1955-03-07

Mr. O. L. Jones (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I should like to draw the attention of the house to the splendid achievement of the Penticton V's in regaining the world amateur hockey championship for Canada. These players deserve the congratulations of all Canadians on their splendid teamwork during all the international games. I hope that all hon. members present will join me in thanking the Penticton Y's for a task well done.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: On the
question of privilege, I associate myself with what has been said, and I know the hon. gentleman himself and the whole house will join with me, and the hon. gentleman would not want it to go without saying that, as an example of co-operation and teamwork in achieving this splendid victory, recognition should be given to the part played on the Penticton team by defencemen Middleton and Taggart from the hon. gentleman's own city of Kelowna, and my city of Kamloops, respectively.


Mr. Speaker:: I know that all hon. members will agree with the sentiments expressed by both the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary and the hon. member for Kamloops.
I must say that I am not a very ardent hockey fan, but I watched with great enthusiasm the various games shown on the television screen by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation last week, and I was very glad and deeply proud of the success which has been achieved by the Penticton team and those from the riding of Kamloops who have reinforced the team from time to time.
Anticipating your feelings, I this morning sent a telegram to His Worship the Mayor of Penticton, which reads as follows:
All Canadians very proud of Penticton hockey team. Heartiest congratulations to our world champions, their families and yourself.
From what I could see on the television screen, all teams who participated in those games are to be congratulated on the true sportsmanship that they have shown; that
is in itself good not only for those who were members of the various teams but also for all nations that have sent teams there. We do congratulate our new world hockey champions most heartily.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I should like to table in English and in French two reports of the restrictive trade practices commission, one relating to wire fencing and the other to the retail distribution of coal in Timmins, Ontario. Both these reports were made public a considerable time ago, before the house met, but I have delayed tabling them until I had both the French and the English editions.
[Later:!



INQUIRY AS TO PROSECUTION FOLLOWING REPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice if he is in a position to inform the house what the situation is with regard to legal action if any following the reports which he tabled today?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: One report was in connection with the Timmins matter. This has been submitted to counsel and we are awaiting a report. The other report concerned wire fencing and this has been submitted to Mr. T. N. Phelan, Q.C., who has considered it and has given the opinion that the evidence in the case warrants prosecution.	.



WINNIPEG AND ST. BONIFACE HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS AMENDMENT RESPECTING QUORUM AT MEETINGS

Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 195 (from the Senate), to amend the Winnipeg and St. Boniface Harbour Commissioners Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
1762	HOUSE OF
Private Bills-Divorce PRIVATE BILLS



FIRST READINGS-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 196, for relief of Olga Maikowski Hocaloski.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 197, for the relief of Mary Evelyn Martinson Ross.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 198, for the relief of Donald Muir Langton.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 199, for the relief of Albert Ritchot. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 200, for the relief of Annie Esther Vetter Meister.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 201, for the relief of Carmen Lister Lees.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 202, for the relief of Dawn Elsie Coles Ekers Bowen.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 203, for the relief of Marion Murray Redburn.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 204, for the relief of Anna Pearl Lingo DesMarais.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 205, for the relief of Phyllis Geraldine Brown McLean.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 206, for the relief of Eva Lilly Ware Deslauriers.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 207, for the relief of Agnes Rose McKiernan Popadick.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 208, for the relief of Rosalind Elaine Beinhaker Katz.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 209. for the relief of Louis Kenneth Laurin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 210, for the relief of Eva Amelia Richardson Keyton.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 211, for the relief of Francois-Xavier Lange.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 212, for the relief of Aline Pelland Myre.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 213, for the relief of Roscoe Winston Percy Soule.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 214, for the relief of June Patricia Potter Cashman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 215, for the relief of Paul-Emile Roland Boisclair.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 216, for the relief of Kathleen Swanson Butler.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 217, for the relief of Freda Lutsky Perzow.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 218, for the relief of Susie Earle Young.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 219, for the relief of Joseph Willie Walter Stonehouse.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 220, for the relief of Alexander Jakobszak.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 221, for the relief of Margaret Thomson Kelso Midlick.-Mr. Hunter.
[Stage Direction]

Bill No. 222, for the relief of Pansy Joy Cowen Kirby.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 223, for the relief of Isabel Taylor Page Kingsley.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	224,	for	the	relief	of	Dorothy
Winnifred Patricia Lawson Disken.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 225, for the relief of Annie Kofman Liebman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 226, for the relief of Harry Els-worth Allton.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 227, for the relief of Desire Cherry Szabo.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	228,	for	the	relief	of	William
Edward Shanassy.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 229, for the relief of Fernand Seguin.

Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	230,	for	the	relief	of	Joanna
Florence Ritchie Leinonen.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	231,	for	the	relief of	Joseph
Telesphore Origene Dragon.-Mr. Hunter.


Mr. Brooks:: 1.	How many hourly rated employees of the Canadian National Railways were laid off between January 1, 1954 and December 31, 1954?
2.	How many monthly rated employees "official capacity of the Canadian National Railways were laid off between January 1, 1954 and December 31. 1954?


George Carlyle Marler: 1 and 2. The management of the Canadian National Railways advise that in order to answer the question as asked it would be necessary to secure information from divisional, district, regional and headquarters offices and require a special staff; but that as of January, 1954, the number of its employees was 108,240, whereas the number of its employees as of December, 1954, was 106,981. For the reasons given above it is not possible to break down these totals into hourly and monthly rated employees.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS PENSIONS
Mr. Knowles:: 
George Carlyle Marler: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	10 (pensioned under C.N.R. plan prior to 1935).
2.	3,209.
Per
Month
3.	(a)	$ 25.01	to	$ 29.99	
1,004(b)	30.00	to	39.99	
636(c)	40.00	to	49.99	
400(d)	50.00	to	59.99	
186(e)	60.00	to	69.99	
84(f)	70.00	to	79.99	
81(g)	80.00	to	89.99	
30(h)	90.00	to	99.99	
25(i)	100.00	to	124.99	
40(j)	125.00	to	149.99	
12(k)	150.00 or over per month . .	15Total	
2,513
Per
Month
4.	(a)	$ 25.01	to	$ 29.99	
391(b)	30.00	to	39.99	
1,758(c)	40.00	to	49.99	
1,409(d)	50.00	to	59.99	
1,086(e)	60.00	to	69.99	
983(f)	70.00	to	79.99	
1,003(g)	80.00	to	89.99	
990(h)	90.00	to	99.99	
913(i)	100.00	to	124.99	
1,475(j)	125.00	to	149.99	
1,396(k)	150.00 or over per month	2,324Total	
13,728



PARITY PRICES


Mr. Argue:: 1.	Has any person, persons or committee of any department of government been asked to study (a) the question of parity prices for Canadian farm products; (b) the operation of the United States parity price system?
2.	If so, what are the names of the officials making any such study?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1 and 2. In 1944 by a
committee composed of the Minister of Finance, Mr. Ilsley, the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Gardiner, the deputy minister of finance, Dr. Clark, the deputy minister of agriculture, Dr. Barton, and the director, marketing service, Department of Agriculture, Mr. Shaw. Since 1944 these matters have been under constant consideration by the
Questions
agricultural prices support board established under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Brooks:: 1.	How many Canadian National Railways engines were sent from the maritimes, Atlantic region, to the central region for repair in 1954?
2.	How many Canadian National Railways cars (all classes) were sent from the maritimes, Atlantic region, to the central region for repair in 1954?


George Carlyle Marler: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	There were ten steam locomotives transferred from Moncton to the central region for repair in 1954. Since repairs, these units have been working on the central region and have not been returned to the Atlantic region. The movement of power between regions has to balance the traffic requirements.
2.	There were no cars sent from the Atlantic region to the central region for repair in 1954.




Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Does the Canadian National Railways keep a day to day and/or week to week and/or month to month record of the number of its employees who have been laid off?
2.	If it does not now do so, did it at any time, and if so, when was the practice discontinued?


Mr. Marler:: 1.	For a number of years the Canadian National Railways has maintained and continues to maintain a separate staff form for each employee on which his service is recorded, but there is no compilation of the information contained on these staff forms and such a compilation would require a considerable length of time and the assignment of special staff.
2.	The Canadian National Railways maintains a record of its employment level each month on the basis of a mid-month tabulation.



MAIL DELIVERY

Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: 1.	What was the responsibility of the Post Office Department with regard to delivery of (a) first class mail, regular, insured, registered; (b) second class mail, regular, insured, registered?
2.	In the case of insured and/or registered mail, is there a time limit, the expiration of which constitutes non-delivery?


Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: Mr. Speaker, I discussed this question with the hon. member and it has been agreed that

Questions
we should add to the second part the words "to the addressee and what subsequent treatment is then given to it". With that change the question is answered.
1.	To handle and deliver mail to the addressee with the least possible delay consistent with the practical facilities available.
2.	There is no uniform time limit after which mail becomes automatically nondeliverable to the addressee.
When a letter or parcel fails of delivery to the addressee an attempt is made to return it to the sender.
Mail which bears no indication of the sender's address is diverted to the "undeliverable mail office" and is returned to the sender if his address can be found.
If the question relates to a particular item -information as to the treatment normally given could be furnished on receipt of details.
Some of the regulations which might apply are to be found in sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 41, 80, 91, 131, 177, 178, 179, 180, 219, 253, 257 and sections 375 to 383 inclusive of the Postal Guide, 1955.



LEVEL CROSSINGS, NOVA SCOTIA

Mr. Balcom:: 1.	How many railway-highway level crossings are there in Nova Scotia?
2.	What are their locations, stating county and nearest railway stations?
3.	Which of these level crossings are to be eliminated in 1955, 1956 and 1957?


Mr. Marler:: 1.	There are 989.
2.	The board does not have the information to answer this question fully.
3.	There is no application at the present time before the board for the elimination of level crossings in Nova Scotia.



EMPLOYMENT REGISTRATIONS, HALIFAX, N.S.

Mr. Balcom:: 1.	How many people were registered for employment with the national employment office, Halifax, Nova Scotia, as at February 19, 1955?
2.	How many of these people were in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits as at the same date?


Mr. Gregg:: 1.	The number of people registered for employment with the national employment service in Halifax on February 17, 1955, was 5,344. February 17 is the closest reporting date to February 19.
2.	On the last available date, January 31, 1955, the number of active claimants for unemployment insurance totalled 4,575, excluding 241 short-time claimants who were not registered for employment, at which time, February 3, 1955, the number registered for employment amounted to 5,183.



TELEVISION SALES

Mr. Beaudry:: How many television receiving sets were sold during each of the years, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, in each of the areas served by television stations?


Mr. Dickey:: Producers' sales of television receiving sets at the "to dealer" level during the years 1950-1954 inclusive, with the available area breakdowns, according to monthly reports by producers to the dominion bureau of statistics were as follows:
Maritime provinces 		1950 1	
Quebec 		108	
Ontario 		29,304	
Alberta 		1	
British Columbia		208	
Canada 		29,622	
	1951	1952
Windsor area 	12,286	18,989Niagara peninsula 	6,826	20,623Toronto-Hamilton 	17,841	54,038Other areas	2,232	43,586Canada 	39,185	137,2361953	1954Atlantic provinces	869	27,139Quebec province 	119,519	206,751Toronto 	103,388	109,088Hamilton-Niagara 	40,816	35,563Windsor 	22,767	16,043Ottawa and East Ontario(l)	34,997	40,483Other Ontario 	23,758	54,262Prairies 	1,270	72,665British Columbia 	19,114	61,862Canada	
366,498	623,856
Note: Imports of television receiving sets were 16,973 in 1953 and 19,085 in 1954. (Prior to 1953 they were not separately classified in trade statistics.) The figures in the above table would include television sets (if any) imported by producers.
(1) East of Toronto and including Ottawa and Hull.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Knowles:: 1. What is the employment situation on the Canadian National Railways at the present time compared with what it was in January 1953, July 1953, January 1954, July 1954 and January 1955 (a) in Canada as a whole; (b) in the Winnipeg area?

2. Is such information available with respect to (a) total employment on the Canadian National Railways; (b) employment in the shops thereof?


George Carlyle Marler: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1. (a) The most recent information available with respect to the employment level of the Canadian National Railways in Canada at the specific dates is as follows:
1955	1954	1953January	
103,434	108,240 111,679July	
110,673	120,708
(b) The information with respect to the Winnipeg area is not available in the form requested.
2. (a) Answered by 1 (a).
(b) Shop employment level figures are maintained with respect to the main shops only. The figures at the dates specified were:
1955	1954	1953January	
9,218	12,529	13,468July 	10,721	13,4611956 census


Mr. Ellis:: 1. Has a decision been reached	by the	government to conduct a nation-wide census in 1956?
2. If so, will complete information ordinarily obtained by the census in the prairie provinces be collected?


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could answer this question verbally. Hon. members will recall that it is a constitutional requirement that a quinquennial census of the prairie provinces be taken in 1956. There have been numerous developments in Canada in recent years which point to the need for bringing all provinces into the census survey in 1956.
The rapid growth of the Canadian population and shifts within and between provinces have posed problems of great difficulty for provincial and municipal administration and for business.
Censuses of agriculture provide the base on which annual estimates of crops and livestock are calculated through annual mail sample inquiries. The greater diversity of agricultural practices makes it difficult to keep estimates in line unless this base is provided more frequently than every ten years. This is particularly true in those parts of Canada where agriculture is more diversified.
However it is not considered to be essential to take a quinquennial census on the scale of the decennial. A simplified census in 1956 should meet most needs. It is not necessary to obtain information every five years concerning those characteristics of the population that are fairly stable, such as religion, origin, education and place of birth.
Orders for Returns
It is proposed to ask only five population questions, in addition to the name and address: age, sex, marital status, relationship to head of household and whether living on a farm. In 1951 there were 29 questions on the population card. The census of agriculture would be reduced from 200 questions in 1951 to 75 in 1956.
Hon. members will be asked to provide the necessary funds at the time the estimates for the Department of Trade and Commerce are presented for consideration.



SELKIRK WHEAT EXPORT

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Are Canadian farmers allowed to shin Selkirk wheat to the United States?
2.	If not, on what authority is export forbidden or limited?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	No.
2.	Under the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, at the request of the Department of Agriculture.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	How many cadets have been enrolled each year since 1949, at the three Canadian service colleges?
2.	How many of these cadets have graduated each year?
3.	How many have been commissioned into the regular army each year?
4.	How many have been commissioned into the Royal Canadian Navy (regular) each year?
5.	How many have been commissioned into the Royal Canadian Air Force (regular) each year?


T.C.A.-MAIL CARRIED
Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	How much mail, in weight and dollar value has been carried by Trans-Canada Air Lines since the increase in postage rates in Canada?
2.	How much mail, in weight and dollar value, was carried by Trans-Canada Air Lines in a comparable period before the increase in postage rates?



GATT CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: May I
ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if in the course of the current negotiations at Geneva for the renewal or extension of the general agreement on tariffs and trade the Canadian delegation has agreed to permit the United States to impose quantitative restrictions on agricultural imports into that country?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian delegation has not agreed to permit the United States to impose quantitative restrictions. However, the sessions at Geneva are nearing their close and it is hoped they will be wound up tomorrow evening. I would not care to say anything further at this time about Geneva but I hope to make a statement as soon as the facts are available.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if the government has appointed a committee of the federal government to discuss with a similar committee from Saskatchewan the South Saskatchewan river project?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: No; no such committee has been appointed.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. T. Purdy (Colchesler-Hanls):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister had an opportunity of considering representations made to him by members from Nova Scotia representing constituencies where highland battalions are based with respect to the proposed reorganization of the battalions, and is he in position to make a statement on such reorganization?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his desire to ask this question. In reply I may say that representations have been received and are now being actively considered in an effort to work out a solution which will be in the best interests of the service, and which will meet local views if possible.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of a Canadian

Press dispatch in today's newspapers. Will Canada give support to the request of the federation of American scientists for a study by the United Nations to determine how many hydrogen and atomic bomb tests we can stand without grave danger to the human race? In view of the many tests being made at the present time, will Canada urge that this study be made and acted upon at the earliest possible date?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the proposal in question which I understand has already been discussed by the federation of American scientists with the United States delegation to the United Nations. If any member of the United Nations were to make a proposal for such a study, I am sure that it would be given careful and sympathetic consideration. I am not prepared at this time to say whether Canada should take the lead in urging the study.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Weslminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, notice of which I sent him earlier in the day. Is the minister aware that the use of the grounds of the Summerland experimental station has been refused for picnic purposes on July 1, 1955, to the Similkameen Social Credit Association and, if so, would he state is it the policy of the government to deny the use of these grounds for picnic purposes to all those whose political associations are known?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: As the hon. member has stated, he sent me a copy of the question. The superintendent of the Summerland experimental station advises that this request was refused owing to the fact the 1st of July is a public holiday and, as on general public holidays there are from 1,000 to 2,000 visitors using the grounds for picnic purposes and visiting the farm, he did not consider that the farm should be closed to the general public in order to accommodate one specific group.
In advising this association of the refusal to grant them the use of the grounds on the 1st of July, the superintendent indicated to them that if they saw fit to arrange another date they would be quite welcome to the use of the grounds.

In view of the nature of the latter part of the question, which reads:
If so, would he state Is It the policy of the government to deny the use of these grounds for picnic purposes to all those whose political associations are known?
-and also in view of the fact that I find that the hon. member uses each of these questions he asks in this manner for a report to the local paper, I am therefore going to say that it is not the practice of the experimental farms anywhere in this country, whether it is Summerland or elsewhere, to deny anyone the same access to the grounds as all others are given.



POLIOMYELITIS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the public reports that proven polio vaccine of Canadian origin is being made available to grades 1 and 2 in our schools before the polio danger season arrives, is the minister aware that in all likelihood proven vaccine of United States manufacture will shortly be available in this country in substantial quantities, and is the government prepared to arrange for its distribution on the same basis as the Canadian vaccine, or will it only be available through commercial houses to those who can afford it?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: My hon. friend did not give me notice of his intention to ask this question. Although I do not say that he is required to give notice, my answer cannot be as complete as it would if he had done so. As I have intimated in this house during the course of the present session the federal government in co-operation with the provinces has made arrangements for distribution of this vaccine on a trial basis. My hon. friend is also aware, of course, that the basic production of the Salk vaccine has taken place to the extent of 90 per cent at the Connaught laboratories in Toronto, partly as a result of assistance given under the national health program. I may assure my hon. friend that the various provincial departments of health and the Department of National Health and Welfare in a co-operative enterprise have been aware of the importance of this particular vaccine and are taking every step to make certain that Canadian children and Canadian citizens generally will have the full advantage of this vaccine if and when the final assessment reveals it to be of beneficial purpose.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Borden Hamilton: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government pursued the question as to whether or not United States vaccine will be available in Canada at approximately the same date?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend asks me whether or not we will use United States vaccine. I am convinced that his question is falsely based. I have indicated that almost 90 per cent of the production of vaccine is taking place at the Connaught laboratories, an institution of great note, at the University of Toronto. Therefore it is erroneous to talk about a United States vaccine. Dr. Salk, it is true, was an American medical scientist who made the discovery, but it is not exact to talk of it as a United States vaccine. I cannot answer my hon. friend more adequately than to say we are aware of the situation, and just as soon, as the University of Michigan has made the necessary assessment no loss of time will take place in Canada in making this particular vaccine available for use if it is thought to be of value in the final analysis, as we all hope and anticipate it will be.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Miss Sybil Bennett (Halton):: I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General and in his absence to his parliamentary assistant. Is the parliamentary assistant able to say if he has completed his investigation into the non-delivery of the large quantity of mail at the Burlington post office, and if so what are his findings?
I asked this question on February 24, 1955, and would like to know if he could answer it today.


Thomas Andrew Murray Kirk: I recall very well the question of February 24. My reply of that date, if I remember correctly, was that if the investigation had been completed I would give an answer. Perhaps the hon. member will accept an interim report. The large quantity of mail apparently consisted of some 50 circulars out of some 6,000 or more which were mailed. Some 4,667 were forwarded to Burlington, 1,000 to Aldershot and 231 to Longacres. Complaints were received from the chairman or secretary of some committee to the effect that a number of circulars were not delivered to the patrons of the post offices in Burlington and Longacres. As far as we can discover, they were delivered but all the householders did not receive them because the quantity mailed was not
1768	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act sufficient to go to all the householders. Concerning Burlington Beach-which is served through Hamilton-we received similar complaints, but no circulars were posted at Hamilton for distribution to people resident at Burlington Beach. There is an amount of 50 circulars which apparently were not delivered and the department is endeavouring to discover what has happened to them. That is the only information I can give by way of an interim report.



REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING APPOINTMENT OF MR. LOPTSON TO BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of a recent newspaper report. Were any representations made by farm organizations in respect to the appointment of Mr. Loptson to the board of grain commissioners for Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, Mr. Speaker, one
prominent farm organization recommended him very highly.


Edward George McCullough: What farm organization is that, sir?


An hon. Member:: Surely it is not a secret?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldf-Melfori):: would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is it the intention to establish a customs officer at Port Churchill for the coming season?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: That is a matter which has been under consideration for some time and as yet it has not been officially determined.



WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, March 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lapointe for the second reading of Bill No. 164, to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952.
Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: On Friday last, just before the closing of the house, I was making some remarks
(Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare).]

on the bill which is now before us. I believe I emphasized the fact that the men who qualify for war veterans allowance are those men who served in France in the first great war and who are generally over 60 years of age and unable to do steady work. They are in extremely difficult circumstances before they become eligible for this allowance. I believe I also pointed out, as did other members during the course of the debate on Friday, that the unwounded survivors of the trench warfare of 1914-18 had undergone exposure and hazards which could easily impair their physical vigour. I then drew attention to the fact that the financial burden on the country was not likely to be increased because the numbers eligible for war veterans allowance were being seriously depleted with each succeeding year. Going on from that point I draw the attention of the house to the fact that the war veterans allowance board deals with seven types of person: veterans generally over 60 years of age who served in world war I and who number 25,038; veterans of world war II who number 2,199; then 511 veterans of two wars; commonwealth and allied veterans who number 2,902; dependents who number 829; widows who number 10,706 and 131 orphans or a grand total of 42,316 persons on whose behalf the sum of $26,846,086.98 was expended during the last fiscal year. However, the main body of this total is found in the 25,038 veterans of world war I. They are the persons for whom this act was devised and are the largest group of beneficiaries.
On Friday I pointed out that approximately 400,000 Canadians served overseas in France during world war I. Of these, 60,000 were killed; 180,000 were wounded; and 160,000 survived unwounded. How many of the wounded and unwounded are living today? Departmental figures show that over the years more than 100,000 persons have appeared on their lists of those drawing disability pensions. At the present time that number has been reduced to 62,000. Since 1930 about 60,000 persons on war veterans allowance have died. That means that of these 340,000 survivors of the Canadian expeditionary force, about one-third have died since the war. Probably the figure is higher. The remaining 200,000 or so will not last much longer. The average age of veterans of world war I is 65. The expectation of life at age 65 is just over 13 years. By the end of this parliament and the next two parliaments the problem of war veterans allowance for world war I veterans will have been practically solved through the death of these survivors. However, my hope is that it can be solved during this present parliament.

I think it is a disgrace that almost 40 years after -world war I we are still tinkering with the serious problem of the veterans of that war. Forty years ago these men for whom we are now making a plea flocked to the colours. They received an outfit of clothing, two blankets and a ground sheet, $1.10 a day and some of the poorest food that was ever concocted in the history of mankind. After the war they were very much on their own. There were in existence no large schemes for rehabilitation such as those with which we have become familiar since this second war. No university courses were offered or no payments while awaiting returns for those entering business. There was just a small gratuity. Those men faced disappointment in the early years owing to unemployment and low wages. There was no post-war boom. By the end of 1929, just when many of them were getting on their feet, the great ten-year depression struck. Then along came the second world war in which many of them served, either in the active army or in the veterans guard. Ten years of war! Ten years of depression! What more could be asked from one generation? The wonder is that there are only 25,000 on war veterans allowance. Many of these men never had a real chance during the best years of their lives.
Now what are they offered? They are offered $60 a month for single men and $108 for married men; no increase in permissive income for single men; only $2 a month for married men; ceilings of $840 and $1,440.
As reported at page 1731 of Hansard the minister says this:
We believe that the new ceilings are capable of allowing recipients to maintain a reasonable level of subsistence.
The key word there is "subsistence". Two wars, a depression, 60 years of age, intermittent or no employment and "subsistence": this for men who served in the trenches in France!
The other day I opened the book of estimates for this year just at random. The page was headed "Civil Service Commission" and I came across an item which read, "Office boys and girls", starting annual salary, $1,080. There you have the situation: at the commencement of a career, an office boy, $1,080; at the end of years of service, a 60-year-old or older veteran, with active service in France, $840 or, if married, $1,440 provided he can still earn. If unable to work, the figures are, of course, $720 and $1,296.
The minister's remarks the other day I thought were cold, unsympathetic, confusing and unconvincing. He attempted to equate the ceilings of war veterans allowance with the rates for disability pensions. What purpose this procedure served I am at a loss to
War Veterans Allowance Act know. He then went on to estimate the additional cost to the treasury if the ceilings were placed at $1,200 and $2,000. He estimated that these would open the way to placing 14,750 new applicants on the rolls and would increase the cost by $13 million over and above the present proposed increase.
This is a familiar dodge practised by some cabinet ministers. We are supposed to accept these statements as gospel truth. No detailed analysis was given by the minister. All that was given was just a bland assurance that this would be the result and that consequently there was no further argument. I hope that the committee will pursue this matter and get a detailed breakdown of these figures. We need to know the number of single men on war veterans allowance and the number of married men. We need to know a great deal about their present income and things of that nature. These facts are not available to the members of the house. We cannot challenge the statements made by the minister and hence we are met with some large figure like that which is intended to demolish all argument.
I regret that the recommendation of the Canadian Legion has not been accepted in full. Over all these many years the Canadian Legion, the navy, army and air force veterans and other veterans organizations have done their best to make more endurable the life of the veteran. It is as a result of their effort that the veterans of world war II have received better treatment than those of world war I. The Canadian Legion's suggestions year after year have been reasonable and just. No attempt has ever been made to raid the treasury. No extravagant demands have been put forward.
But without the patient years of labour of the veterans of world war I the present veterans charter would be but a pale shadow. From time to time even that charter requires alteration and amendment. Let it be done quickly. I urge the minister to settle the problem of the veterans of world war I. Time is running out; it will soon be too late to do justice to these men. How quickly we forget. I do not wish to be too critical of the minister. The events of the first world war occurred before his time, certainly before he was able to understand war. Nevertheless from the knowledge he gained in the second great war it should not be difficult for him to visualize the trials and tribulations of the men of the Canadian corps from 1914 to 1918. I submit if that is not understood it is impossible to approach the problem of the men who are receiving the war veterans allowance.
1770	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act
There was a great difference between the two world wars. From the time the Canadians went to France in the spring of 1915 until the summer of 1918, over a period of three and a half years their life consisted of trench warfare and infantry battles. They were engaged in a defensive struggle and a war of attrition. They fought battle after battle merely to blunt the German offensive or to straighten the trench line or by limited offensives to weaken their opponents. Casualties were on an immense scale. Endurance was tested to the limit. There was nothing in the second world war comparable to these engagements in 1915, 1916, 1917 and the first half of 1918. Only the tragedies of Dieppe and Hong Kong bear any resemblance to the bitter struggles of those early years.
There was nothing in the second world war that remotely resembled the Ypres salient, that salient in which one million men of the British commonwealth died, not to mention the millions of wounded, that salient in which each Canadian division served in turn, that salient in which the first Canadian division endured without protection the gas attack of 1915, that salient that will be remembered forever because of Passchendaele. Let us not forget that it was in March, 37 years ago, that the allied forces were in as great danger as at any time during the second world war. That was the month in which Haig issued his famous order: "Our backs are to the wall." That was the month in which the Canadian soldiers were ordered to hold their position to the last man and the last round. That was the month in which a regiment of the Canadian cavalry, the Lord Strathcona's Horse, made its famous attack on Moreuil Wood in which Lieutenant Flower-dew won the Victoria Cross. That was the month just 37 years ago that the crisis of the first great war occurred.
The cost in human life and suffering staggers the imagination. Consider, for example, the long drawn out battle of the Somme in the fall of 1916. For a period of three months the four Canadian divisions took their turn in that battle so aptly described by the Germans as the "blood bath". After three months' fighting they had gained 4,000 yards, a little over 2J miles, with a loss of 24,000 men. It was after that battle that Lloyd George wrote these words:
The Canadians played a part of such distinction that thenceforward they were marked out as storm troops: for the remainder of the war they were brought along to head the assault in one great battle after another. Whenever the Germans found the Canadian corps coming into the line the; prepared for the worst.
In the summer of 1918 the war took a turn for the better and from then to its conclusion,


that is, during the celebrated last 100 days, the war in France and Flanders of 1914 to 1918 resembled the war that was fought by the Canadians in the second great war in northwest Europe. It was a war of movement with the allies being on the offensive, enjoying air supremacy, and moving steadily forward towards victory. Arthur Bryant, writing in the Illustrated London News of the 30th of October, 1954, states that the battle of Amiens on the 8th of August, 1918, was one of the great decisive battles in the history of the world. Ludendorff called it "the black day of the German army". That was the battle in which the Canadian corps spearheaded the advance of the British armies and inflicted a crushing defeat on the German forces.
I remind the minister of some of these episodes of the first great war. I remind him of the loss endured by the Canadian corps, of the casualties suffered, of the great expenditure of effort and of life. The men who performed these feats of endurance and of valour were the men of the Canadian corps of the first world war. Among the survivors of that period are the 62,000 disability pensioners still on our list and the 25,000 men drawing war veterans allowance. A grateful country could not begin to repay the debt owed to these men, but it is still not too late to make some amends for the neglect of past years. There is still time for the minister to recognize the achievements of these men and to grant them some contribution to lighten the troubles of increasing age. Among the 25,000 men on the list of those drawing war veterans allowance, there surely must be some who were present at the gas attack at Ypres, some who were present at the attack at Courcellette, at Vimy Ridge, at Hill 70, at Passchendaele, at Amiens, Canal du Nord and other battles of that first war. The list of engagements in which these men took part would make interesting reading.
No one who visits the memorial chamber in this building and reads the record inscribed on its walls can fail to be impressed by the accomplishments of Canada's soldiers of the first great war. On panel No. 1 just at the left as you enter the chamber there are inscribed these words:
Read how free men throughout this land kept faith in the hour of trial and in the day of battle, remembering the traditions they had been taught, counting life nothing without liberty.
Then on the fourth panel within that chamber may be found the following:
They are too near to be great but our children shall understand when and how our fate was changed and by whose hand. Nor was their agony brief or once only imposed on them; the wounded.

the warspent, the sick received no exemption; being cured they returned and endured and achieved our redemption.
Although, Mr. Speaker, those words are in honour of those who died, they represent something of what the survivors endured, too. I make my plea on behalf of those who are now on war veterans allowance. Let Canada pay generously and immediately some small part of the debt that this great nation owes to these men.


Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, I only rise to give further support to what has been said so ably by other members on this side of the house. I too feel, in fact I know, a grave injustice is being done to some very brave and true Canadian returned men. I do not believe any member in this house would oppose a move to increase war veterans allowances by $10 per month as envisaged by this bill. The injustice which has been done lies in the fact that under this bill there has been no proper increase in the maximum annual income plus allowances allowed to the veterans, whether single or married.
The present figure of $840 for single men, being the total annual income plus allowances before a man can qualify, is in this day and age unjust. The total annual income plus allowances for a married man is $1,440, and that is also an injustice with the cost of living where it is today. People cannot live decently on that amount of money. The fault lies with the government of this country because a few years ago they refused to maintain the controls which would have kept the cost of living down. Had the cost of living been kept at the point it was 40 years ago when these men stood at the breaches in Germany, these amounts would have sufficed. But with the cost of living having doubled in the last 15 years, $840 means very little.
As a delegate to the annual Legion conference held in Toronto last August, I know how these men felt. I know the feeling of the delegates from the various parts of Canada who went to this conference. The matter of war veterans allowances was one of the things these boys placed at the top of their agenda. Something should be done to see that these men under war veterans allowance are taken care of for the few years left to them. All branches of the Legion across Canada have endorsed this move in asking the government to make this increase. The government failed to do so. I do not believe that the act in its present form is fulfilling what even the Canadian people would want to be done for the men who defended us.
7,	1955	1771
War Veterans Allowance Act
The government itself considers that a single man requires $1,000 per year upon which to live, and they set that as the amount of income he must have before he becomes liable for income tax. The amount is $2,000 for a married man. Surely these veterans, who gave so much of their youth and who have suffered so much that they are less able to earn for themselves, should be allowed at least $1,000 minimum for single men and $2,000 for married men.
This bill is going to the committee. The committee will be made up of members from all sides of the house but the majority will be members from the government side. I know that the members from the opposition parties will urge that changes should be made and these maxima should be increased; but when the vote is taken, the decision will be made according to what the government members on that committee do. Canada will be watching. Canadians and the Legion will judge this parliament by the amendments which are brought in by this committee. Government members, particularly last Friday, time after time extolled what the government had done for the veterans. I will agree that the government has done some good things. However, by allowing the cost of living to increase, they have been doing an injustice to the people of Canada and particularly to those veterans who are unable to earn a living for themselves. The proposed increase in allowances does not make up, by any means, for the increased cost of living.
Somebody said in this debate that the Canadian veterans legislation is the best in the world. This was set right in the last issue of The Legionary when it was pointed out that there are countries which have better legislation than we have in Canada. A single man with 100 per cent disability in Canada receives $125 monthly, while in the United States the rate is $181. A married man with a 100 per cent disability in Canada receives $170 while the United States rate is $202 per month. The government, however, should take a step at this time to raise the amounts of the Canadian scheme for veterans, and make it one of the best. I would urge the committee, therefore, to take hold of this legislation and bring it back with amendments which will go so far as to make the maximum for single men $1,000 per annum and for married men $2,000 per annum.
Remember, as the speaker before me has said so well, these men offered their lives and, today, worn and many unable to earn a living, they ask only a small amount immediately so that they may live decently. We should not do less than that. If we do, then
1772	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act this parliament will have failed those men who, 38 years ago, decided they would never fail Canada.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: It is
not my purpose to speak at length. I do feel, however, it is fitting that I make a few remarks. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), in what I consider one of the finest speeches I have ever listened to in this house, rendered further talking almost unnecessary. Far too long Canadians have shabbily treated many of our soldiers of former wars. It is long past the time when we should begin to regard our less fortunate veterans as free Canadians with a right to the abundance of good things Canada produces. Today, we treat them as though they were a special class who had committed some sort of crime, by reason of which they are being denied the good things of life in Canada-a most astounding situation.
The recipients of war veterans allowances have been among the less fortunate of our veterans. These men, in the days of their youth and health and vigour and high hopes, arose in their country's time of need. Every heart in Canada was shaken with fear. They arose and marched and stood, sufficient in their generation. What we are doing in this parliament in rewarding them is far from being sufficient in our generation. Those men flinched not in the hour of testing. Members of this parliament are flinching by reason of the fear of a measly $5 million.


An hon. Member:: Peanuts.


John Horne Blackmore: Peanuts is right; peanut shells!
Why should the lovely girls, who to those boys gave themselves for better or for worse, be condemned indefinitely to wear threadbare, mediocre dresses, hand-me-down overcoats; to deprive themselves of the health-giving foods, to stint themselves in respect of the many little indulgences that so much contribute to the enjoyability of life?
Well, those girls as wives never again will know what it means to live freely. I say, Mr. Speaker, just as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre said, it is a disgrace that things of this sort should be done to those women who married those heroes of ours.
Every man who fought for Canada is entitled to a living-and I mean a living-in comfort and peace of mind. Those men do not know what the meaning of living is, nor of comfort, nor of peace of mind. I refer to the men who are on war veterans allowance. The men on war veterans allowance do not have comfort; they do not have peace of mind.

Canadian production is now around $24 billion a year, over $1,500 worth of goods, not money, a year for every individual. Canadian capacity to increase production of food, clothing, shelter, entertainment, health services and culture is well-nigh limitless. Do you not think that anybody with any degree of intelligence at all would say: now, if we are not producing enough of these good things for these men, let us by all means produce it and see that they get their share of it. Instead of that, we refuse to produce it and refuse to give them a share, the kind of share which they require and should have.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that any government that fails to provide for Canadian veterans on veterans allowance appropriate comfort and peace of mind is betraying its trust to Canadians, not only to the men who are concerned.
No more, I think, needs to be said, except that it is high time that men started considering how to distribute the goods we produce. The prices of agricultural products are falling today because there are not sufficient markets, there is not enough money in consumers' hands to buy the goods. Consequently, there is a tendency to decrease the production. Well, why not put money into the hands of those veterans so that they can increase consumption, at least as far as their needs will permit?
I shall have no more to say at the present time, but I certainly do hope that before we leave this parliament this year something far better than is contemplated in this bill will be worked out.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, from the remarks that have been made during this debate, I am not quite certain whether I shall be held up as a horrible example or as the exception which proves the rule. I am not going to go into a discussion of that but one day I hope to debunk the Pearkes myth. I am just an ordinary person who happened to be rather lucky. I was lucky in this respect. When I came back from the first war I had a position open and available for me, and therefore I did not have to go through the very difficult period of becoming rehabilitated after the first world war.
Hon. members will recall the days of 1920 when so many of our men came back. It was one of the craziest periods in all history. It was a period of jazz and cocktail parties and rum-runners. It was in that atmosphere that men who had been through years of trench warfare had to readjust themselves to civilian life. Men who had left this country while still in their teens came back and had to look for a job. It was toward the end of that period when representations were
fMr. Castleden.]

made, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks). Pressure was brought upon the government to do something for those men who, while perhaps not visibly wounded, still had suffered terribly from the effects of those years in trench warfare.
I am not going to repeat what the hon. member for Royal has already put on the record, namely, quotations from that great conference of veterans at Saint John, quotations from that great leader, Brigadier General Ross, who was president of the Canadian Legion. Remember, in those early days when the men came back, there was no Canadian Legion to give them hope and stability. All those things were different after the second world war.
To deal particularly with this bill, I should like to recall the words which were uttered by the Minister of Veterans Affairs in this house on February 22. When speaking on this bill he said that the increases would raise appreciably the standard of living of many veterans and their dependents. That went out all across the country. These men who had been suffering for years, and had been struggling along on a pittance, had high hopes that they were going to have their standard of living raised appreciably. Then, a few hours afterwards, the bill was introduced. The standard of living is going to be raised! The cost of living has been raised many times. This bill was going to raise the standard of living by increasing the amount of money which a single man could earn, plus his allowance, from $720 to $840, and he was expected in one year to see a big increase in the standard of his living on the princely sum of $840. If he was married and he and his wife were living together, the standard of living of the veteran and his wife was going to be raised appreciably by the magnificent increase from $1,200 to $1,440 a year. That is the maximum amount that he was allowed to earn. Then during his remarks on second reading the minister uttered words which have been quoted already in the very moving address by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). The minister said, as reported on page 1731 of Hansard of March 4:
We believe that the new ceilings are capable of allowing recipients to maintain a reasonable level of subsistence.
How preposterous! How can you have a reasonable level of subsistence on $1,440 a year. The new ceilings provide $2 a month increase in permissible income for a married couple. Magnificent, is it not? Then in closing the minister said:
I am convinced that it will be of great help to our older veterans.
War Veterans Allowance Act
What a great help it will be, $2 per month. At the annual meeting in Toronto last year of the Canadian Legion the minister apologized for making what he considered to be a master understatement. He certainly needs to apologize now for having made the overstatement of all time when he describes these miserable increases as being of great help to the older veterans and as raising appreciably their standard of living. I could go on expressing these sentiments because I feel deeply the insult which has been added to the long period of procrastination which has occurred in looking after these older veterans. However, as I feel that the speeches of the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre have dealt thoroughly with this matter I shall go on to deal with one or two smaller points.
First of all, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott), in his paeans of praise for the various cabinet ministers, forgot the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann). I think he might have included the Minister of National Revenue because after all it is the responsibility of the Minister of National Revenue to collect the money from the taxpayers to pay for these increases. These increases will not come out of any secret fund of the Liberal party, although from the praise which was given by the hon. member for Vancouver South one might have thought that it is the Liberal ministers who are going to take this money out of their own pockets for these increases. The fact is that the money comes from the Canadian taxpayer and I believe that this is one case where the Canadian taxpayer would be pleased to show his appreciation of what these men have gone through.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall) gave some incorrect and confusing information when he was speaking the other night about the widows of imperial veterans. Referring to the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. McLeod), the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard said, as reported on page 1751 of Hansard of March 4:
The previous speaker referred to the widows of imperial veterans not getting a break because some of them had been in this country for 19 years and 360 days. That is too bad;-
Then he finishes up with this statement:
Those who fall within that bracket are going to have to wait just as the widow of the imperial war veteran, referred to by the previous speaker, will have to wait. All people like this will be deprived of legislative benefits until they are here for the necessary period of 20 years.
The hon. member completely missed the point. Under the present legislation the widow of an imperial veteran will have to

War Veterans Allowance Act wait until doomsday before she will get a penny. These widows do not get war veterans allowance after being residents for 20 years. That is the whole point of the plea made by us on this side, that these women should receive consideration when they reach the age of 55 years and when they have been in this country for 20 years. We argue that they should be treated as any other war widow and be entitled to a war veterans allowance irrespective of the fact that their husbands may have died before having lived here for 20 years. The widow would have to live here for 20 years and would have to reach the age of 55 the same as anyone else.
We are not asking for any special consideration; we are simply asking for fair play. How long does one have to live in this country before he becomes a Canadian? Do these widows of imperial veterans, although they have lived here for 20 years, still have to be treated as second-class Canadians? That is exactly what the government is doing. Many of them sent their sons overseas with the Canadian forces during the second world war. Some were born in Canada.
There is one other point I should like to raise, the matter of liquid assets or the money a veteran may have in the bank or in investment funds. Some of these men have been saving every penny they can in order to set aside something for their declining years. A man may run into bad luck or reach a time when he is unable to work and feel that he must fall back on the war veterans allowance. If he has accumulated any savings he is told that he must reduce his liquid assets to $1,000 if single or to $2,000 if married. Just think what that means. These people have been saving ever since the first war 35 years ago, they have been scraping together everything they can in case catastrophe should occur during the last years of their lives.
If the veterans who are single have bank savings of a few dollars more than the minimum of $1,000 or $2,000 in the case of a married man, they are told that if they want to receive the war veterans allowance that they should spend the money, buy a T.V. set or anything they like, but in any event cut down their savings to the $1,000 or $2,000 mark, and then we will give them the war veterans allowance. We ask them to reverse the principles which they have followed all through their lives in trying to be independent and trying to save up their money and not squander every penny they have earned. We tell them to go and spend their money and reduce their assets and bring them down to the $1,000 or $2,000 mark. These men are put in an inferior
[Mr. Pearkes.l

position to those who receive old age assistance. The person who applies for old age assistance has his liquid assets based on an annuity basis. His liquid assets are converted to this annuity basis, that is to say, what the liquid assets will buy in the form of a ten-year annuity payable monthly. I can give you examples to illustrate how that basis of reckoning the liquid assets for the old age assistance is more favourable than the war veterans allowance to an individual.
I know of a case involving a widow who is between the ages of 65 and 70. She owns a home, if you can call it a home. It is actually a cottage assessed at the value of $2,450. In addition to that she possesses liquid assets of $1,700. Now, based on an annuity basis under the old age assistance, the maximum income from all sources is $65 less rental assessment of $10, less annuity assessment of $10. Therefore the old age assistance plus the cost of living bonus amounts to $45 per month. If she had previously applied for the war veterans allowance she would not have been allowed to receive war veterans allowance although she is entitled to it according to all service requirements. She has been told that she must wait until she reduces her liquid assets of $1,700. She must wait until that total is brought down to $1,000.
I know of another case involving a single man between the ages of 65 and 70. He does not own a home but he does possess liquid assets of $4,000. He is able to qualify for the old age assistance and he receives $35 a month but he cannot receive war veterans allowance because he has liquid assets of $4,000. If he goes out and buys a T.V. set and that sort of thing and can reduce those hard-earned savings of a lifetime to $1,000, then, and only then, will he be eligible for the war veterans allowance.
I know that this bill is to be referred to the committee. I know that representations will be made both by members of this house and by the representatives of the great veterans organizations across the country. We can only hope that, in view of the representations which are now being made here on the floor of this house and in view of those representations which will be made before the committee, the government will see its way clear to extend the benefits which may be obtained under this new legislation.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take very many minutes in making my remarks. I do want to rise and tell the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) that I welcome this legislation. It might be a little late in coming but I am delighted to see it coming into being. It is difficult to participate in the debate at this

time without repeating what someone else has said, because everything has been well covered. My colleagues in this group, who no doubt will be on the committee too, have pretty well expressed my views and I do not need to go into them at length. When it comes to legislation of this kind you will find that political lines disappear altogether. We tend to forget what party we belong to. Perhaps it is fortunate that we do not have too much time in which to discuss this bill. Whereas my colleague from Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) attempted to tell us that the Kootenay Cougars won the war, and whereas my hon. friend from VancoUver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall) gave the credit to the 46th division, I know that 36 or 37 years ago I was firmly convinced that the 51st division won the war. Nobody could have convinced me at that time that we did not win it. However, I know that everyone in this house is going to support this legislation.
It has been said that this is the finest legislation in the world. In a country like this, why shouldn't it be? This is the finest country in the world, and we should have the finest veterans legislation. When we go to war we only take the robust, the healthy, the finest types of men. We do not take anybody who is not sound. It is our best men who come back crippled. We never spare any money when it comes to their training, no matter what branch of the service they are attached to, and it is an expensive project to train these young men nowadays. If service in the forces breaks the health of our men or makes them old before their time, it should not be difficult to obtain money with which to compensate them for the loss of health and premature ageing.
I wish that the minister had been able to convince the government to accept the proposals of the Legion, the army, navy and air force and other veterans associations. I think the demands of the various groups were quite reasonable and the government should give them what they ask for.
I do not wish to take the time to go into any of the cases from my own constituency, as I feel this might not be the correct time and place to do so. However, I can speak to the minister about these cases at any time.
There are one or two things to which I hope the committee will give consideration and these have been repeated by the hon. member who preceded me. I am thinking particularly of the imperial veterans who are required to live in this country for 20 years in order to qualify for veterans allowance. If such a veteran were to die two days short of the 20 years his widow cannot qualify. I feel the minister should have the power to review
War Veterans Allowance Act cases of this kind and that perhaps the requirements of 20 years' residence could be reduced to 15 years' residence. Then there is the case of the veteran who is in poor health and has been given advice to go to a southern climate. He loses his pension while he is away. We allow judges and civil servants to go to the sunny south in search of health or enjoyment without stopping their pensions. Surely we could extend this privilege to the veterans in search of a more suitable climate in order to help them in their search for health. I think the permissive income of married veterans could have been increased a little bit more. No doubt this matter will be thoroughly discussed in the veterans affairs committee. I will not be on the veterans affairs committee this year but I have every confidence that the members of all groups will put up a good fight for the veterans. I should like to say thanks to the minister for the many veterans cases he has helped me to straighten out from time to time. I appeal to the minister to give the veterans all he possibly can. Many of these veterans are buying medicine and drugs that take away a great deal of their pension.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, on this bill many have already spoken and I understand there are a few more yet to come. I do not wish to take up the time of the house by referring to what has already been said by many other hon. members. I subscribe to nearly everything that has already been said on this bill. I think we are all glad that the government has at least been able to find the finances with which to raise somewhat the war veterans allowance and the ceilings on permissive income, even if they are not as high as we should like to see them.
Without putting the minister's thoughts into my own mouth, let me say this. I imagine that the minister and his very able parliamentary assistant would probably have liked to be able to get hold of funds with which to raise the war veterans allowance a bit more than is now done under the terms of this bill. But we all know that there is only a certain amount of money available from taxation. The minister has probably only been able to convince the other members of the front bench that he should have this share of the tax money for his department this year. I am not one of those people who believe that the amount of money available from taxation is unlimited. I realize, as I think do most other hon. members, that you cannot keep on raising taxes without dislocating the economy.


An hon. Member:: There is lots of money in wartime.	.
1776	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I was expecting a remark from that hon. member along that line. I feel that there is just so much money in the hands of the government. They can raise only so much money this year from taxation. If they cannot raise any more in order to increase war veterans allowance, possibly some other department might be able to give up their share to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) so that he could increase the war veterans allowance a little more. Half a loaf, I suppose, is better than none at all.
As I have already said, I am glad to see that the war veterans allowance has been increased to a certain extent. The Legion, of course, has put in this request from time to time. I think that most people on this side of the house are in agreement with the Legion's request. I see that they have applied for an increase in the monthly rate for the single man. As the Legion has requested, it has been increased to $60. The ceiling of total annual income is raised only to $840 instead of $1,200. In the case of the married man I see the allowance has been raised from $90 to $108 which is somewhat short of the $120 a month that was suggested by the Legion. I think the biggest discrepancy here is the fact that the Legion recommended that the maximum total annual income be $2,000 and the government at this time was apparently able to raise it only to $1,440. It is to be hoped that, if not now, then in the not too distant future, the government will be able to find the money to follow out the recommendations of the Legion. I think that hon. members would agree that the recommendations of the Legion are by no means unreasonable. The people who compose the executive of the Canadian Legion are highly responsible people, and they have not made those recommendations without having given careful consideration to all the facts concerned.
I should just like to say that I think the redefinition of the expression "casual earnings" which was altered last year has certainly helped those on war veterans allowance a great deal. It is much more elastic than the interpretation used to be.
To get back to the point I mentioned earlier, and the one I should like to make, may I say this. If the ceiling of permissive income was raised to the extent requested by the Legion, undoubtedly it would cost the government a lot more money, and this money would have to be found somewhere. I should just like to make this suggestion. It seems to me that there are several other departments of government that might very well give up some of the moneys that have been allocated to them. For instance, I might mention the Department of Public Works. All over


Canada and abroad there are certain large and fancy government buildings going up, particularly in Ottawa. Inasmuch as we are a growing nation and are becoming a prominent nation, I am not saying that Canada should not have nice government buildings. I think we should. It is a matter of national pride and abroad it may well be a matter of national prestige. But as long as there are citizens such as those who are receiving war veterans allowance in only small amounts, until those people who deserve it have their standard of living raised a little bit more than it has been raised by this bill, I think we could forgo some of the fancy buildings in Ottawa and possibly abroad. I refer to the proposed embassy at Rome and the building going up in Washington. That construction is not going to relieve any unemployment in Canada. I think maybe some of the fancy buildings going up here in Ottawa might either be postponed or might have some of the frills cut down. Some of these buildings look very much like Babylonian palaces and they have everything in them but the hanging gardens; and the C.M.H.C. building out here has nearly got them in it too.
It seems to me that it might be possible to cut down a little bit in that regard and maybe on some other matters like the purchase of expensive works of art for the national gallery. I do not suppose anyone would like more than I would to see Canada have a fine collection of works of art in the national gallery. But until such time as these burned-out pensioners are looked after I think we might forgo the purchase of things such as that, temporarily at least. The same thing could be said about other matters. When one goes through the estimates one sees things like cutlery and china-ware for Government House and things like that. I know those are small matters but in my county there is an expression to the effect that "many a mickle makes a muckle". I do not think the minister has yet been able to give us a completely accurate statement as to how much it would cost to increase the war veterans allowance to the extent requested by the Legion. Possibly he will be able to give us that information a little bit later on. I am sure that he will, probably when we get into committee on this bill.
In conclusion, there is one point I should like to make along the same line. In the estimates last year and this year I see provision for many other government buildings that are going to be put up around the country. I do not think we should cut down on the building of public works in regions, as the government tells us, where there is unemployment because the building

of public works certainly is a palliative if not a cure for unemployment. In places where unemployment is acute I do not think we should cut down in any way on public works; but there are certain parts in the country- maybe not too many but there are some- where unemployment is not too acute. I think maybe in those places the building of expensive government buildings at this time might be cut down a little bit, if that money could be turned to helping those who are in receipt of war veterans allowance. I think most hon. members and their constituents would not mind if the construction of a shiny new post office building in their constituencies was delayed for a year or two provided they knew that the money would be used to help the men who are on war veterans allowance. I am quite sure they would not mind doing without new post offices if they thought it would help.
I do not suppose there will be much attention paid, but the minister might be able to convince some of his colleagues in the cabinet that certain necessary but not immediately urgent expenditures of money in other departments might be delayed until such time as war veterans allowances have been increased a little bit more than is done by the present legislation.


Mr. R. F. L. Hanna (Edmonlon-Slralhcona):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support and compliment the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) and the government for bringing in Bill No. 164 to raise war veterans allowances. Those of us who have had the pleasure of dealing with the Minister of Veterans Affairs with respect to various veterans problems cannot help but be impressed with his genuine and sympathetic attitude towards our war veterans. To his predecessors belongs a great deal of the credit for having compiled the veterans charter that we have today. To the present Minister of Veterans Affairs there also goes a great deal of credit for the continuous improvement of the charter since his appointment as head of that department. Whatever bouquets we have for the present minister, may I say that I think they are equally well deserved by his parliamentary assistant and the officials generally throughout the department.
Those of us who served on the veterans affairs committee last year were very disappointed that no increase in war veterans allowances was made during the last session. However, I believe the minister and the government were left in no doubt whatever as to where we stood on the matter. While we would have liked immediate action on our request at the last session, we are very glad that the necessary legislation is now before us. I am glad not only because our
War Veterans Allowance Act older veterans need assistance but also because the introduction of the legislation shows that we do not have to wait for an election year to get some action from the government.
Some disappointment has been expressed that the proposed amendments do not go as far as requested by the Canadian Legion. While I give the Legion full credit for presenting an excellent brief on the subject of war veterans allowances, I am also inclined to give the minister a great deal of credit for having seriously studied the whole question before he brought in the bill. I am glad that he has gone a long way to meet the Legion's request for an increase in the basic rates. A 20 per cent increase is a very good one and is a long step in the right direction. If we cannot get all that the Legion brief asked, then I am happier with an increase in the basic rates than I would have been if they had been left as they were and there had been increases in the permissible income ceilings. I am happy about this because I am convinced that what we are offered in the bill is a far better deal for our needy veterans.
The permissible income ceiling does not mean very much to many of our ageing veterans who are in no position to obtain employment. They will be the first to realize, I am sure, that a bird in the hand is always better than two in the bush. However, I am sure that the whole matter of the permissive income ceilings will be thoroughly aired in the veterans affairs committee. Then there is the question of the supplementary assistance fund. The minister has indicated that the rules governing supplementary allowances are to be revised and made more generous. I believe this will have the effect of giving many needy veterans and widows incomes of $70 per month if single and $120 per month if married. We hope to hear more about the supplementary allowances in the committee. Allowances on this scale are, I believe, well in line with what has been requested by the Canadian Legion.
Then we have the clause on casual earnings which will be of real help to some veterans and widows of veterans. We will have a more detailed examination of the bill in the committee and therefore I do not intend to take up the time of the house with further comment at this time. However, I could not allow this opportunity to pass without letting the government and the minister know that I consider the bill another real step forward in veterans legislation. It is by progressive steps such as this one that we have achieved the fine veterans charter we have today. Of course I realize it is far from perfect but I believe it to be well worthy of our support. Therefore I say to the minister, "So far, so
1778	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act good", and if we should find in our study in the committee that the bill is not as good as it looks we will certainly ask for more.


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, two telegrams have reached me over the week end. One is from the secretary of the Canadian Legion branch at Hudson Bay, Saskatchewan, urging that I support the Legion's brief when Bill 164 is before the house. The other is from the zone commander of zone No. 3 in Saskatchewan, also urging that the Legion's proposals be given favourable consideration by the house. It has been suggested that Canada's legislation for veterans is the best in the world. I am afraid it would not be easy for us to convince the veterans who are dependent on the provisions we have made that what we have provided is the best that Canada can offer. During the war the then minister of finance emphasized again and again that what was physically possible would be made financially possible. Never once during the years from 1939 to 1945 did any minister of the government say that he did not have enough money to carry on his job.
I am sorry that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe), who had the responsibility of introducing the legislation, made it appear as if he thought it was adequate.
I wish that one of the older members of the cabinet who sits on the treasury board had taken on the responsibility and presented the arguments. To suggest that the Canadian economy would not stand an extra $13 million to meet the requests of the Canadian Legion is absurd. Last year the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) was given something like $2 billion to carry on his job. Press reports would indicate that he is approximately $175 million short of having spent all that we voted him. If he had spent the full amount there would not be any criticism, and I submit that we should at least go as far as the Legion has suggested. Ways and means certainly could be found to provide an additional $13 million.
A large part of the area where I live was settled by veterans at the end of the first world war. The names they gave to their school districts suggest places that are well known to us-Somme, Blighty, Veterans, Souchez and Vimy. It is very difficult for members of the house to appreciate the sort of assignment these veterans undertook when they took over 160 acres of land in the bush country at a price of $10 and proceeded to clear the land and bring it under cultivation. They had just nicely made a start when the depression came upon them, and for many years now life has been very difficult. I feel


it is unfair for the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) to suggest that $840 is a reasonable amount of income for a single person, and it is equally unfair to suggest that $1,440 is the maximum amount which a wealthy country like Canada can provide for married veterans.
The legislation before us, in addition to making provision for the veterans, also provides for certain salary increases. Section 6 provides that the salary of the chairman will be increased to $11,000 from $10,000, while the salaries of the other board members will be increased from $8,500 to $9,500. I am sure that those salaries will not put the commission members out of line with salaries being paid to men in other branches of government doing comparable work. However, the fact that the government considers these people doing responsible work require an additional $1,000 a year surely makes it impossible to suggest that $840 is the maximum amount a single person should have or that a married man should have $1,440 as a maximum.
The last copy of The Legionary which has reached our desks mentions that at last war veterans allowances were being increased. There is also this important heading "Good, but not Enough". I am sure that the considered opinions that have been presented by members in all sections of the house should result in the committee coming back with a recommendation to parliament that the maximum for single men be at least $1,200 and for married men $2,000. I believe that is the very least we could suggest as the maximum total annual income, including allowances.


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: We
have had a large number of eloquent and moving pleas in this debate on behalf of the recipients of war veterans allowances, and those who are potential recipients. I agree completely with the statements which have been made concerning the hardships endured in the first war by men who are now recipients of war veterans allowances. I agree also with the remarks made about the great service they rendered to this country and to the cause of freedom throughout the world. It is significant that no one, during this debate or any previous debate on this subject that I have heard, has ever questioned the service or the value of the service these men have rendered. Since that is so, it seems to me that in this parliament we should be prepared to take the most generous view possible of the treatment these old soldiers should receive.
I am sorry to say that I do not believe that has always been the attitude of the government. I think there has been altogether too

much of the attitude, well, this might cost $3 million more or $6 million more per year, and therefore we cannot do it; we will wait until a few more of these people die, and then we might be able to increase the payments. I do not think the Canadian people or the members of this house, as representatives of them, really subscribe to that point of view. I feel quite convinced that, given a free rein, the members of this house would be overwhelmingly in favour of granting war veterans allowance recipients the full amount recommended by the Legion and other veterans organizations during the past year or two.
I know that a large number of the recipients of war veterans allowances would be gratified by the increases provided in this particular bill. I was glad to see those increases of $10 per month for single men and $18 per month for married men. Many of us on this side of the house for years have been urging the government to increase the amount of these allowances. Last year in the veterans committee we made very strong pleas that the amount be raised to $60 per month for single men and $120 per month for married men. The fact that the government has met the recommendation for single men and has gone some distance towards meeting the recommendation for married men is naturally gratifying. I am glad to see that some of the government members who were on that veterans committee last year are expressing satisfaction over the increases that have been made.
I am only sorry that they did not express the same ideas last year, and join with the other members on that committee in attempting to force the government to introduce increases at that time. Then these veterans who are now going to have these increases would have had them a year ago instead of getting them this coming summer. It is all very well for members to say at this stage they are glad to see these increases, but if those members supporting the Liberal government had really put the pressure on last year or the year before these increases might have been in effect long before this.
The great defect, so far as this piece of legislation is concerned, is that there has been no real increase made in the amount of income which the recipients of war veterans allowance can receive, apart from the allowance itself. There has been a great deal of talk here about the increase from $720 per year to $840 per year in the income of single men. All that is, however, is an increase of $10 per month which has been made in the allowance, raising the allowance from $50 to $60 per month. The single man is still in a position where he cannot secure
War Veterans Allowance Act more than $10 per month above the allowance. In other words, there has been no increase in allowable income above the allowance at all. The same situation holds true of the married men, except they can have an income of $12 per month above the allowance instead of the $10 per month as it was before. There has been an increase there of $2 per month, but not enough to amount to anything.
It has always been very difficult for me to understand why the government has so consistently refused to increase the amount of allowable income for the recipients of war veterans allowances. This has been the case for the last ten years, and pleas have been made to increase the allowable income to the level of income tax exemptions. It does not seem reasonable that the income tax exemption level of $1,000 for single men and $2,000 for married men should be too high an allowance for the recipients of war veterans allowances to reach before anything is taken off their allowance. I would hope when this matter is considered in the committee that the majority of the committee would be prepared to recommend that the whole matter be reconsidered, and that the amount of allowable income be increased to at least the income tax exemption levels, as has been recommended so frequently for such a long period of time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise for just a few moments to give further support to the requests being made that the committee to which this bill will be referred give serious consideration to the original proposals of the Canadian Legion so far as the War Veterans Allowance Act is concerned.
It is not often that we in this house, since we both listen to and make a great many speeches, will admit that we are moved by the utterances we hear from other members; but I am sure all of us have been deeply moved by the appeals that have been made from various quarters of this house. I think we all feel that way about the speech made today by my friend and neighbour, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, and also in connection with the very strong and moving speech made by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes).
I express the hope that the appeals made by these hon. members, as well as the appeal made on Friday by my colleague the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) and others in this group, will be listened to by the government and by those who will deal with this legislation when it gets to the special committee on veterans affairs.
1780	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act
It does seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that there is significance which should be noted in the many telegrams that hon. members are now receiving. I know the attitude of some on the government side is to say that it is easy for hon. members to produce telegrams. We are getting them all the time. But I suggest there is particular significance in the fact that now that the terms of Bill No. 164 are out, the Legion branches across the country are wiring their members expressing their view that the original requests of the Legion should even yet be met in full.
I too have received telegrams in connection with this matter. I think of a particular one 1 have on my desk which comes from Mr. P. Johnson, the president, and Mr. Thomas C. Wetton, the secretary of the Imperial division of the Canadian Legion in Winnipeg, a branch of which I have the very high honour to be an honorary member. This branch, like others, is urging that we give our utmost support, in connection with the consideration of Bill No. 164, to the full implementation of the Legion's original recommendations. And all of us know what is meant by that request.
Therefore I hope, Mr. Speaker, that when this bill goes to the committee it will be considered in an open-minded fashion, and that the possibility of amending it will be regarded by the members as very real. I say that despite the words used the other night by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott), when he said, as reported at page 1755 of Hansard:
I would not want to leave any shadow of a suggestion that I think there will be any substantial change by way of raising the ceilings on permissive income in the veterans affairs committee.
I was sorry to hear that statement, Mr. Speaker. Surely there is no point in setting up a committee if one is going to attempt to close the door on it before it even goes into session. I was glad to hear another Liberal member, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna), suggest this afternoon that it will be possible in that committee to consider all the aspects of this bill, and I hope that will be done not just in an academic fashion but in the light of the appeals that are being made, and in the light of the fact that it is possible for that committee to recommend to the government or back to the house that further improvements be made in this legislation at this time.
Everyone knows what it is that requires improvement. In the main, there are three points: first, the question of the ceiling on permissive income; second, the matter of the definition regarding imperial veterans or


widows of imperial veterans; third, the question of the United Kingdom not yet being regarded as a theatre of war for purposes of world war I.
With regard to the ceiling, Mr. Speaker, an unfortunate argument has been made both by the hon. member for Vancouver South and by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona in suggesting that if a choice had to be made between the raising of the ceiling on permissive income and an increase in the amount of the allowance, the choice would be for the increase in the amount of the allowance.


Mr. Philpott:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Vancouver South says "hear, hear". He repeats his argument. Is he so naive as to think that it has to be either/or? The Legion did not ask for one or the other. No one is now suggesting that instead of the increase in the allowance there should be a raising of the permissive ceiling. What we are asking for is that the original, responsible, shall I say conservative requests of the Canadian Legion be met in full, both with respect to the amount of the allowance and the ceiling on permissive income.
As I said when I spoke on this matter at the resolution stage, Mr. Speaker, I think it is a bit of a hoax to spread the idea that this bill provides an increase in the other income allowed a burnt-out pensioner. It is true that the ceiling on the total income is raised, but only to the extent that the allowance has been raised, so when you look at the amount of other income that one is permitted to earn under the terms of the act, you see there has been no increase provided in the case of the single veteran, and only $2 a month in the case of the married veteran.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, the Legion branches across this country and the dominion command in so far as its views are expressed in the current issue of The Legionary are fully justified in saying at this time that this is not good enough. I support as strongly as I can the plea, the earnest request that the committee, when it deals with this bill, recommend that the ceilings on permissive income be raised to the figures proposed by the Legion, namely $1,200 a year for single veterans and $2,000 a year for married veterans. These figures would also solve the problem that arises in connection with old age security when a veteran reaches 70.
On the other two points, I should like simply to repeat what I have already mentioned. I feel that there should be a change in regard to the status of imperial veterans,

and particularly in the case of the widows of imperial veterans. As the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich pointed out, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Mac-Dougall) completely missed the point the other night; the widow of the imperial veteran who was not in Canada for the full 20 years has no hope of ever getting an allowance no matter how long she lives, even though she herself may have been born in this country. It does seem to me that there is room for improvement there; that decency, common sense and common fair play call for a change in that respect.
Likewise, Mr. Speaker, now that we are this far away from the struggle of 1914-1918, it does seem to me that we should accord to the veterans of world war I who went overseas, and who were perfectly willing to go to France but did not get beyond the United Kingdom, the same treatment that we accord to veterans of world war II. It is high time the United Kingdom was declared a theatre of war in world war I for the purpose of the War Veterans Allowance Act with respect both to veterans themselves and to widows of veterans who should be allowed to qualify under the provisions of the act.
My purpose in rising, Mr. Speaker, is to plead as strongly as I can that these three points, among others, be dealt with satisfactorily by the committee to which this bill is to be referred.


Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I have listened to this debate with great interest, and I notice that a number of hon. members have welcomed the terms of the bill on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread at all. Other hon. members have frankly and strongly criticized the government, I think rightly, for bringing forth a half measure and because they are continuing the practice of dealing with veterans, especially those of world war I, in a piecemeal manner. As time goes on and the pressure from the Canadian Legion and individual citizens of this country can be held out against no longer, they	decide	to	make concessions. Isubmit that	is	not	the	way in which this
problem should be approached.
It is generally recognized by the Canadian people that we	owe	to	the veterans of bothworld wars,	in	fact	of	all wars, a debt not
only of gratitude but to see that they end their days with a reasonable standard of living. It is a medical fact, as has been so ably pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, that because of their service and the hardship they have suffered their ability to earn a livelihood has been greatly reduced, as well as their ability to save for a rainy day.
War Veterans Allowance Act
In addition to that, it is generally acknowledged that because of their service these veterans have pre-aged by ten years. That was the principle underlying this legislation when it was brought in. In effect the war veterans allowance is an old age pension which is given to a war veteran ten years earlier than the average citizen because he has been aged prematurely by the hardships he experienced while on active service.


Elmore Philpott: If you applied your argument would it not be true that we would have to reduce the war veterans allowance to $40 per month?


John Angus MacLean: No, I do not think that necessarily follows. It is true that the war veterans allowance is greater than the old age pension, but it does not necessarily follow that it would automatically have to be reduced. I appreciate the point brought up by the hon. member, but I have said already that in addition to being pre-aged by ten years it is also recognized that the earning capacity of these men during their productive years has been reduced, and their period of earning shortened by ten years. Incidentally, their life expectancy is not as great as that of other citizens.
There are three reasons which might be advanced as to why they should receive the old age pension at a slightly higher level than the average person. They have not been able to earn so long; they will probably die off sooner, and their earning capacity during their productive years is not as great. But that is by the way.
What does not make logic to me is the penny-pinching attitude which the minister has expressed on behalf of the government in regard to permissible earnings over and above the war veterans allowance. In the case of the single veteran the permissible earnings have not been increased at all, and in the case of the married veteran they have been increased by $2 per month.
I realize that if the ceiling on total permissible income were increased it would mean that veterans not now receiving the full veterans allowance would have their allowances increased. It would mean also that classes of veterans who now do not qualify for the allowance would qualify. But I do not think either group would be large, and even if it were I do not think that is a point to be considered. At the present time we are expecting the single veteran to live decently on $2.30 per day, and we expect a veteran and his wife to eke out a living on $3.90 per day. All the Canadian Legion is asking, and all many hon. members are pressing for, is that in the case of the married veteran the

War Veterans Allowance Act ceiling on total earnings be raised to $2,000 so that he and his wife would have $5.48 per day on which to live. I think it will be agreed that that would not provide an extravagant standard of living for two people, with the cost of living what it is at the present time.
It should be remembered that the time is running out during which we will have the privilege of paying our debt to the veterans of the first world war. The youngest soldier in the first world war is now 55 years of age, which means that in 15 years every veteran of the first world war will be at least 70 years of age. As I understand it, in the next 15 years in most cases the war veterans allowance will be decreased by the amount of the universal old age pension which a veteran would receive on reaching 70 years of age. The result will be that in 15 years the war veterans allowance for all veterans of the first world war will be reduced by $40 per month, a considerable reduction in the cost of this program to the department without increasing in any way the amount paid out by the government for universal old age pensions.
That is all I wish to say on this matter, except to indicate that I also have received telegrams from various Legion branches. I should like to read one which I received from the Prince Edward Island provincial command of the Canadian Legion, reading as follows:
Prince Edward Island command Canadian Legion urge you support the Canadian Legion recommendation that war veterans allowances be increased to $80 per month for single and $120 for married men and the ceiling for permissible earnings be $1,200 for single men and $2,000 for married.
I heartily support that recommendation of the Canadian Legion, because I think it is reasonable. I see no fault as far as the other amendments are concerned. Obviously it is a needed correction to amend the act so that parents will include adoptive, foster and step-parents. I think that is only justice, and I approve of it most heartily.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, it is evident from the tenor of the debate that this measure will receive the unanimous support of the house, but I would be rather reluctant to feel that the government should take our unanimity as an indication that we are satisfied with the measure, and that the government has gone as far at this time as the Canadian Legion and others interested in the welfare of the veterans would have them go.
Like many hon. members I have received communications from Legion members in my own constituency. This morning I received


a wire from Ron Shawcross, president of the Legion branch in Regina which has 1,700 members, expressing their dissatisfaction with this measure. In his wire to me Mr. Shawcross points out:
You will agree impossible for single man to live on $840 and married man on $1,440 per year.
I think that wire sums up the attitude of the Legion members in my constituency. I recall that the hon. member for Vancouver South indicated the other day that the veterans in his constituency were not as concerned about allowable income as they were about the cash increase itself. I would suggest the veterans in my constituency are definitely concerned about allowable income, and they feel that it should be set at the figure outlined by the dominion command of the Canadian Legion. This proposal has been supported by a great many hon. members who have spoken in this debate.
It seems rather strange, as the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) pointed out, that in the same bill which calls for increases for the veterans there is a provision for an increase in the salaries of the chairman of the board and the board members. Apparently the government feels that $11,000 is now necessary as recompense for the chairman of the board. It does seem a little inconsistent that the government should feel $840 is a sufficient amount of money to maintain a single veteran, and $1,440 is sufficient to maintain a married veteran.
I rise at this time simply because of some of the statements made by supporters of the government, who seem to take great pride in the record of the government concerning veterans legislation. As pointed out by many hon. members in other groups, we have a good record in veterans legislation in many respects. However, I feel it is not proper procedure to use that as an excuse for holding back on benefits at this time. If the legislation is as good as government supporters are so fond of telling us, the government should make it better still. There seems to be no reason whatsoever to take the attitude that we are satisfied with the legislation and have no intention of improving it.
In line with the recommendations made by the Regina branch of the Canadian Legion, I want to urge the government to give further consideration to this matter. I hope that when the bill goes to the committee it will bring back recommendations calling for improvements in this bill in line with the recommendations set forth by the Canadian Legion.


Mr. G. S. White (Hastings-Fronienac):: I
rise to take part briefly in this debate simply in order to add my voice to those of the other

members who have pleaded in such a fair manner on behalf of those who receive the war veterans allowance.
I am certain the minister and his parliamentary assistant must have been moved when they listened this afternoon to the fine speech made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. There are still a few members in this house who went through the first war; and while it was quite a long time ago any member who went through the battles known as Passchendaele, Ploegsteert or Vimy Ridge, or who fought down on the Somme, or who had anything to do with Sugar trench or Regina trench, can quite understand and appreciate why the belief has grown up that the experiences and ordeals these men went through have shortened their lives by at least ten years. I say that despite what the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Fairey) may say to the contrary.
These benefits are of great importance to these men, as the hon. member who preceded me has pointed out. The number of men who receive these benefits and who have continued to receive them is decreasing year by year. The minister knows only too well that it will be many years before the War Veterans Allowance Act will be again before the house for amendment so the allowance may be increased or the ceiling raised. I therefore urge the minister to take advantage of this opportunity and at least recommend changes that will comply with the recommendations received from the Canadian Legion.
Other hon. members have pointed out the discrimination as far as the old age pension being paid to those who receive war veterans allowance is' concerned. We all recall that when this great piece of legislation was introduced whereby all Canadians reaching the age of 70 would receive a security pension of $40 a month it was applauded and approved by all members in the house. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the war veteran who receives a burnt-out pension or the war veterans allowance is discriminated against because, as you well know, when he reaches the age of 70 he receives the old age pension and security cheque of $40 a month but his war veterans allowance is accordingly decreased by $40 a month.
I am sure the minister must have received many complaints, and must know what happens when the veteran who is struggling so hard to get along earns a little more money than is allowed him under the ceiling. The veteran is required to fill out a long yellow legal form which tells everything about him and which is gone over with a magnifying 50433-1134
War Veterans Allowance Act glass. If the form reveals that he has exceeded the very low ceiling he is notified in due course that his allowance has been reduced accordingly. The minister must know from long experience the length of time required for the veteran to get his allowance back to the old rate.
I especially plead with the minister to raise the ceiling to encourage the veteran to earn what he can. The veteran has found from bitter experience, in seeing what has happened to his chums and neighbours, that once he goes over the ceiling his allowance is reduced.
I do not want to point out the difference between the benefits received by the veterans of the first war and those of the second war. I was glad to see that the veterans of the second war received what they did, because I feel they deserved it. However, the benefits that were given to the veterans of the first war were very meagre in comparison with the benefits given to the veterans of the second war.
The minister knows the attitude of the Legion. As one hon. member said today, many of the hon. members are receiving telegrams from their Legion branches throughout their ridings urging them to support the demands made by the Legion. I would simply conclude by saying that I do hope the minister on this occasion and even at this late date will consider amendments which will provide for the full recommendations made by the Canadian Legion.


Mr. W. G. Blair (Lanark):: Mr. Speaker, this debate has carried on for two days and a great deal of argument has been presented on behalf of the veterans, but there are certain new facts which have arisen today and I think the address made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre brought out some principles which have not been presented previously.
The hon. member spoke of the fact that these veterans not only served in the first war but went through a period of depression which lasted for ten years. He pointed out the difference in the treatment of the veterans of the first and second wars. I honour those veterans of the second war, but I feel that the veterans of the first war did not have the opportunities which were afforded second world war veterans. I remember very well the matter of getting the gratuity, and allowances, and that sort of thing. But educational opportunities were given after the second war, and a great deal of other assistance was given.
Not only was that fact apparent, but these men came through a period of ten years when they had no opportunity to hold a job, to

War Veterans Allowance Act build up a business, or to rehabilitate themselves in life. When we consider veterans of the first war that is something we should seriously take into consideration. The matter of ageing ten years, in addition to their proper age, is something that cannot be questioned. There is no doubt on that matter.
With regard to this matter I have received telegrams and letters, the same as every other hon. member in this house. However, there was one letter which impressed me particularly and I am going to quote parts of it. I shall send the letter over to the minister for verification, because this man has presented his arguments most clearly. He states his argument in this way. He begins by saying that their Legion branch was greatly disappointed. Then he starts to point out his personal condition:
A single person has to pay $15 per week for board, on a 28 day month. He is only allowed $60 per month.
That is a single veteran, so his $60 is entirely taken up in board allowance. He continues:
For a married person-
And he cites his own personal condition.
-I find that it takes me $100 a month for my groceries, milk and meat, and we live very plain at that. What is a person going to do with the other $8?
But then he goes on and tells me how he is paying in to the superannuation fund and that he will get out just his $1,440 per year. But this is the telling paragraph in his letter:
My family doctor has been telling my wife for years that I am really ten years older than X am due to war services, but my birth certificate only gives me 60 years instead of 70, so the old age security is out.
This is the impressive part of this letter. I know this man to be a good man. I know him to be a man who works, and who was a good soldier all the way through. I want to bring this one sentence to the attention of the house. After saying that old age security is out he goes on to say this:
I won't be around in another ten years, can't afford to quit my job, so will have to work as long as possible.
I believe what this man says. He is a man who is aged prematurely, and he has no recourse but to work as long as he possibly can stagger along and keep going, because he is not going to receive from war veterans allowance sufficient to let him lead the life he should lead, and which he is entitled to lead by virtue of his service.
There is no doubt about the ten years' premature ageing. I think of those veterans of the first war who did not participate in a war of movement, but who spent that four years in mud in the trenches. The situation


was entirely different. They aged. It was difficult to rehabilitate them when they came back. Now with the high cost of living, in times such as these, no man can support a wife adequately on this allowance. It is just foolish to think that two old people can get along on $1,440 a year.
As to the arguments that have been placed before us about the government having acted in a wonderful way, let me say that we owe this consideration to these people. This matter has been brought before the government time and time again. The Canadian Legion is not a pressure group; it is a group of responsible citizens. These people know the condition of the veterans better than any other group of people in Canada.
I was impressed by the address given by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. There is no man in this house who has a better knowledge of the condition of these veterans. Finding this hon. member pleading for the men who served under him, knowing full well their condition, I could not hesitate to say to this house: Let us try to raise this ceiling; let us do something about it. There is no doubt that these men have earned it, that they need it, and that they should have the means of enjoying a decent way of living. That is all I have to say, because other arguments have been presented. I plead with hon. members that some further assistance be given to these people.
Before I sit down there is one thing I want to say to the minister. I find a great deal of difficulty in explaining to soldiers that veterans of the first war are not eligible for war veterans allowance if they served only in England. These old fellows-and I say "old fellows" in a kindly way-cannot understand why they are not eligible when veterans of the second war are eligible. This matter should receive a great deal of consideration. I would suggest to the minister that this matter be more clearly placed before his colleagues, and that consideration be given to extending the benefits to these people. In many cases they performed excellent service. Many of them were unfit. It was not their fault that they did not get across the channel. As I say, I find a great deal of difficulty in trying to explain to these men why they are not eligible for war veterans allowance.
I appeal to the minister to reconsider this whole bill. I appeal to him to realize that the Canadian Legion is a responsible group of citizens, and that we have telegrams and letters coming in from old-timers across the country. I particularly plead for those of the first war, because they are in that age group. I urge that something further be done

to extend this bill. It is not too late. If it were done it would give a great deal of satisfaction to these people who are trying to get along on a meagre salary.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I could not allow this opportunity to go by without saying something on this motion, which is to refer Bill No. 164 to the committee.
I just want to say that across our country from Cape Breton right to Vancouver we have veterans in this category. I submit that there is no class of Canadian citizens to whom we as Canadians owe a greater debt. I feel sure everyone recognizes, as has been indicated by those who have spoken previously in this debate, that these veterans were prepared to go out for their country and make their contribution, whatever it should be, in the way of safeguarding the welfare of every Canadian citizen as well as the welfare and peace of the world. I therefore want to join with those members in this house who have stated that this measure is not good enough.
I agree with the Canadian Legion, which has indicated that it is a welcome move in the right direction; but I for one want to voice my opinion that it is not good enough under present conditions. I do not think we in this house are justified in comparing it with any other legislation in any other country. I believe we have our own specific responsibility, and that we should make the legislation the best we can do for those veterans of the first great war.
In my own constituency I have veterans in this class whom I see from time to time. In my own little home town I have a number of them, and I see them trying to supplement their income under the war veterans allowance by jobs such as taking the mail to the train and bringing it back, casual labour with the pick and shovel, and many other kinds of jobs, sometimes when they are not fit to do that type of work. They do this simply because they are not in receipt of a proper income which would give them a decent standard of living.
I know it is difficult to translate the needs of these people in order to find what would give them a decent standard of living; but I have made some attempt to find out what would be a reasonable income which would guarantee these veterans a decent standard of living. I am quite sure that no member of this house will gainsay my statement when I say they should at least have a decent standard of living.
I want to put before you, Mr. Speaker, and before the house the findings of the united automobile workers' survey as set out in the Guardian, and they have taken this survey
War Veterans Allowance Act from the standards of the United States department of labour. This is not a mere subsistence level budget, but a very modest budget. I think one can say that one should not expect any Canadian to live on less than is provided in this type of budget.
The costs in this survey are those which prevailed in Windsor, Ontario, as of January 31, 1954. The survey takes a family of four, the father being 38 years of age, the mother 36, with a son of 15 and a daughter 13. All members will recognize, and quite rightly, that by and large war veterans will be much older, but I submit this is a comparable basis. I might digress to say that in my constituency I have such war veterans in receipt of war veterans allowance who still have dependents, although their age is somewhat greater.
In this survey there are no other dependents. The family has three bedroom rented living accommodation, and the home is within reasonable commuting distance of work. All cooking, laundry and preparation of lunches are done at home. Five per cent of meals are eaten away from home, leaving 95 per cent prepared and eaten in the home. The budget only allows a few meat servings each week, with chicken or turkey on New Year's or Christmas days. It restricts the choice of food and the choice of entertainment for these people. The total amount for recreation for the family of four is set at $91 a year. This family has no car. In order to provide for their modest budget there must be an income of $3,746.18 a year. Where the home is owned but there is no car the family would need $3,431.88. When the family are buying their home and also have no car they would need $3,971.88. In no case do these figures allow for any income tax.
There, sir, are the figures established after a careful survey with respect to the cost of living in Canada for a family of four. When one considers this modest budget one can hardly say that the proposed increases in war veterans allowance are at all adequate. As a matter of fact I think they are shameful. In terms of the 1945 dollar, the dollar given to the veteran today is worth only about 50 per cent of what it was then. In my opinion the demands of the Canadian Legion, as outlined in The Legionary of March, 1955, are more than reasonable. It may possibly be that the veterans have become accustomed to the failure of the government in the past to assume its responsibility to provide adequate pensions for them.
I want to bring one other matter to the attention of the house with reference to the proposed increase in the income of the single veteran. It is proposed that the maximum
1786	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act allowable income will be $840. To take but one example, a veteran who is 69 years of age will receive a maximum of $70 a month. When he becomes 70, within a year, he will still have a monthly income maximum of $70, but his war veterans allowance will be decreased by the amount of $40 representing the old age pension. In that case he will only get $30 by way of war veterans allowance.
As far as I am concerned the increase in war veterans allowance granted to veterans of the first great war is niggardly. With a properly organized Canada, having in mind the potential production of this country and having in mind that this matter is the responsibility of parliament, the government should listen to the views of those on this side of the house and grant a decent and adequate pension for these people who were ready to go and give their best for their country.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, as this is perhaps the most favourable time for those veterans and other interested members who will not be members of the committee to make their thoughts known, I wish to state briefly that these increases of approximately 20 per cent do not in my opinion go far enough.
It was in my home city in the late 1920's, shortly after the formation of the Canadian Legion that, I believe, the principle already mentioned in this debate, that a veteran with front-line service had aged prematurely by ten years, was laid down. To my knowledge this principle has never been disputed and is still acknowledged today. I have had some personal connection with benevolent work, mainly through the distribution of the proceeds of the various poppy campaigns, and I think I can state with some authority that the incentive to veterans to work will not be increased greatly with a 20 per cent increase in the allowance.
I am pleased to note that some amendments are to be made with respect to the veterans assistance fund, which is of course most necessary. But those of us who have had something to do with the plight of veterans in our respective communities should recognize that the incentive for the veteran to find full or part-time employment will not be strengthened unless the allowances are raised to the amounts requested by the Canadian Legion.
There is one other matter I should like to mention. In the seaport towns there are a great many merchant seamen who rendered good service at sea during the war and who aged in the same way other veterans did, but they have not been given the same


benefits as other veterans. The former minister of veterans affairs knows my feelings as far as the merchant seamen are concerned, and I should like the new minister to understand that I am still interested in them. I grant that the searching of records to establish the service of these men presents quite a problem, but when need is a factor surely some allowance could be made.
I have my share of telegrams here. We have our share of veterans in New Brunswick. There is nothing more I should like to add now except to endorse the words of the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), who has always taken a sincere interest in these matters, and to refer again to the headline of the editorial in the last issue of The Legionary which so aptly described the present situation in this way, that the war veterans allowance increases are perhaps good but they are not good enough.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I want to add my voice to the voices of other hon. members who have welcomed this legislation but who, at the same time, have pointed out that the government should have accepted in full the recommendation made to it by the Canadian Legion. This legislation, which constitutes some improvement, has been long overdue. I have often remarked that the government's attitude toward the recipients of war veterans allowances places those men in a worse position than almost any other group of Canadians.
I believe that the recommendation of the Canadian Legion requesting that war veterans allowances for single persons be increased to $60, and for married persons to $120, was reasonable and should have been granted in full. We welcome, of course, all the increases. We are particularly pleased with the increase to the single veteran, which is in line with the recommendation of the Canadian Legion. We regret very much, however, the fact that the government has failed to grant the request of the Canadian Legion that the allowance for a married veteran should be increased to $120 per month.
Members have pointed out that these veterans are men who sacrificed their health in the first great war, fighting for democracy. The very least that Canada, through its government, should do for these veterans now is to provide them with a minimum standard of living, at least somewhat in keeping with Canadian standards. I suggest with great deference that the action taken by the government falls far short of providing these veterans with the standard of living that should be granted in Canada in 1955.

The Canadian Legion asked that the allowable income for a single veteran be increased to $1,200, and for a married veteran to $2,000. In this respect the government's action falls far short of the request of the Legion, and far short of anything that is adequate. The total allowance now for a single veteran is $840. This is a great deal short of the Legion's request for $1,200. Similarly the allowable income of $1,440 for a married veteran is a great deal short of the Legion request that the allowable income be increased to $2,000.
There is another part of this bill that provides for an increase to members of the board. The chairman's salary is to be increased from $10,000 per year to $11,000 per year. The salary of each of the members will be increased from $8,500 to $9,500. I do not suppose the Canadian Legion would take objection to such increases, but I think they would be much easier for the Legion and others to accept had the government granted the Legion's requests in full. I cannot understand why the war veterans allowance should be decreased when a recipient of that allowance reaches the age of 70 and becomes entitled to the old age security pension. I do not understand why the government should place members receiving the war veterans allowance in a different category from any other group of Canadians.
Why should persons receiving war veterans allowances be singled out for a reduction in their income, and consequently singled out as the one group of Canadians who are not given the full increase of $40 per month in income on reaching the age of 70? As has already been pointed out, a single veteran receiving the maximum allowance of $60 per month, without any other outside income, has his war veterans allowance decreased from $60 to $30 when he reaches 70 and becomes eligible for old age security. I want to support other members who have suggested that the government should reconsider the provisions of this bill in the light of the requests of the Canadian Legion, and that they grant all the requests of the Canadian Legion as being reasonable and responsible requests that should be met in full.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I want to take this opportunity of indicating briefly the reason for my support of those who have said this legislation does not go far enough. At the beginning I should like to make it clear that I am in the same position as many of my colleagues, namely that as veterans of the second world war we want to take this opportunity of expressing our appreciation of the work done and the contributions to national security and national welfare made by those older veterans who served in the
War Veterans Allowance Act first war. We are under obligation to them in that not only did they take part in a war which, in so far as long periods in the trenches under arduous conditions were concerned, in some ways imposed greater hardship, I imagine, than the second world war; but also since their return they have shown their public spirit by forming the organization which has grown into that great body, the Canadian Legion.
All veterans, but particularly those who served in the second war, owe a great deal to the Legion. Had it not been for the Legion during the second war the veterans' rehabilitation and welfare programs would not be anything like as extensive or as complete as they are now. I have the greatest pleasure in expressing commendation of all the work of the Legion; and of course it deserves great praise with respect to this subject of war veterans allowances, and particularly its criticism of the government for not doing what should be done at this time and for having waited so long before doing what it is doing now.
I find it difficult to understand why the government should persist in this attitude correctly described the other evening by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Hark-ness) as "niggling". Why, when they were going to extend the benefits of war veterans allowances, did they not do the whole job? For many of these old veterans it is already too little and too late, so why make it less and later? Certainly no one can be other than appreciative of the fact that there has been some increase in the amount of the allowance itself, but why be niggling about it and leave the maximum permissive income in the same relative position that it was before this increase was granted?
I point out that the Legion does not ask for the elimination of the ceiling on maximum permissible income. They make a very sensible and moderate request, that it be increased to a level at which, heaven knows, even if it were granted no person would live in luxury. A person confined to the limits of the maximum income suggested by the Legion would still live rather close to penury. I do not see why the government should condemn these veterans who deserve so much to living in even less than penury, which they do by the fact they have not accepted the request and changed the relative level of the means test applicable to these allowances.
I agree with the member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) that this is the appropriate time for any of us to express our opinions on this matter, because of the fact that the number of members on the committee is to
1788	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act be limited. I hope, as have other hon. members who have spoken, that the committee and the government will be moved by the speeches that have been made, and I refer particularly to those of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, which I am sure, if viewed impartially, could not have any other effect than to appeal to the common sense as well as the emotions of those who are concerned about this problem. I express the earnest hope that they will carry great weight with the committee and that the government will leave the committee, and that the government members on it will leave themselves, open to receive the requests when they are made there and to accept and act upon them.
I know there is always the problem of financing these things. Any further increase in the amount of the allowance, or any raising of the ceiling on permissive income, would involve expenditures. That is true. But there are many ways in which those expenditures could be met, ways we have suggested here from time to time which would follow as a result of adopting economies that have been proposed in other directions.
I see the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) in his seat at the moment. I am glad he is here, because he comes from British Columbia where the highest proportion of recipients of war veterans allowances live. I hope he will use his influence to have the Legion's request accepted and further amendments made to this bill in committee.
I want to suggest a positive step for his consideration and that of the government, if it is really so hard put to find ways and means of financing any further extension of the legislation. We have suggested a number of economies from time to time. I understand that the minister in a few months will embark upon a trip to Moscow to attend a whaling convention. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that in Moscow we have a most excellent ambassador who speaks Russian, a man of the highest mental calibre and well equipped to understand and speak for Canada on matters such as this. In addition, I am informed that we do not have much of a whaling industry in Canada anyway, and I am certain that the interests of the country would be just as well served by allowing the ambassador who is in Russia to speak for Canada at this convention. Then the minister might donate the expenses which would be saved as a contribution toward making possible an increase in war veterans allowances.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure that at this late stage of the debate the hon. member for Kamloops would wish to confine


himself strictly to the principle of the bill, and I am equally sure that his remarks are rather far afield.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, somebody behind me has pointed out that it is a whale of a problem.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Stop wailing.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What I was trying to do was not to adopt an attitude of levity at all, I assure you, but to suggest this as one approach to the problem-that by reducing expenses along this and other lines the government might meet the problem which they face at the present time, namely how to get the money to meet the Legion's demands. If that and other similar suggestions for savings were adopted I suggest it would not be very long before they would find themselves with sufficient excess revenue in pocket, and they could meet those demands without any increase in the burden on the people.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: I
appreciate very much this debate and the speeches of hon. members of the opposition. They have been telling us a good deal about the Canadian Legion. We have a branch of the Canadian Legion in Fort William which is second to none, and I respect them very highly for their unselfish service and lots of it.
Of course I do not like to hear somebody suggest that the government have not done anything for the veterans, that they have been neglecting them. I remember that not very long ago the Canadian Legion asked for an increase of 25 per cent, and it was granted. When I think of what this government has done in the way of education for the young veterans who went overseas in the second world war I feel that it ought not to take second place to anybody or anything in its dealings with veterans.
I should like to see certain things done that are not in this bill. I should like to see the permissive income a little higher, as the Canadian Legion requested. But I am not the government. I shall refer to that another time when I think it is my duty to do so. I should like to have seen in this bill pensions for veterans at 60 years of age, without a means test. But this is not the only veterans legislation that is to be brought before the house this year. There is a notice of motion on the order paper dealing with the appointment of a committee, and as long as I am in the house I am going to stand and fight for a pension for the veterans at 60 years of age, without a means test. I think that is only fair. There are veterans in Fort William who are ten years younger than I am, but they would not stand up to

me very long. Why? Because they spent four years in the mud and wet, sometimes with poor meals. I hope the Minister of Veterans Affairs will find a way of granting pensions to the veterans at 60 years of age, without a means test.
I am going to support the Minister of Veterans Affairs with respect to this legislation because it is a whole lot better than nothing, and a lot of veterans appreciate it.


Mr. J. W. Noseworihy (York South):: Over the week end I had an opportunity to discuss this bill with the officers and some of the members of the Canadian Legion in my riding. I find their reaction rather mixed. In the first place they are grateful for the advantages which this bill offers, and they wanted to make clear in no uncertain terms that they hoped there would be no opposition to it. On the other hand they expressed considerable disappointment over the fact that the bill does not meet the requests of the Legion.
I presume the government have adopted the attitude that they must under no circumstances grant the full request of any such organization as the Legion. Apparently the government adopted much the same attitude that employers adopt when they go into a collective bargaining deal with the employees. They assume that the employees are asking for more than they expect to get. I am sure hon. members will agree that the requests of the Canadian Legion are very fair. I do not think the Legion asked for more than they expected to get, nor did they ask for more than they felt the veterans were entitled to.
The speeches we have heard in this debate in support of the Legion's request should indicate to the government that the granting of that request will not bring them any unpopularity. The Canadian people will be quite willing to bear the extra expenses that the difference between what is granted and what the veterans asked for will entail.
I am sure every veteran in this country will be a bit disappointed at the maximum amount that can be earned, including war veterans allowance. I just could not follow the minister's argument when he attempted to point out that the ceilings of $1,200 and $2,000 would give those in receipt of veterans allowances some advantage over the veterans receiving 80 per cent and 100 per cent disability pensions. I must confess that I just could not follow his argument there. I just do not see why the veteran who is receiving a small grant by way of veterans allowance should be limited to the maximum which the government pays for disability pensions.
War Veterans Allowance Act
All that a single veteran is permitted to earn over and above his maximum allowance is $10 a month, while the married veteran is allowed to earn $12 per month over and above the $103 maximum allowance. I just cannot see why the line should be drawn there. There is just no inducement for a veteran to go to work for $10 or $12 per month.
We heard the old argument in connection with the ceiling on blind pensions as well as veterans allowances, that the low ceiling gives no encouragement whatever to the veteran in receipt of an allowance to earn anything, granted of course that the new regulation regarding casual earnings will enable a veteran to possibly earn more than that $10 or $12 per month. I want to say here that a number of veterans have expressed to me their appreciation of the liberal interpretation which the Department of Veterans Affairs has placed upon that casual earnings regula-lation. But even allowing for that I support those who ask that the ceiling be raised to that requested by the veterans.
Every time the question of veterans allowance has come up I have opposed the practice of reducing the allowance to the veteran by the amount of old age security which may be received. As has been pointed out again and again, these are about the only group of citizens in the country in connection with whom such an exception is made. There are many in this country in receipt of pensions paid by the government who still retain those pensions or superannuation payments when they reach 70 years of age and obtain the full amount of old age security. I suggest that if the government and the department are not prepared to raise the ceiling as requested by the veterans, they should reconsider the whole question of reducing the veterans allowance when the veteran reaches 70 years of age because he then receives old age security.
I am quite sure that if we are to build up a new army, the kind of army the Department of National Defence is attempting to build up in order to secure this country against possible future war, we must give more consideration to those who fought in the first and second world wars. The sons of those who fought in the second world war will be coming into our new army, as well as the grandsons of those who fought in the first world war. There will be little inducement or encouragement for them to come into the new army when they find their fathers and grandfathers being treated as they are today when they reach the age of 70 years, having the pittance they receive as veterans allowance reduced because they are receiving old age security.

War Veterans Allowance Act
I hope that when the bill comes before the committee the government will call off its whip as far as members of that committee are concerned, so they will have every freedom to make the recommendations they feel are right, and that the government will be guided by the recommendations of the committee.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate feature about this bill amending the War Veterans Allowance Act is that while it is a help it leaves the very serious war veterans problem only half solved. Hon. members will have noticed that that was the reaction when the resolution preceding the bill was introduced. The minister announced the figures of the increases in the war veterans allowances, and also announced government policy with regard to the ceilings on permissive income. Most of us reacted against the proposals at once on the ground that they were insufficient. It was fairly obvious from the attitude of government supporters that same evening that they too were disappointed in the plans proposed by the minister.
I think there can be no doubt that this debate has shown very clearly where the mistake has been made. I do not intend to go into great detail, because many hon. members have spoken and they have covered the ground very well, but I do want to point out that the increase for the married veteran is insufficient. In the veterans charter which contained the revisions of the different statutes for the benefit of the veteran and which was passed in 1946, we find that the married veteran received twice as much as the single veteran in the way of veterans allowance, and that same proportion is asked for now in the Canadian Legion brief. Hon. members will recall that the Canadian Legion suggested $60 per month for the single veteran and $120 a month for the married veteran. This bill provides $60 a month for the single veteran, but only $1,296 per year for the married veteran. If the married veteran was to be given twice what the single veteran receives he would be allowed $1,440.
A further difficulty in connection with the bill is the amount the veteran is allowed to receive over and above his allowance. I find a great deal of confusion in the terms used to describe this surplus. Sometimes it is called permissive income, and then at another time we find "permissive income" used to describe the allowance plus the amount a man may earn over and above the allowance. I think a suitable phrase to use in describing that amount would be clear income over the war veterans allowance. I believe that would describe more accurately what is meant.

The amount of clear income allowed by the bill is much too low for both the single and married veterans. In the veterans charter this clear income was $125 a year for the single veteran and twice as much, or $250, for the married veteran. Those same figures were continued in the amendment of 1948.
For some reason or other when the War Veterans Allowance Act was revised in 1952 the amount of clear income was reduced to $120 a year both for the single veteran and for the married veteran. That meant they could receive only $10 a month. If I remember correctly those of us in opposition and probably some of the supporters of the government strongly protested at the time because this clear income was being reduced from the figure at which it had been previously.
It will be noticed that before the amendment of 1952 the married veteran had a clear income of a little over $20 a month. In this bill the clear income is to be continued at $120 a year or $10 a month for the single veteran, and $144 a year for the married veteran which amounts to $12 a month. In this latter figure there is an increase of $2.
The Legion is asking for $480 clear income a year for the single veteran and $560 clear income for the married veteran. An amount of $480 a year would of course mean $40 a month, and it would bring the total possible income of a single veteran up to $1,200 a year and the amount of $560 would result in $2,000 a year in the case of a married veteran. As the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) knows, this is the amount in respect of which there is an income tax exemption.
This low standard, this low amount of clear income which has been set by the bill will never be acceptable. The Minister of Veterans Affairs might just as well face that fact now. This low amount of clear income is not going to be acceptable either in this house or outside of it. The veterans of Canada are not going to be satisfied with that amount. Why should they be? If the situation is not properly met at this time it will be fought out session after session until it is properly settled.
Why should the veterans be expected to accept this figure? Let us take for an example the civilian allowance under old age assistance. Under the Old Age Assistance Act the amount of clear income allowed over and above the old age assistance is $240 a year or $20 a month for both single and married people. In this amendment to the War Veterans Allowance Act these amounts are only $10 and $12 respectively. In regard to the blind allowance there is a clear income

allowed of $360 a year or $30 a month for both a single and a married person. If both the man and his wife are blind a clear income of $40 a month is allowed. The disability allowance passed by this house just last year allowed a clear income over and above the disability allowance of $240 a year or $20 a month in the case of both a single and a married person. There we have one good reason why the clear income allowed by this amendment to the War Veterans Allowance Act will never be accepted in this country.
Again, it will not be accepted because there are at least two large groups in Canada who are severely penalized by the low amount which has been set. The first group is composed of small pensioners who are unable to earn any money. With this low amount of clear income a pensioner can only benefit by reason of his pension to the extent of $10 a month, if he is a single veteran, and to the extent of $12 a month if he is a married veteran, because he is only allowed to receive that much money over and above the amount of his allowance.
The second large group who are penalized are the veterans and the widows of veterans who reach 70 years of age and have no earning power. As a matter of interest I would like to point out that about one-quarter of the recipients of war veterans allowances in Canada today are widows of veterans, and their situation is extremely serious.
I propose to go on and deal with those veterans and widows of veterans who have attained 70 years of age, but I cannot do so in the time that remains. I would ask you to call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I had been pointing out why I believe that the low amount of clear income, over and above the amount of the allowance as set by this bill, would never be acceptable either to the house or to the veterans; and I had compared this low clear income of $10 per month for the single man and $12 for the married man with the income allowed under the Old Age Assistance Act, the blind allowance and the disability allowance, all of which are at least twice as high as the figure of $10. Then I was going on to give another reason why these ceilings would not be satisfactory, in that two large groups of veterans and veterans' widows are heavily 50433-114J
War Veterans Allowance Act penalized by the low amount of clear income. I had dealt with the small pensioner, and had just started to deal with the veteran or the widow of a veteran who reaches the age of 70 and becomes entitled to old age security payments.
I think it is well understood, Mr. Speaker, that when a veteran on war veterans allowance reaches the age of 70 he can benefit by old age security only to the amount of the difference between his allowance and the ceiling of permissive income. That gap has only represented $10 a month in the case of both the single and the married man up to the time of this bill. Now the gap is to be the same $10 for the single man but $12 for the married man.
The result of that provision in effect will be this. The veteran 70 years of age, instead of getting $40 additional in his pocket, or the widow instead of getting $40 additional in her purse, can get only $10. If the veteran is married of course he can get $12, but otherwise there can be only $10 additional come into that man's pocket.
This afternoon the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna) said that permissive income does not mean much. He put little value on permissive income. But in the case of the person reaching 70 years of age, permissive income is the whole thing. If this amount of clear income were to be made $40, which would be the same as the old age security payment, then on reaching that age this front-line veteran would continue to get his allowance and, in addition, he would get the $40 old age security. Clearly, I submit, these men and these widows should receive the additional $40 when they reach 70 years of age. That would give them a total income of only $100 a month.
It will be only a few years, perhaps 10 or 12, until practically every veteran who served in the first world war will be 70 years of age. I believe the average age now is about 64 or 65. Certainly in another 15 years every single veteran who served in the first world war and who has entitlement to the war veterans allowance will be over 70 years of age. Hence this question of whether he is to get $40 additional upon reaching the age of 70 is of vital importance, and it will become of more importance each year. In asking for a total permissible income of $1,200 for the single veteran, the Legion had that point in mind, namely that when he reached 70 years of age he would get his war veterans allowance of $60 and the old age security payment of $40.
The special committee on veterans affairs might well consider whether it would not
1792	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act now be wise to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act to take old age security payments right out, to exempt them from consideration as income. Under section 6 of the act we have mentioned different types of incomes that are exempt or, in other words, that are not taken into consideration at all in arriving at income for purposes of the act. For example, they ignore any money received by a widow as mothers' allowance from one of the provinces; and family allowance payments are not considered in deciding the income for purposes of the War Veterans Allowance Act. Other exemptions also are now written into the act. If the government will not raise this ceiling so there is a clear income of $40 a month, an alternative way of dealing with the situation might be to write into this section 6 the provision that old age security payments shall not count as income. That would take care of all the veterans when they reach the age of 70.
Another reason this low amount of clear income will never be satisfactory can be deduced from the findings of two previous committees on veterans affairs. For example, in 1952 the committee of that year recommended 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.
The committee of that year, in mentioning permissive income specifically, had in mind this difference between the amount of the allowance and the amount a veteran could receive in his pocket. A similar recommendation was contained in the report of the committee last year. They made the recommendation that the government should give further consideration to the briefs of the veterans organizations, and particularly to the raising of the amounts of the allowances and also the raising of the levels of permissive income. That committee dealt with two different aspects of the subject, namely raising the allowances and raising the amount of clear income that a veteran could receive. Now this bill deals with the one and not with the other. There is an absolute failure to deal with the question of clear income.
When he spoke, the minister talked of the war veterans allowance assistance fund. I point out to him and to the house that that fund operates only as between the allowance and the ceiling. In other words it cannot bring the money in pocket over and above the ceiling. Hence under this bill in the case of the single veteran the most help he can get is the difference between $60 and the $70 which is fixed as a ceiling. Furthermore


the war veterans allowance assistance fund would be of practically no help to the veteran or the widow over 70 years of age, or to most of the small pensioners because what they get from old age security or from a small pension brings them up to the ceiling. Therefore the assistance fund is of no use to these two very large groups.
It should also not be forgotten that there is a second means test involved in the war veterans allowance assistance fund. To get such assistance the veteran has to be put on the griddle a second time. Inquiries have to be made all about his position and his assets, and it is only in a case where the veteran is suffering great hardship that he is able to get any assistance from the fund. The very fact that an assistance fund is required shows the absolute inadequacy of the allowance itself. If the Legion's recommendation of $120 a month for the married veteran were to be implemented there would be no requirement for an assistance fund at all, and a great deal of administrative difficulty would be avoided.
These are some of the reasons why the bill will not be accepted as a solution of the war veterans allowance problem. I think the minister and his parliamentary assistant have been made to realize that fact very clearly by the course the debate has taken. They should realize now that the fight for justice for these front-line fighting men must go on. This fight is only starting. It will be continued until we get a proper gap between the amount of the allowance and the amount the veteran can receive into his pocket by way of income.
Finally, I should like to say a word or two about the attitude the government supporters have taken in the debate thus far. Speaking from an experience of 20 years with veterans affairs in the house, I have wished fervently during this debate that there was somebody on the government side of the house like George Cruickshank, the former member for Fraser Valley, or two or three other veterans I could name. They did not stand up on the government side and say what a fine fellow the minister is, what a fine fellow his parliamentary assistant is, and how the government should be patted on the back for doing what they have done, that nobody should criticize them, that we should be-


Mr. Lapointe:: Envy will get you nowhere.


Howard Charles Green: -glad to be given half a loaf and next year we may get more.


Hugues Lapointe: Sour grapes.


Howard Charles Green: That is not the attitude that brought about the veterans charter. That was not the attitude of Ian Mackenzie in the house or in the committee.


Mr. Sluder:: That is why it is the best in the world.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, that is why it is the best in the world. You are right. There were Liberals at that time who dared to stand up and fight against the government. When the government would not meet what the committee thought was right for the veterans, Ian Mackenzie went back and fought for it, and he had the support of Liberal members of the committee.


Mr. Sinclair:: You did not praise him in those days.


An hon. Member:: No, sir.


Howard Charles Green: Well, I have never hesitated to praise the Right Hon. Ian Mackenzie for his attitude regarding the war veterans.


James Sinclair: Not in this house nor in the province.


Howard Charles Green: I praised him right in this house.


James Sinclair: Your memory is slipping.


Howard Charles Green: I also praised him on the hustings. I am rather surprised that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) would enter this debate with an insinuation of that kind.


James Sinclair: I have a good memory. The rest of us have good memories, too.


Howard Charles Green: That was the way the veterans charter reached the condition in which it was finally adopted by the parliament of Canada. But today the Liberal members who have spoken in this debate-and there have only been four of them-have largely been merely apologists for the government. They take the stand that the bill is good and should go through as it is before they have even heard any representations, before the committee has had a chance to hear the Legion and the national council.
There have been times even after the enactment of the veterans charter when it has been possible in the committee to force improvements. I have here the proceedings of the committee for 1948, which I was reading this afternoon. I should like to refer to what was said by Mr. Mutch, at that time the member for Winnipeg South, as found at page 95 of the proceedings of the committee for that year. As Your Honour knows, Mr. Mutch is now deputy chairman of the Canadian pension commission. The suggestion was being made that because the
War Veterans Allowance Act government had brought forward a bill the veterans committee should not protest or demand anything further. At that time the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) was minister of veterans affairs, and he will remember what happened in the sittings of that committee. Mr. Mutch said:
We ought to proceed with our deliberations and make our own recommendations rather than to assume we are just here for the ride. If I thought we were just here for the ride, I do not mind saying here and now in the presence of the chairman and the minister that I would not be wasting my time.
If the committee is to be as powerless as the hon. member for Vancouver South suggested the other evening, then we will only be wasting-


Elmore Philpott: On a question of privilege, at no time did I suggest that the committee would be powerless. I expect it to be just as useful this session as it has been in the past, and I for one will not be a party to any kidding along of the troops, because I do not think you can kid the troops in 1955 any more than you could in 1915.


Howard Charles Green: Well, the hon. member for
Vancouver South said we need not expect that there would be any change made in the bill when it went to the committee. In 1948 we had this further experience. There were complaints in the committee about the amendments to the Pension Act presented by the government. I think the government had raised the amount once. The then minister of veterans affairs, who is now Minister of Labour, came to the committee with a prepared statement, one paragraph of which read as follows:
Regarding disability pensions, the government cannot see its way clear at this session of parliament to go further than their present proposal, which is now before you. This proposal represents an increase in the basic scale of pension paid to disability pensioners and to pensioned widows of 16 per cent, and to the children of widows and wives and children of disability pensioners of 20 per cent.
That was a definite statement of government policy made to the committee on April 13, 1948. But the committee refused to accept that statement. They went on to argue that there should be a further increase, and finally recommended to the house that the increase should be 25 per cent instead of 16 per cent. Their recommendation was accepted, another change was made and the bill went through on the basis of 25 per cent.
I point that out because that is the kind of work the special committee on veterans affairs should do at this session, instead of members getting up in the house and saying this is lovely; we would like more but we know we cannot get it, so we will have to

War Veterans Allowance Act be satisfied. Let the government members on that committee go to the committee meetings and, after hearing the representations, stand up and be counted on whether they think the amounts of $10 for a single veteran and $12 for a married veteran by way of clear income over and above the allowance are sufficiently high. If they do not think so, then let them help us put a recommendation through the committee that the amounts should be raised. If they take that stand I believe the government will listen and war veterans allowance recipients, including widows, will have the ceilings raised.
One reason it has taken three years to get this half measure we have today is that the Liberal members on the committees for the last two years did not get up and fight for the proper improvement of the War Veterans Allowance Act. I do hope it is not too late now for them to change their attitude. If they will go into this committee and merely listen to the evidence given by the Legion and the national council, then use their own best judgment and forget they are supporters of the government, I feel the veterans of this country will get a fair deal at this session. Then the serious problem of the war veterans allowances will be adequately settled.


Frederick George Hahn: Throughout this whole debate, Mr. Speaker, I have been somewhat disillusioned. For years I had been given to understand that the 31st won the war; later, it was the 75th, and now I find a lot of other fellows who seem to have had something to do with it. I distinctly recall that some months ago the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) said it was not the purpose of the opposition to compliment the government. I, therefore, want to compliment the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra for taking that attitude, and letting them know what is our purpose in life.
While I have spoken to some extent on this subject already, I have a few things to say now that I believe merit some consideration. First, I am appreciative of what the minister has done in this particular effort. For his benefit I may say that despite what our good friends have said about receiving telegrams, I have not received a telegram from my constituency so far. However, that does not mean that everybody is in agreement on this bill. I feel the minister is as much aware of that as I am. I expect I shall probably hear from my community, but if I do not I shall act accordingly.
As I understand it, the main purpose in creating the war veterans allowance was to look after the burnt-out veterans. I believe


that is a very important consideration, because we should not forsake them completely. I note that the proposed increase amounts to $120 per year in the case of a single man and $144 per year in the case of a married man. I should like to draw to the minister's attention the fact that this means we consider the increase in the cost of living for a single man amounts to $120, while the increased cost in the case of a married couple would be $72 per individual. I do not believe the minister can justify setting the per unit costs for a family of two people at 10 per cent less than for a single individual. The cost does not work in that ratio.
As I pointed out on an earlier occasion, I feel that the difference of $2 between what is offered to the single man and what is offered to the married war veteran is a niggardly sum. How can we expect them to live on less than the amount received by old age pensioners in my province or the province of Alberta? I should like the minister to seriously reconsider that phase of the matter. When the committee is set up the members should try and reconcile in their own minds the fact that in Alberta and British Columbia old age pensioners receive $110 per month for a family of two, while under this scheme a couple will only receive $108. It is not a matter of the $2, it is the principle that is involved in the whole thing.
It is going to be most difficult for any man to explain to the people of this country why we should differentiate. While the minister has said he has given an increase of 20 per cent in the original veterans allowance right across the board, in this case I would say the veterans' brief should have been considered on its merits. Some adjustment is going to have to be made during the committee stage in so far as a married couple is concerned.
The other factor is the failure to increase permissible income. In my community, and I imagine it is true across Canada, I find that society requires the burnt-out veteran who is capable of doing a few hours' work per week. We have community halls and other places that need janitors, and there are other vocations open to him. We need these people. We cannot afford to pay a man full time to look after some of these things, and it is helpful to be able to obtain someone for $50 per month. This would mean $600 per year and the veteran is permitted an income of $840, which would mean he would automatically lose $480 of the $600 he had earned. I contend that is quite unreasonable. I see no excuse at all for doing so, and I do not see why an individual should not be permitted an income of $1,200 per year if single or $2,000

per year if married. I do not think that is an unreasonable request on the part of the veterans at all.
The minister has said that it would mean $5 million a year, and our good friend the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne), who so often interjects his ideas into these debates, has called that peanuts. The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) says that in this instance that is peanut shells. Let us give these veterans that consideration.
In the matter of perquisites, too, we are most unrealistic. If a man happens to have an extra quart of milk from his cow it does not make any sense that he should be told to throw it out because if he sells it to his neighbour that amount will be deducted from his allowance. To put it bluntly, that is asinine. I believe the human element should be taken into consideration. I realize it is quite impractical to try to put all these things in a bill, but there should be a greater degree of licence given to those who administer the act to enable them to take care of this human element.
I heartily agree with the minister's idea of increasing war veterans allowances. The principle of the thing is important, and I compliment him for introducing it, but I am not happy with some of the proposals.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have seldom or never spoken on this resolution, because when I came to this house it seemed to me that veterans affairs were in good hands in the committee, in the hands of such men as the hon. member for Royal and the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra; and I should probably not be detaining this house for the few minutes I propose to do had it not been for the speech this afternoon by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.
First of all, the cavalcade he presented of the first war, mentioning so many names that were familiar to me, brought back vividly the picture of what the men in the trenches, the infantry, went through in that war. As I say, it came back very vividly to me and I said to myself, I wonder whether I am doing my duty, I who came through these things unscathed, partly because I was not in the infantry but in the artillery, I who have been fortunate since. I wonder whether I am doing my duty if I do not say at least a word in this debate.
But the thing that decided me was when I learned what I should have known before, the details of the discrimination which, as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre explained, is going to exist as between the man of the first war and the man of the second war. When I came to realize that
War Veterans Allowance Act which I should have known before I said to myself, I see no escape; I must say something on behalf of those men.
Consider who they are. Their age has been described, and the sufferings they endured in the first war. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is competent to do it as perhaps nobody else is, because he is one of the few men who was a front-line soldier in both wars. When he dared to say, as I would not have dared to say, that the men of the second war did not go through the gruelling experiences of the men in the trenches in the first war, then I accepted that at its face value. When I found that those men, in his words-and I take his word for it-are to be discriminated against, then it seems to me that is something intolerable, something we in this house should not put up with.
I want to add this. I would think it is quite arguable that it is the best men who are suffering most, and I would like to underline that for just a moment. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre pointed out to me today what I suppose I should have recalled, that when the time came to leave England men wanted one thing, to get home; they did not want to stay on, to establish pension conditions. They wanted to get home, and so many of them lost the opportunity.
I might be forgiven for perhaps mentioning one instance that comes to my mind very vividly. We had in the 9th battery that I was in originally a very fine sergeant. I remember quite well that he suffered an injury, but the last thing in the world he wanted was to make any claim on the public purse. He was still young. He thought he would be able to look after himself; but 20 years later he came into my office one day and he said this to me: "Do you remember that night we came into Plug Street? We were on the gun wheel. You were pulling on one side of the wheel; I was hoisting on the other. Do you remember that I said to you: 'I felt something give in my back'?" I said to him, "My dear fellow, that was 20 years ago. If you had asked me the next day or the next week, I could have remembered, but I cannot remember now. Nobody would believe me if I said I could remember now".
The only reason I am using that instance is to point out that here is a man who presumably lost his pension rights because he did not want to tap the public purse. He wanted to look after himself. I am sorry to say that I do not know his plight today. He may very likely be one of those who is going to be discriminated against, and it is that I want to protest against. That is all I want to say. I hope the committee will not allow that.

War Veterans Allowance Act
It is often my duty in this house to protest against expenditures, and I hope I shall have many chances to do it in future; but there are times when we should not economize. There are times when we should not hesitate to do what is right whatever the cost; and if I am stating the case correctly then I cannot understand how men, veterans like myself on the opposite side of the house, hesitate to say what I am trying to say now. If it is true that these men are being discriminated against, then all I can say is that it is a disgrace to every one of us which we should not tolerate.


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker-


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


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, in rising to close this debate on the motion for second reading of the bill I should like to express to hon. members, as I have done on previous occasions in similar debates, my appreciation for their participation in this debate.
As I have said before, I believe that discussions of the various problems having to do with the responsibilities of my department serve a very useful purpose. From those discussions and that exchange of ideas over a great many years has emerged the veterans charter as we have it today. And certainly, sir, if any useful purpose is to be served by a debate or discussion on the points at issue, then it has been accomplished because we have had two days of debate on the second reading of the bill and a day on the resolution which preceded the introduction of the bill.
I do not want to go over every one of the points which have been raised by hon. members. As I said before, and as the house knows, the bill is to be referred to the special committee on veterans affairs, and much of the information which hon. members wish to seek can be obtained there and discussed more usefully in the committee. However, there are certain points which I should like to make tonight in closing this debate.
I think we will all agree that in the debate the general criticism has been on the proposed income ceilings for recipients of war veterans allowance. Some discussion has taken place on the rates themselves, but generally speaking the criticism has been on the ceilings. Some hon. members have gone to great pains to explain to the house that the ceiling increases which are in the bill before the house at the present time are not increases at all, that no increase of the income ceiling has been granted.

I do not want to go into a detailed analysis of that particular point, but according to my arithmetic-and I cannot help thinking according to everybody else's arithmetic-an increase from $720 to $840 is an increase of $120, and an increase in the ceiling from $1,200 to $1,440 is an increase of $240. What it does mean is that the single recipient of war veterans allowance, after this bill has been put into force, will be permitted to have $840 whereas he had only $720 before; and that a married recipient will be able to have $1,440 whereas he could have only $1,200 before. It seems to me, in the final analysis, that is what really matters to the veteran.
As I say, I do not wish to labour this point; but it does appear to me that the discussion of this particular point has revealed-well, I would not like to say ignorance, but certainly a complete disregard of the legislation and of the regulations as they exist now.
I do not know that I blame hon. members too much. Reading the editorial which appeared in the last issue of The Legionary, from which some hon. members have quoted profusely, I was surprised to find in it an argument which would seem to justify what has been expressed by my hon. friends. I certainly do not want to take issue with the editor of The Legionary, particularly with regard to this editorial which in part commends the minister and the government. I must admit that is the sort of treatment which I am not too accustomed to receiving from this publication, and I certainly would not want to antagonize the editor. I should like to read the paragraph which some hon. members have quoted. After having discussed the rates and how helpful the increase will be to the recipients, the editor goes on to say:
The increase from $1,200 to only $1,440 in the total permissible income for married recipients and from $720 to only $840 for single men should also be reconsidered. Many of these ageing veterans, while incapable of taking steady jobs, can do part-time work and thus augment their incomes. It seems unreasonable to deny them the right to help themselves, if able to do so, to achieve something in their declining years which at least approaches a decent standing of living;-
That is exactly the point I was trying to make. In expressing such views today I know that hon. members did so most sincerely. Some hon. members said that everything should be done to encourage these recipients of war veterans allowances to work when they are capable of doing so, in order to increase their income by taking part-time work. In other words they should try to help themselves.

This has been in the act since the amendments of 1952. By the introduction of section 4, which now exists, we permit recipients of war veterans allowances to do exactly what is asked in this article. By the amendment last year of the definition of casual earnings we permitted greater scope to the activities in which recipients of war veterans allowances could participate in order to increase their income by part-time work. With section 4 as it exists today and with the definition of casual earnings as it exists today, almost everything except full-time regular employment is accepted and the veteran can derive income from that type of work.


Mr. Herridge:: Will the minister permit a question?


Hugues Lapointe: I have been listening for two days to hon. members, and I wish they would permit me to make my point. I shall be glad to answer questions afterwards.
Last year, I think at the demand of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, I placed on Hansard the definition of casual earnings. If hon. members will refer to Hansard of last year they will see that almost any type of part-time work can be taken by these recipients of war veterans allowances, and that earnings therefrom will not be considered as income for the purposes of this act. Or they can take full-time employment of a temporary nature with the same result. Under the amendments brought forward we are still permitting the recipient of war veterans allowance to increase his income to whatever amount he can by means of outside work under section 4 or through casual earnings.
That deals with the recipient who can supplement his income by casual earnings, who can take part-time work or who can obtain temporary full-time employment. How about the man who cannot do that, the man who has absolutely nothing but his war veterans allowance; the man who has no outside income, who is completely unable to work even at part-time work or to enjoy casual earnings? Under the proposed rates which have been mentioned here by hon. members, and the changes suggested in the brief of the Canadian Legion, a married man would receive $120 a month or $1,440 a year, and the permissive income would be raised to $2,000. But I am now referring to the man who has no outside income, who cannot go out and earn anything on the side. Such a man would be receiving $1,440 and nothing else.
Under the amendments provided by this bill he will receive $108 a month or $1,296 a year. But as I explained before, we are continuing the assistance fund and through the medium of that fund, which is to be operated
War Veterans Allowance Act under a new formula, this same man could have his allowance increased from $108 to $120 a month, or $1,440 a year, which is exactly the amount mentioned in the brief submitted by the Legion.
How about the single man? According to the requests which have been placed before us the single man would receive $60 a month. This has been granted. His ceiling by way of permissible income was to be $1,200. I am still dealing with the man who has no outside income, who cannot take any outside work. Under the proposals of the Canadian Legion this single recipient would get $60 a month and not a cent more. Under our plan he gets $60 a month and he would be entitled to another $10 per month from the assistance fund, which is $10 more than the Legion asked for.
Those are the exact figures to be found in the bill. I do not know what more I can say. As I said, the new definition of casual earnings permits a recipient to go out and earn almost any amount as long as it is not at regular, full-time employment.
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn) and the hon. member for Okan-agan-Revelstoke (Mr. McLeod) referred to the recipient of war veterans allowance who is living on a bit of land and who had to account for his perquisites, as it used to be defined in the act. That situation does not exist any longer. At the same time we changed the definition of casual earnings last year we changed the definition of farm income. Perquisites are not taken into consideration, and the definition of farm income which was adopted was the one suggested to us by various veterans organizations.
There again, Mr. Speaker, I think it is a very generous provision. Briefly, this is what is to be assessed as income. Twenty-five per cent of the first $1,000 of the gross farm income, 40 per cent of the next $1,000 of gross farm income and 50 per cent of the balance of the gross farm income. I think that is a generous formula. If the veteran prefers, and it is up to him to make the choice, he can have his net income determined and use that for the purpose of war veterans allowance. I believe the recipients of war veterans allowance who are living in rural districts are in a better position, generally speaking, than those who are living in urban centres. I think those veterans who are living in rural districts and farming in a small way are being treated very well indeed under the new definition.
I was extremely pleased, Mr. Speaker, to hear some hon. members say during the course of this debate that they realize we are all responsible to the taxpayer for the
1798	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act expenditure of his money. A number of hon. members said this, and I must say that I cannot recall any previous debate concerning veterans affairs in which I have participated when such a statement was made. It is a correct statement to make, because one cannot escape the fact, as mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) that, desirable as these changes might be, the money has to be found to pay for them and the taxpayer is the one who eventually pays.
I would be very pleased indeed if the situation were as suggested by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, that the Liberal party has a private fund from which it could provide for these increases. Unfortunately such a fund does not exist. I can assure my hon. friend that if there were such a fund I would be the most generous member of this party.
Suggestions have been made this afternoon as to how such funds could be raised. The hon. member for Oxford suggested there might be a curtailment of the construction of public buildings, which could provide the necessary funds. I am certain, Mr. Speaker, that my colleague the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) can well defend his policy concerning public buildings. I cannot resist saying, however, that I recall that during the debate on the speech from the throne, the consideration of the estimates of public works or the budget debate the hon. members of the opposition were not the least hesitant in asking for the erection of public buildings in their respective constituencies.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have not asked for any.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The paint is peeling off the ceiling in the parliamentary cafeteria.


Hugues Lapointe: I am sure my hon. friend from Oxford will mend his ways before too long. However, the hon. member did ask me what would be the estimated increased expenditure if the proposals of the Legion were put into effect. I am now prepared to give him that figure. I hesitate to do so, however, in view of the fact that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre expressed some doubt as to the reliability of any figures which I might give. According to the information I am given by the officials of my department-and they are the same officials about whom hon. members opposite were so complimentary during the course of this debate-the adoption of the proposal of the Legion would bring about an increased liability of some $24,750,000. As far as we can estimate, the cost of war veterans allowance for the current year will be $28,145,932.


To that amount would have to be added the figure I mentioned previously.
As I have mentioned in this house before, it must also be realized that to this vote for war veterans allowances should be added the amount which is expended under another vote, that for treatment services. Every recipient of war veterans allowance is admitted to hospitalization in hospitals of the department for any condition whatsoever. During the present fiscal year we estimate that the cost of treatment given to recipients of war veterans allowance will be $9,384,000. This amount should be added to the sum of $28,145,932 which I mentioned previously, if we want to have a true picture of the actual expenditure.
I am simply giving these figures because I was asked to do so by the hon. member. It is not my intention to go into many more details of that nature. There is one other point I would like to mention, however, because some hon. members opposite have argued in favour of it. It was suggested by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke, by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary, by a few other hon. members, and even by my devoted friend the hon. member for Fort William, that ceilings should be removed from the War Veterans Allowance Act. The last person I heard arguing that point in this house was the hon. member for Acadia. I believe that last year he argued in favour of the abolition of the means test on war veterans allowances. Am I correct?


Mr. Quelch:: No. I advocated a ceiling on permissive income at the level requested by the Legion; that is, $1,200 for a single veteran and $2,000 for a married veteran.


Hugues Lapointe: I am sorry. I knew someone from his group had put forward such a suggestion. Concerning this matter, I would like to point out-and this is all I intend to say on it-that taking away the ceilings is tantamount to taking away the means test, because it would be impossible to administer legislation such as war veterans allowances without an income ceiling and retain a means test. This proposition would cost $162,849,000 per annum and I frankly do not think I would be justified at this time in recommending to my colleagues in the cabinet such a change in in the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take any more of the time of this house. As I have said, the bill will be referred to the committee. I think I can say that in the committee hon. members will have full opportunity to get all the information desired, of a financial character or otherwise, concerning the operation of the War Veterans Allowance Act. That is all I intend to say.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, would the minister mind my asking a question?


Hugues Lapointe: Not at all.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I can assure him that I just want a little bit of illumination from his ministerial wisdom. On Friday evening, when speaking in this debate, I happened to say that as to a man who was regularly employed in a hospital the year around at $25 a month, that money would be considered to be regular earnings and not casual earnings. In reply the minister said I was incorrect. Later in Hansard it will be noted that he suggested that a man could be regularly employed on a job of that sort, and that $50 a month could be earned from regular employment. Would the minister mind clarifying that remark?


Hugues Lapointe: I would refer my hon. friend to war veterans allowance board directive No. 25, 1953, which was published in last year's Hansard. The point he has in mind appears under subparagraph (b). I do not think the hon. member would want me to read the whole thing; it is rather lengthy.
I think he will find there the explanation he seeks.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Hugues Lapointe: That Bill No. 164 be referred to a special committee on veterans affairs to be set up later.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hugues Lapointe: That a special committee consisting of 31 members, to be designated by the house at a later date, be appointed to consider a bill to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952, and a bill to amend the Veterans Benefit Act, 1954, and such other legislation relating to veterans affairs as may be referred from time to time to the said committee; that the said committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to print from day to day its minutes of proceedings and evidence, to sit while the house is sitting and to report from time to time; that the quorum of the said committee shall consist of ten members; and that the provisions of standing orders 64 and 65 be suspended in relation thereto.


Mr. Brooks:: Is the minister going to make any statement with regard to this motion?


Hugues Lapointe: I had no intention of making any statement. This is the formal resolution setting up the special committee on veterans affairs to which I referred during my statement. As soon as the resolution is adopted I believe we are ready to name the members
7, 1955	1799
Special Committee on Veterans Affairs of the house to form this committee, and to refer to it the bill which has just been given second reading.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I am not rising to oppose this motion. As a matter of fact I am strongly in favour of it as, I am sure, are all members of the house. The motion has now been on the order paper for some time, and in the last few days we have had a lengthy debate on war veterans allowances. I may say that it has been an extremely interesting debate. The bill has now been given second reading, and it will go before this committee for consideration. I know all hon. members who expect to be on that committee are extremely anxious to get to work on the bill.
This is the usual resolution that is moved to set up a veterans affairs committee. In addition to the bill to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act I note that the committee will be asked to consider a bill to amend the Veterans Benefit Act, 1954, and such other legislation relating to veterans affairs as may be referred to it from time to time. I thought possibly the minister might give us some indication of what other legislation will be coming before the committee. I also note that the committee is to consist of 31 members, which is the same number we had on the committee last year. I have no objection to the number, though I may say that in this house there are so many veterans of two wars that it is difficult to recommend members for the committee inasmuch as practically every war veteran in the House of Commons is anxious to sit on a veterans affairs committee. In 1946, when we had the veterans charter before a veterans affairs committee, the committee consisted of some 60 members, I believe. Practically all the veterans in the house were on that committee.
In this debate we have had during the last few days, after listening to some of the speeches made by hon. members in this house some of us might begin to wonder just whether there would be much benefit in setting up a committee at all. However, I am like the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra: I have sat on a good many veterans affairs committees. I have seen a good many bills come before veterans affairs committees. Some I have seen passed without any change, but to many I have seen amendments and changes made. After all, Mr. Speaker, I think that is the purpose of a committee. There would be absolutely no object at all in setting up a special committee on veterans affairs or a special committee to consider any other bill of any department if that committee were simply to act as a rubber stamp, if our minds were made up beforehand on
1800	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Veterans Affairs all the principles of the bill, and if we followed the suggestions that were laid down in the bill prior to it coming before the committee.
In a special committee we have an opportunity which we do not have here in the house. For instance, we have the opportunity of hearing veterans organizations from across Canada. They know the situation of the ex-soldier far better than many of us know it and can tell us that. They know the requirements and the needs. Their representations help us to form our opinions. In addition, we shall also have opinions from the departmental officials. It is necessary to get all the facts in a matter of this kind before making our decisions. We can also find out just what are the costs of any changes. As I said a moment ago, I feel that it is a splendid thing that a bill of this kind goes before a special committee. It is only proper that all members on that committee should have an open mind with regard to what is to be discussed before it.
I might take this opportunity to suggest, as I have suggested on many other occasions, that we should have a permanent committee on veterans affairs. No doubt that sounds like an old chestnut, because it is something that has been advocated time and time again here in the house. The fact that we had a veterans affairs committee last year, that we are to have another veterans affairs committee this year, and that in the last 20 years we have had many veterans affairs committees would indicate to me, as I think it should to the government, that it is necessary indeed to set up a permanent committee on veterans affairs.
For instance, this year the estimates of the veterans affairs department are going before a special committee on estimates. If we had a permanent committee on veterans affairs that committee, along with the other business which might be put before it, could very well discuss and review the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
When I say that, I realize that the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs possibly need less scrutiny than do the estimates of some of the other departments of government, because they are the estimates in which we are all greatly interested. They deal with pensions. No one is desirous of lowering the pensions of our pensioners in Canada. They deal with the war veterans allowance. After listening to this debate for the last two or three days, I am sure no one would suggest that we are anxious to reduce the estimates for war veterans allowances. Then there is hospitalization. No one wishes to reduce the


estimates for hospitalization. These are estimates which perhaps do not require the same degree of scrutiny as the estimates of other departments.
It is not my intention to prolong this debate. We are very anxious to see the committee established. I am sure those of us who expect to be members of the committee are looking forward to it, and I am sure that when the bills come before the committee we will not be expected to act as rubber stamps, no matter which side of the house we are on, but will give every section of the bills the most sincere consideration.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I shall be quite brief this evening, as usual. I rise to express the support of this group for the resolution. We are glad the committee is going to be established, that it will have an opportunity to study the bill that has just been given second reading, to hear representations from the Legion and other veterans organizations, and hear the officials of the department. But I notice that the resolution, after referring to the Veterans Benefit Act, 1954, reads:
. . . and such other legislation relating to veterans affairs as may be referred from time to time to the said committee . . .
We in this group are quite hopeful that the government is cognizant of the fact that the veterans of Canada are interested in a great deal more legislation than the War Veterans Allowance Act. For instance, I find in reading the resolutions passed at the last national convention of the Legion that they are interested in such questions as dependents' parents, widows' extension pensions, clauses 1 to 11 and 1 to 16, increases in pensions of widowed mothers, children of deceased veterans, children with physical or mental infirmities. They are also interested in unclaimed pensions, clothing allowances, helplessness allowances, the table of disabilities, retroactive awards, conditions not recorded on enlistment, the disposal of unpaid pensions or hospital allowances, compensation recoverable under section 21 of the Pension Act, active force consideration. They are interested in free treatment, section 13; and they are interested in tubercular veterans. They are interested in comforts, section 27; outpatient treatment, dental treatment, paying patients, section 23; identity cards, medical expenses, the question of the doctor of choice, the choice of optician, overnight accommodation, section 29; free transportation for next of kin. They are interested in the question of veterans residing in the United States, rehabilitation, re-establishment credits, Korean veterans benefits, time limit, training

allowances for single veterans, D.V.A. representatives, Veterans Land Act.
In that connection I merely want to mention that they are interested in the reduction of the acreage required for small holdings. They are interested in re-establishment credits under the Veterans Land Act, small holdings, repair of damages, interest rates, soldier settlers securing clear title, marriage allowances for servicemen under 21, dependents' allowances for parents of servicemen-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -discharge badges, badges from the R.C.A.F.-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -reasons for discharge.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member, instead of enumerating the list, could suggest that the entire veterans charter be subjected to revision by the committee-


An hon. Member:: Well put, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: -because he is anticipating legislation that may come before the house and be referred to this committee at a later time. At this moment he is suggesting he would like to see all the acts that have already been passed referred to the committee.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I trust I was not out of order. The resolution provides for such other matters as the government may refer to the committee, and I was simply making a few suggestions to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: I heard that much. I heard a long list of various legislative enactments that have already gone through the house, and in enumerating the list I know the hon. member prefaced his remarks by saying he would like to see these measures referred to the committee. He bases his remarks, and his contention that he is in order in doing so, by reading from the order of reference the words, "such other legislation relating to veterans affairs as may be referred from time to time to the said committee." I appreciate that the hon. member wishes to be in order. He will probably rise and tell me that he had just concluded the list and therefore my intervention was to no avail, but I think the hon. member will agree with me, although perhaps with reluctance, that he was not Strictly in order in doing what he was doing.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was only about half-way through, but I bow to your ruling. I was indicating the matters about which veterans are concerned and the subjects they would like referred to the committee, and also speaking in support of the remarks of the
7. 1955	1801
Special Committee on Veterans Affairs hon. member for Royal. This all indicates the necessity for a standing committee on veterans affairs. As the hon. member for Royal stated, this is an old chestnut. It has been on the go since 1945 to my knowledge, but when we see that the Legion is interested in amendments to acts covering the subjects I have briefly mentioned it does indicate that a special parliamentary committee established at certain times cannot meet the needs.
Once again I appeal to the minister on behalf of this group to give consideration to the establishment of a standing committee on veterans affairs. Circumstances and conditions are constantly changing; veterans legislation is so extensive and veterans needs are so urgent at times that we in this group believe these matters should be referred by the house to a standing committee for consideration.
I do wish to bring to the minister's attention-he is so obliging I am sure he will agree with my suggestion-that the committee on veterans affairs will conflict with the committee on external affairs so far as membership is concerned. It so happens that several members of the committee on veterans affairs on both sides of the house are also members of the committee on external affairs. I know they are very anxious to attend the meetings of both committees, and I suggest that the minister use his good offices and his influence to see if the committee meetings cannot be so arranged that these members will have the opportunity to enjoy the proceedings of both.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Speaker, we in this group are also glad that the committee is being established and that the terms of reference include the war veterans allowance. However, as I have stated on previous occasions, we think it would be a good thing if the terms of reference were sufficiently wide to enable the committee to review any veterans legislation it might desire to review. The minister will recall that the last time the committee was set up we had an excellent report from the director of the Veterans Land Act administration. I think we should be in a position to call for a review of any piece of veterans legislation by the director of the branch concerned.
We have also advocated in the past that the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs should be referred to the committee on veterans affairs. I understand that this year the estimates are going to be referred to the special committee on estimates. We believe it would have been far better to refer the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs to the veterans affairs committee, on
1802	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Veterans Affairs which are members fully familiar with the operations of that department. In that way I think you would have a far better survey of the work of the department than you would get in the estimates committee.
The other point we have raised is that a standing committee on veterans affairs should be established to sit every year in order to make a general review of the work of the veterans affairs department. We feel the department is of sufficient importance, now that it is a permanent department, to justify the setting up of a standing committee on veterans affairs.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to support the suggestions made by the members who have just spoken with regard to this resolution, Mr. Speaker. If the veterans affairs estimates are to be considered by the estimates committee, and they have already been referred to that committee, then we shall probably have the situation that the estimates committee is dealing with the estimates of veterans affairs while the special committee on veterans affairs is dealing only with the legislation; that is all the power given to the special committee under this resolution. It would seem to be a businesslike procedure, now that we are to have a special committee on veterans affairs, to allow that committee to deal with the estimates.
What use would it be to have another committee, which has an entirely new approach to these questions, dealing with the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs? If the special committee were allowed to discuss them, then such questions as the Veterans Land Act or any other questions that come up under the estimates could be discussed. These problems are of a type quite different from the ordinary problems which face the house.
The estimates committee, in dealing with northern affairs or finance department estimates, or even citizenship and immigration estimates, has a different sort of problems to handle. Here in veterans affairs we have a very specialized field. It is a field which will continue for many, many years. Surely this is the time at least to try out the plan of having veterans affairs estimates considered by this special committee. As the minister knows we have followed a similar practice with external affairs estimates for about ten years now.


Hugues Lapointe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I dislike interrupting the hon. member, but the estimates of this department have already been referred by this house to the estimates committee. I do not believe the


hon. member is in order in asking that they should go to another committee.


Mr. Speaker:: I had been worried about that particular point. Just before the minister rose the Clerk and I were considering whether the estimates of this department had been sent to the special committee on estimates. I have just found out that they have been taken away from here. Unless the committee that has them now were instructed by this house to send them back here, at this moment I do not see how we could change the procedure with respect to them. I feel it is the type of arrangement which may be made through the usual channels, and that is about the only method of dealing with this problem at the moment.


Howard Charles Green: I realize there would be difficulties in the way of bringing about this result. I do suggest I am in order, Mr. Speaker, in placing this plan before the minister, namely that steps should be taken to have the estimates of his department considered by this special committee on veterans affairs. There is nothing further I can say.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me, if I may interrupt the hon. member, that he is perhaps too late. When the matter was before the house when the committee on estimates was formed, it was announced that various departments, veterans affairs amongst others, would be referred to the estimates committee. At that moment the matter could have been debated. As a matter of fact what happened was that the house agreed to have the veterans affairs estimates referred to the committee on estimates. The house has already passed upon that.
At this moment we are not using our time usefully by suggesting that we undo what we did a few weeks ago and start over again. As it is my duty to keep things running, I must ask the hon. member to keep for perhaps another occasion his suggestion with respect to having the estimates sent to the committee on veterans affairs.


Howard Charles Green: If Your Honour will recall there was no debate on that motion that the estimates of these three departments be referred to the estimates committee.


Mr. Speaker:: There was agreement as to the course that was followed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. W. G. Weir (Poriage-Neepawa) moved:: That Messrs. Balcom, Bennett (Grey North), Brooks, Cardin, Carter, Cavers, Croll, Dickey, Dinsdale, Enfield, Forgie, Gauthier (Portneuf),

Gillis, Goode, Green, Hahn, Hanna, Harkness, Henderson, Herridge, Jones, MacDougall, Murphy (Westmorland), Pearkes, Philpott, Quelch, Roberge, Tucker, Weaver, Weselak and White (Hastings-Frontenac), constitute the special committee on veterans affairs appointed this day to consider certain bills relating to veterans affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


James Joseph McCann: That a select committee be appointed on broadcasting to consider the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and to review the policies and aims of the corporation and its regulations, revenues, expenditures and development, with power to examine and inquire into the matters and things herein referred to and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, and to send for persons, papers and records; that the committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable or necessary; that the committee have power to meet while the house is sitting; that the committee shall consist of the following members:	Messrs. Balcer, Beaudry,
Boisvert, Bryson, Carter, Cauchon, Decore, Diefen-baker, Dinsdale, Fleming, Gauthier (Portneuf), Gauthier (Nickel Belt), Goode, Hansell, Henry, Holowach, Kirk (Shelburne - Yarmouth - Clare), Knight, McCann, Monteith, Reinke, Richard (Ottawa East), Richardson, Robichaud, Studer, Weaver; that standing orders 64 and 65 be suspended in relation thereto.
He said: I am glad to have this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of moving the appointment of the committee on broadcasting. We have thought it is a good thing to have such a committee of the house every year or so, as was convenient. I believe it has always been widely agreed that there are special reasons for the appointment of a committee on broadcasting. Because of the nature of broadcasting the C.B.C. has been placed by statute in a position in which it is not responsible to a minister of the crown in carrying out its activities. It is answerable to parliament itself. Quite differently from my own department, for instance, I am not responsible for the general activities of the C.B.C. There are many of them about which I could not readily inform the house. Altogether, it does seem particularly appropriate that the house should appoint a committee to examine the activities and policies of the corporation, and consider general broadcasting matters.
The government, of course, has to develop general policies regarding broadcasting and, from time to time, must lay before parliament proposals regarding broadcasting and the methods of providing revenues. The licensing of stations, for instance, comes directly under the government, although the board of governors of the C.B.C. makes recommendations regarding applications.
7. 1955	1803
Special Committee on Broadcasting
I imagine the committee will wish to devote a great deal of attention to television broadcasting. I should like to emphasize the immense importance of television to our families and to the national life of Canada. We are rapidly approaching the point when the majority of Canadian homes will have television sets. We all know that most families having sets spend a good deal of time each week watching them. I know there are people who do not like television, or prefer to try to ignore it as of no importance, but no thinking person can ignore something which is playing an increasingly important part in the lives and thoughts of a growing number of Canadians.
The over-all pattern of material appearing on television screens throughout the country during the next few years will have a great effect on the mental attitudes of most Canadians a generation from now. The degree to which television draws on and stimulates Canadian ideas and abilities and exchange of information will be no small factor in our nationhood in the years ahead. I believe we in parliament have to realize that ultimately we have the over-all responsibility for what television brings into the Canadian home, and what its relationship is to our general national life. It is not enough to say, let there be television, and to license any first-comers to broadcast. We have to face the hard facts that apply.
Production of television programs, for instance, is expensive and complicated. In Canada it is in general far cheaper to import program material than to produce it in this country. We have only a fraction of the people of, say, the United States to support production costs. Yet if television is to contribute anything much to our national life it surely must include a substantial amount of programming of different kinds done by Canadians for Canadians.
Furthermore, we are a country of two languages and from the beginning we have had to duplicate program production. While our population is relatively small, our geographic size is very great. Therefore the cost of transmitting and distributing programs to Canadians in different parts of the country is extremely high. I am sure we all agree that television should help to join together Canadians who live in different regions, and that it should assist in that way to a better common understanding.
The last committee on broadcasting strongly recommended that television be developed in such a way as to make possible a substantial production of Canadian programs, and the nation-wide distribution of program service. It urged that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and privately owned
1804	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Broadcasting stations join together in an over-all system working in partnership toward those aims. The policy of the government has been in line with the recommendations of the committee. In its licensing of private stations and its authorizing of C.B.C. facilities the government has sought the ends which the committee felt were important.
Our aim has been to see the development of a nation-wide system, including both privately and publicly owned elements, as needed, capable of assuring the production of at least a fair degree of Canadian programming and extending coverage to as many different parts of the country as possible. We have consistently tried to take a wide national view, thinking in so far as practical of all different parts of the country and endeavouring to assure service as equal as could be achieved in different main areas.
Under this policy the development of television in Canada has been very rapid during the last two years. There are already 25 television stations in operation. Of these 7 are owned by the C.B.C. and 18 by private interests. At the present time five more stations are under construction, one by the C.B.C. and four by private licensees. All these stations, both publicly and privately owned, carry national program service and extend the coverage of the national system. Each station that goes on the air makes television available to more Canadians who did not have it previously. Altogether over 70 per cent of the whole population of Canada is now within coverage of the system.
I think it is indicative of both public interest in television and the success of the system in providing acceptable service that over a million and a quarter television sets have been sold in Canada, nearly all of them since Canadian television started just over two and a half years ago. It is estimated that at the present time over 30 per cent of Canadian households actually have television receivers, and the number is continuing to grow rapidly. Altogether the estimate is that Canadians have spent about half a billion dollars on television receiving equipment. That shows in terms of dollars how interested Canadians are in television. It also demonstrates that television has provided a very important stimulus to business activity in the country during the past two years.
Hon. members may not realize that in the short space of two years Canada in a number of ways has become the second television country in the world. It is, for instance, second in the number of stations. It is second in terms of the area over which television service is available. It is probably close to being second, with the United Kingdom, in


the proportion of the population that have television sets, and it is a good third in the total number of sets in homes. It is probably particularly surprising to know that it is second among the nations at present in the amount of program production carried on. This is, of course, related to the fact that from the beginning we have had full program service and program production in two different languages.
These facts emphasize the intensity of the development during the past two and a half years, but still more they indicate the size of the job which Canadian conditions set in television. In spite of the high number of stations and the comparatively large amount of total production we already have, there is still a long way to go in extending coverage in many areas and in development of our own programming.
I think hon. members are aware that all private stations carry a considerable amount of national program service provided by the C.B.C. either through direct network connection or by means of television recordings. In this way the C.B.C., through these private stations, gets service to viewers in their areas. The cost is considerable to the C.B.C. for service through each such station, but it is still of course much cheaper than if the C.B.C. itself established stations in all these areas. On the other hand, through this system we have in Canada private stations obtain considerable programming through the C.B.C. at no cost, and at the same time get some revenue in respect of the commercial network programs they carry.
To me this is a very sensible form of co-operation in facing the great problems posed in television by the nature of our country. I think we can say actually there is in effect and working well the kind of partnership in this field envisaged by the last parliamentary committee. I should like here to say a word of tribute to the private stations who with the C.B.C. have pioneered in the building up of nation-wide television in Canada.
I believe this co-operation between public and private enterprise in this field makes very good sense in Canada. Indeed, I think it is the only sensible way of meeting the challenge that Canadian conditions set in television. The public component of the system, the C.B.C., is essential to assure the production of any real amount of Canadian programming, which is just not practical on a straight commercial basis. The C.B.C., too, has the job of assuring the nation-wide distribution of national program service, including imported material as well as that produced in Canada.

This linking of the country by a great east-west distribution system again has to be a public responsibility, in the sense that pure commercial considerations would not support it. The C.B.C. has the minimum number of stations and production centres to assure a fair degree of Canadian program production, some in other regions of the country as well as in Montreal and Toronto. Private stations have had opportunities to go ahead in many other areas of the country, and the figures show that they have done so willingly. In this way there has been plenty of room for private enterprise in television, and to some extent there has been assistance for it. The owners of private stations have wide opportunities for their own initiative as well as for their responsibilities as affiliates of the national system, a responsibility which I understand they are in general willingly carrying out.
The system we have provides for an integration of resources toward meeting our national aims. The support comes from different sources; from moneys paid by the television-viewing public directly; from commercial activities of the C.B.C. and the whole system acting as a network; from the investment and initiative and activities of the private station owners. All these are channelled together to support our developing television system, and all are essential.
I believe our television system is one of the biggest developments in the history of Canada. Such things as east-west pipe lines can be very important to our economy, but in television we are dealing with something which is not only a great economic stimulus; still far more important, it produces and carries across the country things for people's minds. I feel it is vital for Canada that through the years we develop a system that effectively joins together the different parts of Canada from one coast to the other, and that in good part consists of Canadian ideas and information and talent.
I think in connection with television we in this house should take a wide national view. I know it is very easy for anyone to sit before a television set and have strong personal views about what they see. It is not so easy to think about television service, or the lack of it, in quite another part of the country, or to think about all the economic factors that apply to the production and distribution of television programs.
There may be some hon. members, for instance, who feel it is urgent to licence additional stations in some particular areas of the country where there is already service. I suppose that most television viewers, if asked if they would like to have another
7, 1955	1805
Special Committee on Broadcasting station to choose from, would naturally tend to say yes. But they would not be thinking of the great integration of resources through both public and private and commercial channels which is necessary in Canada to maintain and develop a nation-wide television system with a minimum amount of Canadian production. I think we should be careful about moving too quickly in some special areas to permit duplicate service which would inevitably tend to weaken the strength and growing power of the national system as a whole, consisting of public and private stations stretching all across the country.
We must remember that our television system is still at a very early stage of development. It is only two and a half years old. During the last year particularly it has grown very quickly and the growth is still continuing at a rapid rate. A great deal has still to be done. I think most people will agree, including the C.B.C. itself, I know, that there is need for considerable improvement and development in the programming. There are still a great many areas of the country and a considerable proportion of the population not within reach of television coverage.
Whether such coverage of the national system is extended through private stations or through relay stations to be owned by the C.B.C., there are still costs to be met. A pressing need is for direct relay network connection among stations across the country. As hon. members are aware, all the stations in operation at present between Windsor, Ontario, and Quebec city are joined in a direct relay network by microwave systems. Programs are supplied to stations in other parts of the country by means of television recordings. The use of recordings has always been envisaged by the C.B.C. only as a substitute until a direct network system could be established. The use of recordings means considerable delay in the viewing of programs in other parts of the country, and also inferior technical quality for viewers in those areas.
The C.B.C. has been working on this matter for some time, and some months ago called for tenders for extensions of the direct network from the two main national communications groups, the railway-telegraph companies working together on one hand, and the telephone companies of the country associated in the trans-Canada telephone system on the other hand. Following study of the tenders the corporation has proposed to accept the tenders of the telephone companies for the extension of the English language network service west from Toronto to Vancouver and east from Montreal as
1806	HOUSE OF
Special Committee on Broadcasting far as Sydney, Nova Scotia, and to accept the tender of the railway-telegraph companies for extensions of the French network service within the province of Quebec. The tenders accepted were the lowest in each case. This awarding of contracts has been submitted for approval by order in council, as required by the Canadian Broadcasting Act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the minister if he intends to table the order in council?


James Joseph McCann: It has not been passed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When it is.


James Joseph McCann: When it is we will table it. It is referred by the C.B.C. to the government for authority. According to the act all expenditures over a certain amount must come before the government.
The microwave systems are of course built in each case by the communications companies themselves. Under the contracts the C.B.C. would pay annual amounts. The contracts would cover direct service by microwave to all stations now in operation or authorized right from Vancouver to Sydney. Under the contracts the C.B.C. has rights for ten years, and the annual basic amounts involved would be close to $2 million. Against this the corporation will have some offsetting amounts in savings on its present recording service and in additional commercial revenues. It is expected that the complete coast to coast service will be in operation in about three years, with portions to be completed well before that.
I think the establishment of this direct relay system right across the country is a major step forward in our television system and in communication in general among Canadians. It will mean that all across Canada people will be able to see many of the same programs simultaneously and having comparable quality. I think it will help in a great way to bring different regions of Canada closer together.
I have never tried to hide from the house the fact that television is very expensive. For instance, as I am sure hon. members are aware, almost anything in television costs from five to ten times as much as the parallel thing in sound broadcasting. I have always made it plain that in one way or another television broadcasting will cost the Canadian public a good deal of money. Yet while the sums involved in television broadcasting are large, and will grow still larger, they do not seem so great when compared with the quarter of a billion dollars which Canadians spent on television receiving equipment last year alone.


I am sure the committee will wish to examine expenditures of the C.B.C. on television and consider the financial implications involved in television development. We shall have to weigh expenditures and commitments carefully, but we also must consider what I believe to be of great importance, the developing and keeping of television in Canada on a basis that will enable it to contribute as it should to our national life.
The committee will undoubtedly also wish to consider activities and questions related to sound broadcasting. In the last two years there have not been major developments in this field, but even with the development of television sound broadcasting still has an extremely important role.
As mentioned to the last committee, the corporation has proceeded with the establishment of a French language broadcasting station in New Brunswick, at Moncton, and has for the first time set up its own studios in Saskatchewan, at Regina. It has also extended coverage considerably in a number of outlying areas chiefly through low power relay transmitters connected by land lines with national networks.
As well as reviewing sound broadcasting activities of the C.B.C., the committee will probably wish to give consideration to some of the questions arising in the light of television development. It does seem to me that sound broadcasting will continue to have a very important part for as long ahead as we can foresee. It is especially important in more outlying areas and there are still parts of Canada which receive no radio service, or a service which is quite inadequate. An important question is the possibility of the provision of regular, dependable radio service in areas of northern Canada where there is a good deal of development. This could only be undertaken at considerable expense, but I think the committee may wish to study some of the needs and possibilities.
As hon. members are aware, the operation of the international service is on a different basis from the national system of the C.B.C. In effect the C.B.C. acts as an agent for the government in carrying on the shortwave broadcasting service to other nations. The policies and scope of expenditures of the international service are set by the government, and funds for it are provided in annual estimates submitted by the government to parliament.
Hon. members will have noticed that the estimates for this service are considerably reduced for the coming fiscal year. As the house is aware, we have been making strenuous efforts to keep government expenditures down and make savings where possible.

In the light of the need for a general cutting of expenditures a thorough study of the international service was made earlier this year. It was decided that a considerable saving could be made by dropping the regular daily services to a number of western European countries whom we generally regard as friendly to Canada and well disposed to our way of thinking.
It was also decided that with the present state of the world, services to countries behind the iron curtain should not be reduced but should be continued with the same effort, as part of the general endeavour by the countries of the west to get some rays of true information to people under communist domination.
With the dropping of the daily services to western European countries some better broadcasting time will be available for the eastern European language service. The regular Latin-Ameriean service is being continued on a somewhat reduced scale. I think it is regrettable in many ways that we should have to lose our daily contacts with the apparently quite considerable audiences for Canadian broadcasting in the Scandinavian countries, The Netherlands and Italy.
Business of the House It is hoped to retain some connection and some of the good will that has been built up through programs broadcast on week ends and possibly some sent for direct relay by broadcasting systems in the countries themselves.
I think that this year, as in other years, the committee will wish to examine the operations of the international service, as well as the national sound and television operations of the C.B.C. itself.
On motion of Mr. Fleming the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris moved: the adjournment of the house:
He said: Tomorrow we shall continue this debate and then take the motion to go into supply. It is my understanding that upon the request of hon. members Mr. Speaker will adjourn the house at five o'clock for the ceremony of which notice has been given.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 9.56 p.m.

Tuesday, March 8, 1955