I hope we shall see many more veterans take advantage of the extended provision that we are providing under the new amended bill.
The figures in connection with the settler ments under the act do make wonderful reading. We find that of the 63,000 who were settled under the act, only 114 have been put off owing to non-compliance with their original contract. Of 26,500 small holders, as of April 30, 1954, only 44 of them were in any

Supply-Veterans Affairs way in arrears on their payments. I really do admire the veterans for the way they have carried out their part of the agreement. Only 44 out of 26,000, that is fewer than 2 per thousand, had in any way fallen into arrears in regard to the small holdings and payments on their mortgages.
As I say, in my riding I have 1,124 of these; in Willowdale, about 433, in Agincourt and Scarborough, about 372; and in Highland Creek 319. I have been out to these holdings several times, particularly in the Homeland subdivision in Scarborough, and hon. members would be very proud of the way these veterans have kept and developed their homes. They are men who work during the day. In some cases they have 2 acres, and in many cases one-half an acre; in any event, a large area of land. They have planted grass seed; they have developed gardens and they have really turned those areas into beauty spots. They deserve a great deal of credit. This is reflected in the increased value of the land. When the land was purchased the original cost was about $300 million. That was the estimated cost of the actual land when it was first purchased all across Canada, but the present estimate of the appraisers in the department is something more than $500 million. This, of course, is due to improvements made by the veterans and the natural increase in the value of land around metropolitan areas.
This brings up the problem that one finds in metropolitan areas. When you have land appreciating in value the interest and taxes on that land, or the municipal assessment increases, and in some cases the veterans have found it, I would not say hard but they have complained about the increase in municipal taxes on large holdings such as they have. However, I was pleased to note that during the last session the Ontario legislature amended the Ontario municipal act wherein it was provided that any municipality may pass a bylaw giving special consideration to veterans settled on these subdivisions in regard to municipal assessments and taxes. In that connection the townships of Scarborough and North York and in fact most other municipalities in metropolitan Toronto have taken action and the veterans find themselves assessed on something that is more like a rural assessment basis than the usual metropolitan rates, so that the problem has been partially overcome.
But the veterans, I understand, have been very fortunate in most cases around Toronto because the land values have increased so markedly that it has been possible for veterans to sell their complete holding and obtain enough money to help them out of their total


indebtedness under the act. He can sell part of the holding if he does not require it, and that has been done. As a matter of fact, if this is done before the ten years expires under his contract the veteran finds in many cases that he gets such a good price for the land that he can cheerfully forgo the $1,400 additional grant to which he is entitled if he carries out the contract in full.
However, the surprising thing is that even under such circumstances, when the land is so valuable, the veteran has not been subdividing the land. That has been my experience. They are accustomed to living in these spacious and beautiful surroundings on which they have worked so hard, and it would be difficult, although the value of the land has skyrocketed, for them to give up this land even though by the sale of it they would be in an extremely good financial position. I think that shows a very good attitude on the part of the veterans.
As we all know, part II of the act now allows veterans to obtain assistance in building their own homes with a 10 per cent down payment either in cash or kind and the maximum amount of the loan under the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is $8,000. I believe we will find a great many veterans taking advantage of this section of the act. There are many veterans who find themselves saddled with an expensive home and they will be able to sell that home and build their own home under part II of the act as long as it is approved by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. They can take the equity out of the home they sell and put their own, shall we say, sweat, into building a home of their own and save $2,000, perhaps more, and so put themselves on a sound financial basis. I know that many veterans in Toronto have been looking forward to a scheme such as this. The important part of this scheme is the supervision and assistance they will receive in acting as their own contractors. This has proved very successful under the act so far. We have about 6,000 homes in Canada built entirely by veterans acting as their own contractors, and about 1,700 to 2,000 are under way at the present time.
I think we can depend on the veterans to make the new part II of the act work just as well as they made the old provision work under the old act, and I look forward to very many years of pleasant association with veterans in my own riding under this scheme. I want to pay tribute to Mr. Rutherford and his office staff for the manner in which they have carried out the provisions of the act. They have helped in no small measure to make it work successfully and I know they will carry on doing so.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the veterans affairs committee at this session did, I think we will all agree, a very good job on the bills which were submitted to it. I am not going to take up the time of the committee to go into what was done in regard to these bills, including the Veterans Land Act, except to say that we received an extremely good briefing in regard to the matter and an extremely good picture of what was done under the Veterans Land Act and what the officials hoped will be done in future.
As a result of the evidence made available to us by the various veterans organizations and by way of consultation with the members, I think we succeeded in dealing with the bills effectively. Amendments were made, I think, to all the bills which were presented to us and in fact there were quite a number of amendments to some of them. I think as a result of these amendments the legislation was considerably improved.
There were, however, a few deficiencies in the amendments to the Veterans Land Act which I am sorry to see the government did not correct. I agree with other hon. members who have already pointed out that the rate of interest should have been lowered and could have been made the same as on the small holdings and farms secured under the Veterans Land Act. I think the down payment for houses should be considerably lower in some cases. Under the present provision there is an inflexible down payment provision. I do not see any reason whatever to insist on that provision. The thing could have been made flexible to enable those veterans who wanted to build a home under the act to do so. If there had been a flexible down payment many more could have taken advantage of the act.
Now, the outstanding thing as far as veterans affairs are concerned this year, and the one thing above all others of interest to veterans, and on which they want something done, is a matter which we were not allowed to discuss and on which we were not allowed to make recommendations in committee. That is the matter of war veterans allowances. I think there is no question about the fact that the rate of the war veterans allowance should be increased and the amount of allowable income should be increased. That has been dealt with by a number of people and I am not going to go into the various reasons which could be advanced as to why this improvement is imperative. I would say that a large number of veterans receiving the war veterans allowance are not receiving enough to support themselves and they are having an extraordinarily difficult time. In
Supply-Veterans Affairs many cases they are unable to get enough to eat after they have paid their rent and so forth. This is undoubtedly a situation which should not have been allowed to continue, though it appears the government is quite prepared to allow it to continue beyond this session.
The position in Alberta and British Columbia has already been mentioned. The amount of war veterans allowance vis-a-vis the old age pension is such that you have a situation, I am told, where a German soldier who fought against our troops in the first war is receiving more money under old age pension than the Canadian soldier who fought against him. I am told that in one case that situation actually exists, and it is a situation which can exist so far as quite a considerable number of people are concerned. Despite that the government has taken no action to correct the situation. Anyone who comes to this country and lives here for 20 years and reaches the age of 70, no matter from where he comes, qualifies as a citizen, and such a man is now in a better position in Alberta and British Columbia than is the veteran of the first war who, as I say, may have fought against those people in that war. This is a situation which naturally causes bitterness. How can you expect the people who fought for this country in the first war, when they hear of a situation such as this, to be anything but bitter about it, particularly when they themselves are, as I say, in some cases not receiving enough income to be able to get enough to eat, really.
During this debate the members of this party have been accused of playing politics in the matter of the war veterans allowance. I take grave exception to that accusation, whether it has been made directly, as I think it was in one case, or whether it has been put out by inference. The people who are playing politics in this matter are the people on the government side of the house. They are the people who are trying to play politics with regard to the matter. As a matter of fact, these members are saying that this thing must be corrected, that they would like to see the war veterans allowance increased and that they would like to see the allowable earnings increased and so forth but that there is nothing they can do about it as the government says "No."
As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, some of the speeches I have heard in connection with this matter here in this chamber and in the committee appeared to me to be nothing else but sickening hypocrisy. I feel strongly on this matter. When people come out and say:	Oh, yes; I am entirely in

Supply-Veterans Affairs favour of increasing the war veterans allowance; I am entirely in favour of the Legion brief and so forth, and then demonstrate that belief by voting against every possible motion which would cause it to be implemented, then, as I say, it just does not add up.
The hon. member for Vancouver South, in speaking this afternoon, said he was delighted that the first speech he made in the house was in favour of the war veterans allowance and that this, which would be his last speech, was on the same subject, and that he gave his unqualified support to the Legion brief with regard to an increase in the war veterans allowance. He demonstrated his unqualified support of the Legion brief by voting against every motion in the House of Commons and every motion in the committee which could have implemented that Legion brief. That was how he demonstrated his unqualified support for this increase.


Elmore Philpott: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I strongly supported every practical motion in the House of Commons and I shall continue to demonstrate, as I have during long years past, my support of the cause to which my hon. friend has been so recently converted.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: He was here long before you were.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, this is not a question of privilege; this is a speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I demand that the hon. member state his question of privilege or sit down.


William Earl Rowe: The hon. member for Vancouver South was not even here.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I am asking for a ruling. The hon. member is making a speech.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Will the hon. member kindly allow the hon. member for Vancouver South to state his question of privilege?


Elmore Philpott: And in the veterans affairs committee on the day before I also upheld-


William Earl Rowe: What is the question of privilege?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, what is the privilege?


Elmore Philpott: I strongly supported the
motion of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard and the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond in favour of raising the war veterans allowance.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, this is no question of privilege; it is a speech. I object very strongly.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The hon. member for Calgary North made the assertion that the hon. member for Vancouver South had voted in certain ways, as I heard the expression of the hon. member for Calgary North. The hon. member for Vancouver South quite properly rose and indicated how he voted.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may I say that that is no question of privilege.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, this is a matter of fact. This is not any question of privilege or anything else. It is a question of fact. In the House of Commons we had a motion that the veterans affairs committee have its powers increased in order that it could deal with the war veterans allowance and the hon. member voted against that motion. In the committee we had a motion to the same effect and the hon. member voted against it. I do not care what excuses he gives and so on. Those are the facts.


Elmore Philpott: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege may I say that I did not vote against it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member later wants to try to refute what I am saying, he can make a speech. He is at liberty to do that. In the meantime, I do not think he should be rising on these false questions of privilege.


Elmore Philpott: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege may I say that at no time did I vote against the widening of the terms of reference.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member may
quibble as much as he likes. The record is there. The record of the House of Commons is there.


An hon. Member:: Read it.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The record of the committee is there. I will leave the matter to the judgment of the veterans of this country. In his speech this afternoon the hon. member said the government was not able to increase the war veterans allowance this year. He says they are not able to do it. My goodness, Mr. Chairman, what does he mean by saying that they are not able to do it? There is no question at all of ability to do it. It is a matter of refusal to do it. Any statement along that line indicates, as a matter of fact, the true interest of the hon. member in the

welfare of the veterans allowance recipients and the desire which the hon. member has to have this allowance increased. He says the government was not able to do it. As was pointed out previously, it would mean a mere matter of a few million dollars. Yet he says the government is not able to do it! The government refuses to do it; the government will not do it, and that is the only reason it is not done. No question whatever of ability to do it is involved in the matter.
I must say that I was also disappointed in the hon. member for Cape Breton South this afternoon.


An hon. Member:: That is going to hurt his feelings.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Cape Breton South said he had voted against this motion made in the committee by the hon. member for Royal because of a former vote in the house and because the Prime Minister said that nothing would be done this year about the war veterans allowance. He said that in the committee and he said it again today. For a man who used to be such a bonny fighter as was the hon. member for Cape Breton South to say that he could not support this motion-which really meant an increase in the war veterans allowance- because the Prime Minister, forsooth, had said he did not want it this session, is difficult for me to understand.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman-


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Cape Breton South has certainly changed.


An hon. Member:: Wrong again!


Douglas Scott Harkness: On what sort of question is the hon. member up on his feet? Is this a point of order, a question of privilege or just a speech?


Clarence Gillis: I am just going to ask the hon. member a question.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is fine.


Clarence Gillis: This is one hon. member who I think is inclined to be fair. I should like to ask him if he has read the record. If he has read the record he will know that the motion was on a ruling of the chairman and that it had nothing at all to do with the subject he is talking about.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member knows that there is no use asking me if I read the record. He knows that I was there every minute during which this discussion went on. I know the whole discussion. I heard the whole thing and so on. What the hon. member is doing is quibbling over a technicality. That is what he is doing. He knows
Supply-Veterans Affairs as well as does every other member of that committee that the vote essentially was an effort-the last one we could make-to try to get the war veterans allowance increased at this session. As a matter of fact, because the Prime Minister said there would be no action on it this year, the member said: "Oh well, I will vote against it". This is not typical of the hon. member as I have known him in the nine years that I have been a member of the house.


William Earl Rowe: What reason would there be for that?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am not imputing any reasons or motives at all. I merely say that I am disappointed. I was disappointed that the hon. member should express the views he did in that regard and then turn around this afternoon and accuse the hon. member for Royal of playing politics with this matter.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The thing is completely ridiculous.


Mr. Pouliot:: Royal always does play
politics.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am glad to say that the hon. member for Cape Breton South did not take this defeatist attitude in 1948. As a matter of fact, the prime minister of that time, Mr. Mackenzie King, announced in the house in 1947, to begin with, after a great deal of pressure had been put upon him to take action, that pensions would be increased 10 per cent and that was all. Then we went home for Christmas. There was a great deal of agitation and many representations made, and when we came back after Christmas the prime minister had weakened and he got up and said that he had reconsidered the matter and that the pensions would be increased 15 per cent but that that was the absolute limit. Standing right there he said that under no circumstances would they be increased more than 15 per cent. Did the hon. member for Cape Breton South take a defeatist attitude? Did the rest of us take that attitude? No, Mr. Chairman. When the committee met we went to work on this thing and insisted-


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member asked me a question.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, I did not ask him a question. If the hon. member wants to ask a question he can do so in a minute. I want to finish what I am saying.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.

Supply-Veterans Affairs


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I want to finish what I am saying.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Will the hon. member for Calgary North also take his seat. May I remind hon. members that the hon. member who has the floor cannot be interrupted without his consent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: That is a better ruling.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I was saying, the prime minister said that 15 per cent was the absolute maximum. The members of the veterans affairs committee did not accept that as final. They did not say: Well, the prime minister said that is final and we cannot go any further. We pounded and pounded away at the matter.


Clarence Gillis: You did not force any votes in the house on it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As a matter of fact we moved motions in the committee. The hon. member for Royal moved that the pension should be increased by 33J per cent, and that is what the veterans are receiving now. At that time that motion was defeated but a motion that they should be increased by 25 per cent was passed unanimously by the committee. The matter came back to the house and that recommendation was adopted. Instead of what the prime minister had said the pension was increased by 25 per cent. If we had had the defeatist attitude at that time that the hon. member for Cape Breton South has shown on this occasion the veterans would have had an increase of 15 per cent in their pensions instead of the 25 per cent which they got and the 33J per cent which they have at the present time. The only way you can get things is to fight for them. As far as I am concerned I am going to continue to fight for an increase in the war veterans allowance and in the ceilings and I am not going to be deterred by what the Prime Minister or anybody else says.


An hon. Member:: Have your own way.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As a matter of fact, unless the government comes around to making this change in the fairly near future they are going to have a much greater storm on their heads from the veterans of this country than already exists.


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Chairman, I will not take very long. I do not think I can clear up the misconception that seems to be abroad about the particular vote that was taken in the committee, but I should like to express my point of view. To me it was not a vote on

the merits or demerits of the veterans allowance act at all. If it had been I believe that every member of that committee would have been in favour of taking some action about the war veterans allowance. It was a vote to sustain the chairman's ruling, the chairman having ruled that we did not have the power to deal with a subject that was beyond our terms of reference. I listened very carefully. I think the chairman took about an hour and a half to quote citations and to explain similar situations that had happened in the past. I also listened to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and others who expressed different views. After listening carefully I came to my own personal conclusion that the chairman was correct, and for that reason I supported him. But I supported him on that point only. If the War Veterans Allowance Act had been at stake I would not have supported him. I supported him because I considered, excellent chairman that he was, that he had given a true and faithful interpretation of all the authorities he quoted.
But I felt then and still do that the minister and the government were remiss in their duty in not referring the War Veterans Allowance Act for the consideration of the committee. On behalf of the veterans of my constituency I must register a protest and express their great disappointment that this subject was excluded from the consideration of the committee. The plight of veterans widows should also have been referred to the committee for attention. I fail to understand why the minister did not include these matters in the terms of reference. The minister has been questioned about these matters but so far he has refused to commit himself one way or the other. Before the session is over I think he should definitely say what he intends to do for the war veterans of Canada so that the Legion and others who are anxious to have something tangible done soon will know where they stand.
I am sure that the minister must be aware of the distress and dissatisfaction of the veterans and their widows. The average member of the house receives many letters and telegrams on the subject. Therefore it is quite safe to assume that the minister would receive a great deal more and should be thoroughly conversant with the difficulties faced by the war veterans and widows who are forced to live on a substandard diet in a country as rich and prosperous as we claim ours is. It puzzles me why the minister, being aware of their plight, ignored the whole problem when setting up the terms of reference of the committee.

It cannot be said that we cannot afford the cost. Another member referred to that. It cannot be said that the burden is already too great because I would point out that the total cost of administering the veterans affairs department, providing for all pensions, disability pensions, widows pensions, war veterans allowances, providing for the upkeep and administration of the various hospitals and other buildings, the administration of the pension commission, welfare services, soldier settlement services, the Veterans Land Act, rehabilitation benefits, re-establishment credits and numerous other items, including the minister's own salary, only amounts to a slight fraction over 5 per cent of the federal budget this year.
To my mind that is a very small price to pay to look after Canadian veterans of three wars whose sacrifices have made it possible for us to enjoy our lives and possessions in peace. In spite of the increased cost of living and the greater need of these veterans, particularly the burnt-out pensioners about whom we have been talking, the department has actually reduced its estimated requirements for the current year. I cannot understand that. The government is in the happy position, with an expanding economy and surpluses, of being able to share our wealth with other less fortunate nations, some of whom were our enemies not long ago. I do not criticize them for that. I think we are doing a kindly act, but surely if we can do that Canada's defenders deserve more than a brush-off when they ask to have their problems reviewed by the special committee on veterans affairs.
The previous committee was unanimous in recommending that something should be done for veterans allowance recipients. The members of this committee, too, I believe were unanimous in their sympathy for the recipients of war veterans allowances, but their hands were tied by the government. I am not blaming the chairman of the committee. I believe if he had had it in his power he would have extended the powers of the committee. I submit that the minister and the government deliberately tied the hands of the committee so that they could not deal with this subject.
The chairman of the committee did include in the report a request for sympathetic consideration of war veterans and the merchant marine. Possibly he was exceeding the terms of reference by going even that far, I cannot say. But I sincerely hope that the minister will pay attention to that recommendation, as well as to the numerous briefs presented to the committee on the subject by the various organizations.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
In my opinion the work done by the committee was excellent as far as it went. Several desirable changes were made in the bills before us, and accepted by the government. This proved one thing conclusively to me, and that was that the good work done by this committee should be continued by the formation of a standing committee. I am sure the minister would gain valuable assistance in the administration of this department, and definitely the veterans would secure valuable aid in solving their numerous problems. I wholeheartedly support the Canadian Legion brief. These people have done an excellent piece of work in presenting it, and trying to solve the problems in the way they have recommended.
I should like also to draw one other thing to the minister's attention. This matter cannot wait for attention by the standing committee, but is urgent and touches on the plight of the widows of veterans who die while in receipt of a pension for less than a 50 per cent disability. I have a letter here from the British Columbia branch of the Canadian Legion drawing attention to the widows' position. I should like to quote it.
We would point out that, as the whole intent of the Pension Act is to provide benefits strictly in accord with the degree of war disability, it would seem quite evident that at present most of the trouble as far as the widow is concerned, lies in the fact that there is too great a difference between the benefits provided for a 50 per cent and a 45 per cent disability.
A person with a 50 per cent disability gets a 30 per cent increase between the ages of 55 and 59 years; but a 45 per cent pension gets no increase. This ultimately hurts the widow when, on the death of the veteran, the pension is under 50 per cent. It is extremely hard to believe that if a 50 per cent disability can prove so burdensome with advancing years as to warrant three successive 10 per cent increases, a 45 per cent fixed assessment is entirely unaffected by age and so warrants no increase.
It should be pointed out that where a widow is left when the pension is at 50 per cent, she receives $100 per month; but the widow of a pensioner who dies with less than a 50 per cent disability pension, say 48 per cent or 49 per cent, gets nothing at all. Where children are left under similar circumstances, the children of the veteran on a 50 per cent disability pension get pensions at the orphan rate, which is double the 100 per cent rate, but the children of a veteran on a 45 per cent disability pension receive nothing.
With all due respect to the minister, I believe he should pay urgent and special attention to these widows, who are numerous. I am sorry they are numerous. They are

Supply-Veterans Affairs numerous because of the hard classification that the pensioner has to undergo to get a pension at all. Possibly there are far too many veterans who get less than 50 per cent, and so far as the widows are concerned more generous treatment should be accorded to them. I hope that the minister will take that under advisement.


Mr. Pearkes:: In listening to the discussion of this item today and the debates that have taken place earlier in this session on the question of veterans, I believe two points stand out and should be emphasized. The first of these is the success that has been achieved by the special committee on veterans affairs, not only this year but in previous years. The success has been achieved in spite of a certain amount of internal wrangling in which there has been a difference of opinion as to the best approach to achieve the one aim of every member of that committee, namely, the improvement of the position of the veterans. I honestly believe that considerable progress has been made by these veterans affairs committees over the period of many years. I sincerely hope that they will continue, and if there is a certain amount of internecine strife it is only because various members of that committee are so anxious to achieve something for the veterans that they believe the means they are advocating are the best way in which to achieve those ends. When you get people really worked up in their effort to try to do something for the cause, it is inevitable that there is a certain amount of heat engendered, but that is very largely on the surface. There is a genuine effort by all members of the committee to achieve a great end.
The second point that I think should be underlined is the fact that the committee this year was rather restricted in its terms of reference and therefore was not able to examine as many of the problems facing the veterans as most members of the committee would have liked to have the privilege of doing. Of course chief of all those problems that had to be omitted from the discussion was this question of the further assistance that was necessary for the recipients of war veterans allowances. I am not going into the details of that allowance or of the requisites which are necessary in order to really place these old sailors, soldiers and airmen in a position in which they can live with dignity during their remaining years.
Some reference has been made to the change in the casual earnings earlier in this session. I know the minister will recall that I raised the question with him before Christmas, as to the exact meaning of the definition of casual earnings as given in the directive

which was then in existence. I expressed my appreciation to the minister for having looked into that question, and having produced the new directive to which the hon. member for Cape Breton South referred earlier. The casual earnings, and the expansion of the definition of casual earnings are only half the battle because the majority of the recipients of war veterans allowances are not in a position to go out and augment their allowances by undertaking work even of a casual nature. Many of those who are partially crippled, and are in receipt of a pension, of course are not in a position to augment their allowance in the least.
I merely mention that as being one of the items of unfinished business which remain today, so far as veterans affairs are concerned. And I want to offer to the minister this evening what appears to me to be a practical and timely suggestion as to the way in which these two items to which I have referred-the success of the committee and the amount of the unfinished business-can be harmonized in the future.
I would call attention to the fact that the veterans charter was drawn up and published nine years ago; it will be ten years when the next session of parliament will be called. And I would call attention to the final paragraph of the foreword written for the veterans charter by the then minister of veterans affairs, the late Hon. Ian Mackenzie, than whom no one worked harder for the veterans. This is what he wrote:
Not for ten, perhaps twenty, years will it be known how much ex-service men and women have been able to contribute to a Canada at peace as a result of these re-establishment measures. When that accounting is made, I know the program laid down in the veterans charter will appear in true perspective as a social investment of unmatched success.
And then, in the closing chapter he had these words:
The veterans charter is, therefore, not only an expression of the gratitude and generous thought of their compatriots but it is a long range plan to utilize the best minds and talents of a generation in such a way as to make an ever growing contribution to the Dominion of Canada. A contribution that in its fulfilment would enhance the social, economic and cultural advance of a nation which twice in its short history had thrust upon it a battle for survival, and under the threat of conquest had still the moral courage to plan for a nobler fulfilment of its destiny.
Those words were written ten years ago. Since the veterans charter was introduced there have been many amendments to some of the bills embraced within it. There are actually 19 different acts in the charter affecting the welfare of the veterans, and in addition there are a number of regulations.
But, as I say, this was drawn up 10 years ago; and if we allow our minds to turn

back over those ten years we will see that we have a very different world today from the atmosphere in which the charter was prepared. Ten years ago we were basking in the sunshine of the San Francisco agreement in which there were to be united nations, where five great powers were going to see that there would be no more war. That was the atmosphere in which the charter was drawn up.
We have passed from the high explosives age to the atomic age of today. But we have also made progress in many other lines. I would call attention of hon. members to the progress which has been made throughout Canada in many lines of social security, and the assistance given to those who are less fortunate than the majority. I would call attention to the assistance given under the various schemes for national health, given not only by the federal government but by many of the provinces. In those days there were no provincial health insurance plans.
Therefore I am going to suggest that next year, when parliament assembles for its next session, there should be a complete review of the veterans charter in order to bring it up to date, in order to consolidate the different acts, and in order to bring in all the different amendments so that they may be embodied in the acts. Let us see that those 19 acts are related one to the other, and also related to conditions as they exist in Canada today.
Now that the first ten years have passed we have reached the time for the first accounting, to which the late Ian Mackenzie referred. I believe we shall find that in very large measure the charter will appear in true perspective and that it will be considered an unmatched success. But we are not going to stand still. Conditions have changed in the last ten years. Now is the time for us to have that review so as to bringing the veterans charter up to date, so that it can be related to conditions as they are in Canada today, and so that a committee, set up early in the session, would have the opportunity of reviewing all those acts of parliament which have reference to the veterans of this country.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, I feel it is always wise for one to give expression to any words of commendation he may feel before proceeding to words of censure or criticism. Therefore this evening, rising to take part in this debate, I should like first of all to let the Minister of Veterans Affairs know that we appreciate deeply the readiness with which he and his department deal with all veterans problems we bring to their attention from time to time. Personally, I have always found them to be more than
Supply-Veterans Affairs ready and willing to investigate any particular case, to report upon it and to let us know the situation as it really exists.
We are also very happy in respect of those measures passed at this session of parliament. I may say that already some of the veterans in my own riding are receiving benefits from some of those measures, or they will be in the near future. Therefore first of all I commend the minister and his department.
Having done that I feel I am now free to go ahead and voice any criticisms I have with just as great emphasis as I have used in my commendation. It is not my purpose tonight to deal at length with veterans legislation in general. The hon. member for Acadia and the hon. member for New Westminster have set forth clearly our attitude with respect to veterans legislation in general. However I do feel that up to the present time the government has failed to deal with those problems that are of special concern to veterans organizations across Canada.
Speaking in the house some time ago I gave expression to that conviction, and since that time the conviction has been strengthened further by a considerable number of communications I have received from individual veterans and from branches of the Legion in various sections. I hope the saying is still true that the constant dropping of water wears away the rock-and, applying it in this instance, that the constant emphasis and re-emphasis of these particular issues will soften the heart of the government. I do not say the heart of the minister because I believe that he personally would be most happy if he could do something further for the war veterans who are not on the allowance at the present time. But I do trust that the continued re-emphasis of these particular matters will somehow encourage the government to take time off to reconsider them and give further attention to the plight of the war veterans.
The first one of course, as I have already said, is the war veterans allowance, which is recommendation No. 1 in the brief presented to the Prime Minister of Canada and the cabinet by the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League on November 10, 1953, which states:
That the basic rate of war veterans allowance be increased to $60 per month for a single veteran, and $120 per month for those who are married.
The government has already given us to understand in no uncertain terms that they are not going * to consider the raising of the war veterans allowance at this session. Some time ago this matter was brought to the

Supply-Veterans Affairs attention of the government and it was sidetracked on several occasions. Just recently I received telegrams from various Legion branches in my own particular riding. I should like to refer to a telegram that I received from W. Cross, zone commander, New Westminster and district zones of the Canadian Legion. It is dated May 21 and reads as follows:
Canadian Legion delegates from South Burnaby, New Westminster, Mission, Haney, Port Coquitlam and Port Moody branches representing 4,200 members met last night in South Burnaby branch 83 and passed unanimous motion deeply deploring Prime Minister's callousness over plight of thousands of veterans. Have wired Prime Minister. We in your constituency demand your support of Canadian Legion brief and urge you do your utmost to have War Veterans Allowance Act given full consideration this session.
I would have been as happy to see the word "request" used in the telegram instead of "demand", but the word "demand" was used. Perhaps some hon. members will recall that I brought this to the attention of the house just before the orders of the day on May 21, and asked whether the Prime Minister had received a telegram in this connection and whether he was prepared to make any statement in regard to its contents. Mr. Speaker gave me to understand that that was not the proper time to bring a question of that kind to the attention of the house, and suggested that it would be more appropriate to ask it in the veterans affairs committee or when the estimates of the Minister of Veterans Affairs were before the house. I understand that this is the proper time to refer to it. However there was no opportunity for a statement to be made at that time. I want to bring to the attention of the committee, of the minister and of the department the fact that we are still definitely interested in and concerned about this particular matter, and request that it be given full consideration, and that something further be done for those who are recipients of the war veterans allowance.
I will not refer to the veterans affairs committee. I was not a member of it, but I read some interesting things that came out of it. I was surprised at the attitude of some of the members of that committee, but I do not want to be ruled out of order at this time. Therefore I shall not make any further comments in that regard.
The second recommendation in the Canadian Legion brief to which I have referred reads:
That the ceilings on total permissible income under War Veterans Allowance Act be increased to $1,200 per year in the case of a single recipient and $2,000 per year in the case of those married.

I want to lend my support to that recommendation as well and to ask the government whether they will not just bend a little. I do not think it is asking very much, but I would request the government to bend a little and yield to the requests of the Legion in this particular respect.
I stated some time ago that I could not understand why the government refuses to raise the ceiling on permissive income. We all recognize that as it stands now it is entirely inadequate to permit of a decent standard of living. In a letter which is quoted in the October issue of the Legionary, and which was sent to the Prime Minister by C. B. Lumsden, dominion president of the Canadian Legion, we find the following in the first part of it:
For some years we have been asking for a revision of the War Veterans Allowance Act which would raise the ceiling on permissible income and permit an increase in the basic allowance for those with no other means of support. To us the moral and sociological reasons in favour of these changes seem overwhelming and our members find it difficult to understand why our representations have not been accepted.
There is little that we can add to the briefs previously presented. We would merely like to reiterate that as the act stands at present it tends to defeat its own objectives. If the allowance is intended to assist the aged and needy veteran, the low permissive ceiling prevents him from supplementing this allowance sufficiently to enjoy a reasonable standard of living. If it is intended as a subsistence allowance, it is far too small.
The taxation laws of Canada consider that an income of less than $2,000 is too low for a married man to pay income tax. Yet war veterans allowance expects a married couple to live on $1,200 a year.
There is more to the letter but I will not take the time of the committee to read it. I should like to suggest once again that the government give consideration and take action as soon as possible to accede to the request of the Legion. These are the two matters to which I should like to refer. I know other speakers have already emphasized them, but I want to give them my support at this time. I urge the government to yield on these two important and very necessary requests.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I believe
that there are 243 members of this house who not only would offer no objection but who would welcome it wholeheartedly if tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock the Prime Minister were to announce on behalf of the government its desire to bring in an amendment to the War Veterans Allowance Act, and were to ask the house for unanimous consent to put it through all stages at one sitting. The legislation would be passed before one o'clock tomorrow.

I use the figure of 243 members advisedly. There are 265 seats in this house. We are missing two whom we lost a short while ago. There are 20 members of this house who are in the cabinet. That leaves 243 of us who are private members. I suggest that all 243 of us would readily agree to such a request if the government were to make it tomorrow morning. I urge that consideration be given to that proposition.
It has been suggested by a good many members during the course of the debate today that something must be done about this matter as soon as possible, and certainly at the next session of parliament. I see no reason why it should not be done at this session even yet, certainly before we reach prorogation.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, this debate is a demonstration of the way in which parliament sometimes works. As I have already said, we are 265 members when we are all here, but for those of us outside of the cabinet all we can do is make speeches, move amendments, ask questions, and do all the other things we can to try to persuade the government to bring in legislation of this kind.
When it comes to legislation of almost any kind, and particularly when it comes to legislation involving the expenditure of money, that must be brought in by the government. Those 20 men in the cabinet-and I am referring to the 20 who are members of this house because although there are 21 members in the cabinet one of them is over in the other place- occupy a key position. What it boils down to is this, that 11 of those 20 occupy the key position. Eleven out of those 20 would constitute a majority. What the other 243 members of this house are doing is making appeals of this kind in the hope that we can yet persuade 11 out of those 20 to agree that something should be done about this matter at this session of parliament.
Let it not be said that it is too late. As a matter of fact, during this very week a piece of legislation is being put through, notice of which was not given until Monday. I realize that it turns out to be an uncontentious piece of legislation. I refer to the proposal to amend the Judges Act-but not to increase the salaries of judges-and I would point out that notice of that intention was not given until Monday of this week. Unanimous consent has not yet been requested for the purpose of speeding up the progress of that legislation. If it goes through its normal stages at the speed permitted by the rule book it could be through by Friday of this week. In other sessions there have been instances where items of legislation have been brought in near the end of the session and have been
Supply-Veterans Affairs put through all their necessary stages. That could certainly be done with this piece of legislation and I urge that even yet consideration be given to it. I do not know of any reason why a cabinet meeting could not be held tonight or tomorrow morning in time for the opening of this house at eleven o'clock. If the cabinet cannot meet before tomorrow morning, we are meeting Saturday and that would be a good way in which to start Saturday sittings in this session, namely, by having amendments brought in to the War Veterans Allowance Act.
Now, Mr. Chairman, reference has been made quite frequently this evening to the report of the veterans affairs committee. I do not think the recommendation to which reference has been made has yet been put on the record in its entirety and I think we should have that part of the report before us in its exact terms. Before reading it I would like to point out that this is from the fifth report of the special committee on veterans affairs which was presented to the house by the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Rosthern, on Friday, June 11. The part to which reference has been so frequently made reads as follows:
In tabling herewith a copy of the evidence adduced, your committee desires to draw attention to the fact that the submission by the Canadian Legion, the National Council of Veterans Associations and the Canadian non-pensioned veterans' widows, each contained, in addition to representations in respect of the said bills,-
That refers to the four bills which were before the committee.
-representations urging changes in the War Veterans Allowance Act to raise the amounts of allowances payable thereunder, and also to raise the level of permissive income.
The Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans Association, in their submission, laid most stress on a wish that those who served during world war II in dangerous waters receive the benefits of the Veterans Land Act.
Your committee recommends that the government give sympathetic consideration to the said submissions.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I must say that I rather share the views of those who have characterized that last sentence as something in the nature of a pious hope or a pious prayer, but at least we do know that after all the arguments were over in the committee that report was adopted unanimously.
Now, who made up that committee? It was made up of private members chosen from amongst the 243 to whom I referred a few minutes ago, representing all the parties in this house. I submit that the fact that those members representing the various parties in this house agreed unanimously on this report makes it crystal clear that not only those members in the committee but the
6190	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs entire 243 support that contention that the government should give sympathetic consideration to these submissions. The first of these submissions was that the War Veterans Allowance Act should be amended to raise the amount of the allowance payable thereunder, and also to raise the level of permissive income.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I could but I do not think it is necessary to go into the merits of the case itself. The reason why it is not necessary is because it is so obvious, and because it has been made so many times this afternoon and evening. But I feel I would like to pinpoint the fact that here is an opportunity for the government to recognize the way in which parliament properly works. Here is an opportunity for the government to recognize the wish of the 243 of us who are here, and respond to the unanimous feeling of the private members of this house.
I know there has been no vote in which the 243 members have had a chance to express themselves, but I think I am perfectly justified in contending that the unanimous support of this report by members representing all parties means that the 243 of us would welcome action on this matter at this session, and I hope that even yet, before we reach the day of prorogation, something will be done about this matter.
For my part I support the contention that has been made by the Canadian Legion that the amount of the allowance should be increased to not less than $60 a month single and $120 a month married. I agree too with the contention of the Legion that if it is not possible to remove the means test altogether then at least the level of permissive income should be raised to $1,200 a year single, and $2,000 a year married.
I think particular notice should be taken of the fact that amongst those who appeared before the committee were representatives of the Canadian non-pensioned veterans widows association. As hon. members know there was a time when there was no provision for non-pensioned veterans widows and then the time came along about 1943 when, by an item in the estimates, there was a special allowance for these women. In due course their allowance was made statutory by their being brought under the terms of the War Veterans Allowance Act. Therefore when we are asking for these increases under the War Veterans Allowance Act we are quite properly asking for an increase, not only for the war veterans themselves who are the recipients of those allowances but for the widows who qualify under this same legislation, and I wish to support their other requests as well.
fMr. Knowles.]

I wish to indicate once again my support of the contention which has been made repeatedly, and made many times today, that something should be done about that cut-off date with respect to the widows of imperial veterans. It seems to me that some change in that provision should be made so that it will not be necessary for the veteran to have lived in Canada the full 20 years in order for his widow to qualify. This provision results in many cases of hardship, which could be avoided by changing that 20 year provision.
I support the contention made earlier today that surely the time has come when the United Kingdom might be recognized as a theatre of war so far as world war I is concerned. This has been a sore point for a long time. The number affected by it is dwindling all the time. It has become more of an issue now that the United Kingdom has been accepted as a theatre of war in world war II. I submit that to make this change would have value not only in terms of the dollars that would be available to many of these veterans or to some of their widows as the result of the change but as a boost in morale to our older veterans generally. I hope that even yet that change might be made.
As I have already indicated, Mr. Chairman, the case for amending the War Veterans Allowance Act in terms of substance, in terms of the merits of the matter and in terms of what our veterans deserve has been made so well at this session and at other sessions across the years that it is hardly necessary to repeat it. I urge as strongly as I can, and as seriously and as earnestly as I can, that this matter be not left over as an item of unfinished business for another session but that something be done about it at this session. I see no reason why the Prime Minister should not announce the desire and willingness of the government to bring in such a bill tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, it has been significant that throughout the debate this afternoon and this evening, practically all of the attention has been focused on the war veterans allowance. I think I have never before seen a debate on veterans affairs proceed in that way. There is, of course, a reason for this fact. The plight of the war veterans allowance recipients and of those who might qualify if the restrictions were not so severe is the most serious situation facing the veterans of Canada today.
These men must have been fighting men. No one can qualify for the war veterans allowance unless he served in a theatre of

war, with the exception of those who are in receipt of a pension for a disability or an injury suffered in England or in Canada during the first war; and of course there is a similar eligibility for the veterans of the second world war.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: And those with dual service.


Howard Charles Green: Yes; there are also the men who had dual service. These men have a good claim to consideration by the government because, as I have said, they have been our fighting men. Not only have they a good claim but there is great importance to this question because time is so vital. They are now reaching an age when many of them are dropping off. Within the next year probably many hundreds of these men will die. They are facing not a deadline such as that which has been written into the Pension Act, but a death-line. Hence time is of the utmost importance.
There is one thing that stands out clearly today and it is that there will be no action whatever to help these veterans at the present session. Next year something may be done for them, but it is absolutely clear that nothing is to be done at this session. That fact, I submit, is the tragedy of this whole situation.
The primary responsibility for failure to act at this session rests squarely on the government. Recommendations were made to them unanimously two years ago by a special committee on veterans affairs set up in the session of that year. I have here a copy of the report which was dated June 18, 1952, and contains this recommendation with regard to war veterans allowance:
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 and particularly with regard to permissive income.
Some of us on that committee had tried to get through a resolution which called for action at the session of 1952, but the best we could do was this recommendation which I have read. It was made unanimously. Every member on that committee supported that recommendation. However no action has been taken by the government during the intervening two years, with the exception of some modification in the definition of what constitutes casual earnings.
Then recommendations on this question were made by the Canadian Legion every year. On November 10 of last year they submitted to the cabinet a brief which contained their recommendations, once again, for improvement of the War Veterans Allowance Act. They asked that the maximum payment
Supply-Veterans Affairs to the single veteran be increased from $50 a month to $60, that the maximum payment to the married veteran be increased from $90 to $120, and that the ceiling on permissive income should be $1,200 for the single veteran and $2,000 for the married veteran.
Then we had put on the order paper, early in the spring, the motion for the setting up of a committee on veterans affairs. The government chose to word that motion in such a way that the committee had power to deal only with what bills were referred to it; and the Prime Minister announced that there would not be any amendment to the War Veterans Allowance Act at this session. There was therefore no prospect of having the War Veterans Allowance Act referred to the committee.
During the debate in the house on the setting up of the committee we sought to have the terms of reference widened in order to enable the committee to deal with the war veterans allowance, but the government refused to accept that suggestion. I had thought that as a result of the debate in the house the government might change its attitude.
I think perhaps that change of attitude might have taken place if private members on the government side of the house had taken a determined stand asking that the terms of reference be extended. However, only one or two of them did so. Mind you, Mr. Chairman, I realize that it is a great deal more difficult for a supporter of the government to rise in his place and criticize the government than it is for those of us who are on the opposition side to do so. However, in this instance I feel confident that if the Liberal members had been a little bit tougher at the time of the setting up of that committee we might not today be placed in the unfortunate position that nothing is to be done at the present session in the way of improving the war veterans allowance. I therefore repeat that the primary responsibility rests squarely on the government.
I do not blame the veterans affairs committee to the same extent, but I say that our committee on veterans affairs lost a splendid opportunity to bring about improvements. We heard representations from the Legion although the terms of reference were not supposed to include consideration of the war veterans allowance. We also had a brief from the national council in which they regretted that the war veterans allowance could not be considered at this session. When we came to consider what action should be taken by the committee some of us tried to put through a motion which would have had

Supply-Veterans Affairs the effect of asking the house to widen the terms of reference. That motion read as follows:
That this committee submit a report to the house requesting that the terms of reference of the committee be enlarged to enable it to consider the War Veterans Allowance Act and make recommendations in respect thereof at this session of parliament.
That motion was ruled out of order by the chairman of the committee. He needed a good many law books and rule books and a very long argument in order to arrive finally at the decision that the motion was out of order. However, he did so rule. But I point out, Mr. Chairman, that every committee is master of its own fate. The members of that committee had the power to overrule the ruling which had been made by the chairman, and an appeal was taken to the committee as a whole against that ruling. We voted on that appeal. The government members lined up solidly behind the chairman. There again I can see a reason for their doing so. I regretted that they did, but it was much easier for those of us in the opposition to vote against the chairman's ruling than it was for the supporters of the government.
But quite frankly I find it very hard to understand why the hon. member for Cape Breton South and the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary saw fit to vote in support of the chairman's ruling because if it had been upset there is no doubt that the motion itself would have carried and we would have come back to the house with a recommendation that the terms of reference of the committee be extended so that it could consider the question of the war veterans allowance. However, they voted that way. Their colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay West, voted the other way. He justified his position in the committee and has done so in the house today.
In the final analysis a report was brought in by the committee to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has referred, and it does contain this reference:
Your committee recommends that the government give sympathetic consideration to the said submissions.
That included the submissions on the question of the war veterans allowance. I believe that the report should have gone further and that it should have recommended that legislation amending the War Veterans Allowance Act be introduced at the present session of parliament. However, we do have this report recommending consideration. It has the value of placing before the government again the need for considering the question of the war veterans allowance, but it has the terrible

weakness that no possible action can be taken at the present session to help recipients of the allowance. That, I think, is one of the saddest situations in which I have seen the veterans of this country placed since I came here in 1935.
This is a dangerous situation for the veterans of Canada for another reason. I believe that the government is refusing to do anything about the war veterans allowance because it is government policy to treat the war veterans allowance recipient on the same basis as ordinary civilian welfare cases. I believe that is the secret of the refusal of the government to listen to these various recommendations. Just a few days ago a bill was passed in the house known as the Disabled Persons Act. It is significant to note that the maximum amount that a disabled person who qualifies under the act can get is $720 a year if he or she is single and $1,200 a year if married. There you have the same ceilings that exist in the War Veterans Allowance Act.
Then we go back to 1951 to the Old Age Assistance Act. There again there is a ceiling of $720 for the single recipient and $1,200 for the married. Thus it becomes perfectly clear that the plan is to keep these old frontline soldiers on the same basis as civilians who are getting benefits under these civilian acts. As hon. members have pointed out, one result of that is that in British Columbia and Alberta today the civilian is getting more than the war veterans allowance recipient.
But the fundamental mistake in the government's policy is that the claim of the war veterans allowance man is completely different from that of the civilian. The civilian gets these payments as a matter of welfare. The war veterans allowance man gets them because he risked his life for his country. His claim is for services rendered and he should not be put on the same basis as the civilian. He has a claim as of right. I believe that every member of the house down in his heart knows that such is the case and that there is that great distinction between these two groups. I believe it is a tragedy that the government is failing to recognize that difference and is forcing these war veterans allowance men to remain in the same position as welfare recipients.
That is not what the members of the house wish, no matter to what party they belong. It is not what the newspapers of this country wish. I daresay there have been editorials in every leading paper in Canada in favour of doing something for these fighting troops. It is not what the Canadian people wish, whether they be young or old, whether they be old comrades of these war veterans allowance men or whether they be civilians. They

want to see these fighting men treated in a fair way and treated on the basis of having earned the right to receive this help from their country. I do not believe there is a person in Canada who would be unwilling to see money put out to increase the war veterans allowance to the amount set by the Legion and to raise the ceiling on permissive income to the amounts the Legion requests.
There you have the reason why this is a fighting issue. This issue is not going to be allowed to drop by members of the house who have taken their stand for years, or by the newspapers of the country or by the veterans organizations. I hope that the Canadian people will insist that the just claims of these veterans be recognized. I can only add in closing that I think it is a terrible tragedy that nothing is to be done for these fighting men at the present session.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: I should like at the start, Mr. Chairman, to heartily endorse the suggestion made by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, because I am quite sure he was right when he expressed the view there is not a single one of the 243 private members of the house who would oppose this measure. In fact, I would think this would be an opportunity for some of them to get up and say if they do oppose that suggestion. I do not see any of them getting up, so I presume we can take it for granted that they all agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Speak now or forever hold your peace.


Colin Cameron: I am at a loss to understand why this government periodically persists in doing something so stupid as they have done with regard to the war veterans allowances. There can only be one of two reasons that makes them decline the demands of not only the veterans organizations but of the citizens of Canada. I am quite sure there is not a member in this house who does not feel a sense of shame when he reads in the newspaper the sort of case referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver South. There can be no member in this house who tonight does not feel a sense of shame when he knows that if the government persists in its foolish, stupid opposition, before the house meets again there are going to be many more old men and old women who are going to turn on the gas. We all know that. They are going to turn it on and stick their heads in the oven. I would not consider it advisable for any member to treat this matter with levity, because it is not such a matter. It is a matter for shame for all decent Canadian citizens.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
As I say, there is only one of two reasons. One is that they consider the veterans of two world wars do not deserve any greater measure of generosity than parliament has already granted them. I doubt if there is any member of this house who would have the foolhardiness to rise and suggest that that is a reasonable cause for the government's position. I doubt if there is anyone here who would have the temerity to get up and say that the man who risked his life for Canada is not worth more than he is getting now under the legislation. There may be some, but I doubt if there are any in this chamber who would dare get up and say so.
I am not suggesting that all those who joined the armed forces and fought in Canada's wars were heroes. We were not heroes. They are few and far between. It is time, however, I believe for this government to be reminded of the fact that every man who joins the armed forces of this country takes the risk that he is going to lose his life in that service. He takes another risk, too, in fact it is almost a certainty. He runs an almost certain risk of damaging himself physically or psychologically or both. It has been stated that most of the veterans of the first world war can be considered medically some ten years older than their calendar age. I do not know whether or not that is true, but I have heard that reported on many occasions. I am quite sure a very large majority of those who went through the four years of the first war came back to Canada impaired in some way in their health. I doubt whether that is the reason the government is declining to do this.
The only other reason is that we cannot afford it. I do not know what it would cost to implement the demands of the Canadian Legion. I do not know whether it would mean adding 50 per cent or 100 per cent to the present expenditure of $27 million on war veterans allowances. But even if it cost 100 per cent more, even if it means our bill for war veterans allowance will be doubled, and we will have to spend another $27 million, I think that is a very weak and shaky reason for refusing to do it. This $27 million is a lot of money, and of course the government may perhaps hesitate to ask the taxpayers of Canada to dig into their pockets to find another $27 million.
On the other hand the government apparently had not the slightest hesitation or compunction in not asking but forcing the taxpayers of Canada to dig into their pockets to the tune of $277 million, since the Department of Defence Production was established, as an allowance for write-offs on income tax

Supply-Veterans Affairs for those firms that are patriotically providing the sinews of war. The amount is reported here as $277 million that has been accorded these people by way of additional benefits in income tax write-offs since the Department of Defence Production was established in 1951. The government had no hesitation whatever in digging into the pockets of the Canadian taxpayer to the tune of $48 million in order to make grants of additional working capital for one year, 1953, to those firms that are producing the sinews of war which may be used by future generations of Canadian veterans who will have to get along on $40 per month.
I am going to suggest that the government had better tell the people of Canada very bluntly and plainly just why they consider that the gentlemen who own the industries, many of these industries which were apparently built by public funds and which provide the sinews of war, are more worthy of aid from the public treasury than are the men who came back from two wars. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, how much we are paying in the way of profits on the expenditures we are going to make this year of $160 million on naval equipment; $80 million on army equipment and nearly $447 million on air force equipment, a total of some $688 million on military equipment for which orders are being placed this year according to the estimates before us. I wonder what percentage of that is going in perhaps not exactly justifiable profits to those who own those industries. I wonder whether perhaps we might consider that one per cent or two per cent of that volume might be exceptional profits, profits to which one could reasonably take exception.
If they were, of course, and if we decided not to give it to those operating these industries we would have ample funds to implement the Legion's demands. This would allow some sort of justice to be accorded to the old men, who once were young and who in the days of their youth gave their services to the people of Canada.


Hugues Lapointe: In, rising to speak on this item of the departmental estimates, Mr. Chairman, I feel that at the very beginning I should offer my thanks and those of the government to the members of the veterans affairs committee who this year have made a thorough study in their usual efficient manner of the legislation referred to them by this house. I recognize that on this committee there are some veterans, not of wars but of the committee's work, and there are also some new members who made a fine contribution.
I would like to thank at the same time the various veterans organizations, the Canadian

Legion, the National Council of Veterans Associations, the non-pensioned widows and the merchant seamen who came before the committee, presented briefs and made representations in their usual constructive manner.
Since the debate began this afternoon many subjects have been discussed by hon. members who have participated. I believe some of these matters could be answered more appropriately when we are discussing the specific items in the estimates dealing with the matters concerned. However it is obvious that the whole debate has centred on this very serious question of war veterans allowances. Observations have been made which I believe call for some rectification on my part, or at least for a statement of certain facts which may have been overlooked in discussing the matter.
I am not saying for one moment that the matter has not been discussed properly by hon. members. However I do feel that certain terms used in the house and outside of it with reference to war veterans allowances have been somewhat exaggerated, and that the use of words such as indifferent, callousness and stupidity as regards this administration is indicative of a lack of comprehension of all the implications of this particular question.
I do not want to go over the whole history of war veterans allowances. However I do believe that in order to understand exactly the position of the government in considering this question the picture should be made clear. I say this because to many of us who are familiar with veterans legislation, such as members of the committee who have been sitting for some years and following that legislation, it appears very clear; to some members of the press who have followed it it is also clear. However, at least to myself and others who are receiving representations from outside, and who are reading certain editorials in the press, it is plain there is uncertainty in the public mind as to what war veterans allowances are. In many people's minds there appears to be confusion between war veterans allowances and disability pensions.
I say this because I have received many letters in which it is pointed out that something should be done about raising the war veterans allowance for the old wounded veterans. In other words, in the minds of many people there is no appreciation of the fact that war veterans allowances and pensions for disability incurred during service are/ two different things.	/
The war veterans allowance was instituted in 1930. I thought the hon. member for Acadia stated the situation very clearly this

afternoon. It was created for the purpose of looking after the older veterans, and making available to them the old age pension, as it was called at that time, ten years before any other citizens were eligible to receive it, on the basis that active service in the front line would cause pre-ageing by ten years in any man who had been called upon to perform in the front line. Consequently those who could qualify under the original act were veterans who were sixty years of age, and those who, being under sixty years, could be certified to be totally disabled and incapacitated. No others qualified. The benefit given at that time was that they could receive the equivalent of the old age pension, under the same conditions of a means test and, as I have said, ten years sooner.
What has happened since then? Well, of course the act has been widened, and new groups have been admitted. Widows and dual service veterans have been brought in. Veterans have also been made eligible whose circumstances were such that as a result of the combination of their financial circumstances and their physical condition they have found it impossible to find work in the labour market.
Furthermore, all through the history of this legislation the amount paid by way of war veterans allowances, and the ceilings imposed under the means test, were always parallel to those of the old age pension, for the reason given this afternoon by the hon. member for Acadia-that at the very beginning it was stated that the purpose of the legislation was to make old age pensions available to older veterans ten years before other citizens in this country were so eligible.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra says he knows the secret as to why the government will not accede to the demands being made. He said it is because we are assimilating these veterans into the civilian population, and giving them the same treatment as civilians. There is no secret about this. That has been said right along, ever since the act was created. I repeated it last year and I said that I could not see how a major change could be made in this legislation which would break the ties that have existed between war veterans allowances and old age pensions, a relationship which has always existed between those two pieces of legislation.


George Randolph Pearkes: Remove the means test.


Hugues Lapointe: I shall deal with this matter.
What is the situation at the present time? I should like to give a few figures in order to show that in spite of what has been said here tonight the government has considered this
Supply-Veterans Affairs question very seriously, that there are important factors to be considered before making any changes in the legislation, and that the implications may well be more far-reaching than is understood by at least some hon. members opposite.
At the present time the estimates indicate that the item for the war veterans allowance, together with the assistance fund, total $27,715,500. This amount has been increasing in the last ten years. I believe that ten years ago it was about $14 million. However this increase is a normal process. Another factor which must be considered in the cost of war veterans allowances is that the recipients of the allowance are also entitled to free medical treatment. And, although the money expended for medical treatment for the recipients of the war veterans allowance does not appear in a separate item in the estimates, the cost in the last fiscal year was $8,992,850, or just a few thousand dollars less than $9 million. This sum should be added to the $27 million I have just mentioned.
What would happen from the point of view of increasing liability if at the present time increases, as some have been suggesting, were adopted by the government?
It has been suggested that the allowance should be increased from $50 to $60 for a single recipient and from $90 to $120 for the married recipient, and at the same time the ceilings should be raised to $1,200 for the single recipient and to $2,000 for the married recipient. That alone, sir, would increase the present liability for war veterans allowance by over $16 million. That is, it would increase the expenditure for the present year by 60 per cent, on the basis of the present number of recipients; but to that must be added an estimated $2,500,000 for additional recipients, which must necessarily follow from the fact that the ceiling is raised. As hon. members know, every time the ceiling is raised in legislation such as this new groups of people qualify and the expenditure is thereby increased. Therefore, at the present time, to give the increases both in the amount and in the ceilings that I have mentioned would raise our present liability for war veterans allowances to an amount between $46 million and $47 million. This is far from the $3 million that has been mentioned by certain members. And I can assure this committee that these estimates are very conservative indeed.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister a question? Can he break that down into the amount that it would cost to increase the ceiling on permissive income?

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Hugues Lapointe: I am sorry, I have not the figure which would show the increase in cost simply by increasing the ceiling to $1,200 and $2,000; but I have had computations made, and to raise the ceiling from $720 to only $840 for the single person and from $1,200 to $1,440 for the married person would cost approximately $4 million, and that is of course without increasing the amount of payment to the present number of recipients.
It has also been represented that besides the increases which we are asked to grant, the benefits of the act should be made available to veterans who served in the United Kingdom only during the first war, in the same way as those who served in the United Kingdom during the second war receive them. Well, there again, Mr. Chairman, that item alone is estimated to increase the annual liability by $5,670,000.
Therefore, the points that I have mentioned, namely, increasing the amounts, increasing the ceilings and making the allowance available to world war I veterans who served in the United Kingdom only, would increase the annual liability at this time from $27,750,000 to over $52 million, or an increase of approximately 95 per cent. Whether that should be done or not is certainly a matter to be decided only after serious consideration. I am simply putting these facts and figures before the committee so that it will be realized that before taking a major decision such as this the government has some very important factors to consider.
There are other aspects of the question which I believe the government and the committee must consider also, and they should be put on the record. There is the effect that the increase in ceilings would have, and I am speaking of course of the suggestion to increase the ceilings to $1,200 for the single recipient and to $2,000 for the married recipient. At the present time a single man receiving war veterans allowance, if he can supplement his allowance, can receive up to $720, which represents a disability pension of about 50 per cent, the full pension being $1,500. A married man, if he supplements his allowance, can receive the equivalent of what a married 60 per cent disability pensioner receives.
I should like to point out that ever since this act was put on the statute books of Canada there has always been a correlation between the war veterans allowance and the Pension Act; that is, the amounts paid under the War Veterans Allowance Act have always borne a relationship to what could be paid under the Pension Act. If the present ceilings were raised, it would mean that a single veteran could get the equivalent of a 75

per cent disability pension, although he might not be pensioned at all, and the married veteran could get up to the equivalent of a 95 per cent disability pension. A 100 per cent disability pension, as hon. members know, is $2,040.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I ask the minister this question? If the rate for a single recipient of war veterans allowance is raised to $60 that certainly is not 75 per cent. Did the minister say that?


Hugues Lapointe: I am sorry; I did not make myself clear. I was speaking of the proposed ceiling of $2,000 for the married recipient.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The government does not pay that.


Hugues Lapointe: No.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is what he is able to earn.


Hugues Lapointe: That is correct. In other words, the 30 per cent disability pensioner who is single could supplement his disability pension and receive the same amount as a 75 per cent disability pensioner, the amount coming both from the pension commission and the war veterans allowance board. The married 25 per cent disability pensioner could supplement his disability pension through war veterans allowances so that it would be the equivalent of a 95 per cent disability pension. I am simply pointing that out because it is certainly not the usual relation that has existed between the payments made under the two acts. Whether this is desirable or not and whether the seriously disabled veterans of this country and the public would like such a state of affairs to exist is something which the government must necessarily take into consideration.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: But all the veterans are asking for it.


Hugues Lapointe: I have heard many representations. There is another aspect which must be considered and which may be of some interest to the committee; for instance if the ceiling of $2,000 was put into the act many veterans in steady employment, including some who are permanent lower grade employees in the civil service, would be supplementing the regular salary which they are earning with the war veterans allowance. I know that in the Department of Veterans Affairs there are very many classifications of employees in the lower grades who are receiving salaries under $2,000. These employees, if married, would be supplementing their salary. It may be said that they should be receiving more, but I would suggest

that the War Veterans Allowance Act was not conceived to be an instrument through which such adjustments should be made.
Not only that, but a great number of retired civil servants who have 20, 25 or more years' service in positions paying $3,000, $3,500, and up to $4,000 would be able through war veterans allowance to supplement their superannuation of less than $2,000 to which they are entitled under the Public Service Superannuation Act.
As a matter of fact in my own department I have found that in the last year there have been 66 employees with salaries of $3,000 or under, who were retired after having completed an average of 22 years service in the department. Now, under the Public Service Superannuation Act their retirement pension will average $805 per year. Each one of those who was a veteran who had served overseas would qualify under the provisions of the act, thus enabling him to supplement his superannuation to the amount of $2,000, which, in many cases, would be the equivalent of the salary at which he retired.
I am simply putting these facts before the house in order to emphasize that this matter has been under consideration, that the government has given the subject a thorough study, and in fact is still doing so. I can assure hon. members that the recommendations made by the veterans affairs committee to the effect that this matter should be considered with sympathy by the government will receive the attention of my colleagues and myself. In fact, this legislation, as well as all other veterans' legislation, is continually under survey within my own department. I give it all the consideration possible within my own limited capacity, and it is also given consideration by my colleagues. That is evidenced by some of the facts which have been mentioned here today.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich and the hon. member for Cape Breton South made reference to the new instructions which have been issued defining casual earnings for the purpose of the War Veterans Allowance Act and I suggest that anyone who reads these instructions will agree that this is not a definition which shows any lack of generosity, or indicates callousness on the part of the government. It is a very generous definition and one which will benefit a great number of recipients. The same is the case with regard to instructions on farm income.


Victor Quelch: Would the minister put the definition regarding casual earnings on the record?


Hugues Lapointe: I would be very glad to do so but it is a rather extensive statement.
Supply-Veterans Affairs Mr. Quelch: There is no necessity to read it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The minister can have unanimous consent to put it on the record.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Has the minister unanimous consent to place this definition on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hugues Lapointe: The definition is as follows:
Re: Casual earnings
The board has made a study of all cases which have been submitted by the district authorities in accordance with W.V.A.B. directive No. 17-1953 as amended and the chairman s letter dated August 24, 1953. As a result of this study the following instructions, which will supersede previous directives on the subject, are issued to cover all types of cases and the district authorities can now deal with them on the basis of the formula outlined hereunder.
Casual earnings exempted as income by Sec. 6. (d) of the War Veterans Allowance Act in respect of recipients under Sec. 3. of that act fall into four principal categories.
(a)	Earnings by a recipient and/or his wife for work of an irregular nature commonly termed "odd jobs", i.e. small jobs complete in themselves for one or more employers.
These earnings are fully exempt.
(b)	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 part-time basis, etc.
Earnings under this category may be exempt in an amount which will not exceed an average of two dollars per diem for 25 working days in any month.
(c)	Earnings	by	a	recipient and/or 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.
Earnings under this category may be exempt for a	period or periods of employment which do not
exceed a total	of	12	weeks in any V.A.	year.
Where such period or periods exceed 12 weeks in the V.A. year only the amounts earned during the first 12 weeks may be exempt and the other earnings will be considered as income.
The district authorities will suspend payment of the War Veterans Allowance as soon as full-time employment is reported by a recipient and will make the necessary adjustments in accordance with the above principles when such employment is terminated.
(d)	A remuneration earned as a result of some isolated deal such as receiving a commission for helping sell or buy a property of or for a friend, provided such transaction is unusual, personal and direct between the recipient and the person concerned and not performed as an agent or sub-agent of a real estate firm or dealer.
Earnings under this category are fully exempt.
There may be some exceptional cases which the present directive does not appear to cover. If so, district authorities should refer such cases, with full particulars, for decision by the war veterans allowance board.
Cases which have been decided in accordance with former directives and which, if dealt with under the present directive, could be changed, may be reviewed, providing no adjustment shall be made for deductions on account of earnings prior to September 1, 1953.
6198	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs
As regards farm income which I understand was often a source of difficulty, we have a new definition which I think meets the demands made by the various veterans' organizations. Perquisites are no longer taken into consideration in computing the income of the farmer. Under the new formula 25 per cent on the first $1,000 gross income of the farmer veteran is considered as income, 40 per cent on the next $1,000 gross income, and 50 per cent on the third $1,000 gross income is considered as income under the act. If he prefers, he can keep an accounting of his farm operations and his net income would be established by his own books. Our own field man operating under the Veterans Land Act would help the veteran in this particular work.
I am simply mentioning these facts to show that the government always has under consideration the interests of the recipients of the war veterans allowance. Decisions in this regard are most important and have many serious implications. For the reasons I have mentioned, the government has not found it possible at this time to recommend the increases which have been requested.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the item
carry?


Victor Quelch: Will the minister deal with this one point? On the basis of the presumption that a veteran has pre-aged by ten years, and in view of the fact that at the age of 70 the means test has been lifted for the civilian, why has not the means test been lifted at the age of 60 for the veteran?


Hugues Lapointe: For one thing, I think the government would have to consider that most veterans are still working at age 60. Furthermore, I must point out to my hon. friend that this would mean that every veteran who, at one time or another, had spent one day overseas would automatically get war veterans allowance upon reaching the age of 60, whatever might be his financial circumstances. To me it is the equivalent of what is usually known as a service pension. In the past there have been discussions as to the desirability of having service pensions; that is, that every man who, at one time or another during his life, was in the active forces of Canada, by the fact of his service, whether he needed it or not or whether he was disabled or not, should receive a pension. When these discussions took place I believe the veterans organizations themselves did not press that point. They thought it was better to ask for appropriate disability pensions and various other means of assistance.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the item
carry?


Ernest George Hansell: No, Mr. Chairman.


Howard Charles Green: If the item is not being carried, Mr. Chairman, may I point out that it is after ten o'clock.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not want to delay the committee, Mr. Chairman-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. gentleman but I think there is perhaps at this time, on this day, some merit to what has been said. I want to make it clear that, in so far as I am concerned, the committee will sit only with unanimous consent. Is it the desire of the committee to complete this item tonight or is there to be further discussion?


Ernest George Hansell: I should like to speak for a few minutes on it, Mr. Chairman.


Howard Charles Green: Then, Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to call it ten o'clock.


Ernest George Hansell: I believe that there are others in our group and some of those in the other groups who also wish to speak.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we shall start with the Department of Agriculture. Before the day is ended I hope that we shall find enough time to complete the veterans affairs items and to go on with mines and technical surveys.


[Stage Direction]
It being thirty-five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
National research council and atomic energy control hoard-
National research council-
289.	Salaries and other expenses, $14,294,367.
290. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $1,787,265.
Atomic energy control board-
291.	Administration expenses of the atomic energy control board, $62,680.
292.	Grants for researches and investigations with respect to atomic energy, $300,000.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (research program)-
293.	Current operation and maintenance, $8,379,765.
294. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment and to authorize Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to undertake construction of works at Deep River for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, $4,805,010.

Exhibitions-
430.	Exhibitions generally, $325,962.
431.	Canadian international trade fair, including authority to refund, from revenue, deposits received for contracts for space, $867,600.
Standards branch-
432.	Administration, including the standards laboratory and administration of the Precious Metals Marking Act, $188,922.
433.	Electricity and gas inspection services, $683,021.
434.	Weights and measures inspection services, $774,222.
Dominion bureau of statistics-
435.	Administration, $198,949.
436.	Statistics, including membership fee of $3,100 to the inter-American statistical institute, $4,970,005.
437.	Census, $536,321.
Canada Grain Act-
Board of grain commissioners-
438.	Administration, $179,361.
439.	Operation and maintenance expenses, $3,688,498.
Canadian government elevators-
440.	Operation and maintenance expenses, $1,380,542.
441.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $299,000.
Special-
442.	International economic and technical cooperation branch, including the administration of the Colombo plan and of certain United Nations co-operation plans, $118,486.
Loans, investments and advances-
National research council and atomic energy control board-
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited-537. To provide for advances to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in such amounts and on such terms and conditions (including the delivery to Her Majesty, in satisfaction of the advances, of obligations or shares of the company) as the governor in council may approve, to finance the construction of a new reactor and auxiliary buildings at Chalk River, works to provide services in con-
Supply-Trade and Commerce nection therewith, and housing and other works to be constructed at Deep River; and to authorize Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to undertake construction of the said housing and other works at Deep River for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, $9,858,000.
538. To provide for working capital advances to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve, $5,319,800.
National research council and atomic energy control board-
National research council-
689.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $400,000.
Atomic energy control board-
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (research program) -
690.	Current operation and maintenance-further amount required, $250,000.
General administration-
731.	Commodities services, including fees as detailed in the estimates, the expenditure for these not to exceed the amounts shown unless otherwise approved by treasury board-further amount required, $5,500.
Exhibitions-
732.	Exhibitions generally-further amount required, $20,000.
Canada Grain Act-
Canadian government elevators-
733.	Operation and maintenance expenses-further amount required, $49,000.
Special-
734.	To provide hereby, notwithstanding anything contained in the Financial Administration Act or any other act or law, for payment out of the consolidated revenue fund to Julio Moreira, a former locally engaged employee, of a pension, in accordance with the terms of Argentine law, from January 1, 1953, at an annual rate of 16,785.08 Argentine pesos, notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of April, 1954, which is, $1,250.
[Stage Direction]

[Stage Direction]

Tsm
[Stage Direction]


Friday, June 18, 1954