1955-03-04

Hon. George C. Marler (for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 192 (from the Senate), to amend the Library of Parliament Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 193, respecting the London and Port Stanley Railway Company and the Corporation of the City of London.-Mr. Mitchell (London).


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the week the Minister of Transport tabled an order in council appointing a royal commission to inquire into coasting trade of Canada. There has been some doubt as to whether or not that commission would have authority to inquire into the shipping between the two coasts-that is, from the west coast to the St. Lawrence, even though ships called at American ports en route. Would the minister clarify the position in that regard?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, in reply to my hon. friend I should like to say that I think the terms of reference to the royal commission are broad, and I may say it was intended that they should be broad. As he has noted, no doubt, the commissioners are to inquire into and report upon all questions arising out of the transportation by water or by land and water of goods and passengers from one place in Canada to another place in Canada. The question of the transport of goods from the west coast to the east coast through the Panama canal and vice versa was considered, 50433-109
and it was intended that this subject should form part of the matters to be inquired into.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask a supplementary question? Does that apply even though ships called at American ports or the ports of some other nationality en route?


George Carlyle Marler: I think if my hon. friend will examine the order closely he will find that its terms are very broad, and that the expression used would not exclude what he has in mind.



MANPOWER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to correct a tentative reply I made yesterday to a question asked by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough). This past year there have been meetings and activities of committees responsible to the council she mentioned, but the last meeting of the full council itself was held on November 5, 1953.



SUPPORT PRICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister assure the house that the support price for butter will be continued, as requested yesterday by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: The hon. member was kind enough to send me notice of his question. All I wish to say is that this is a matter of government policy, which will be announced in due course.



FRED ROSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill)
I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister, arising out of certain questions
1718	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry relative to Fred Rose. I would ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the treasonable and seditious conduct of Fred Rose, and his departure from this country, any consideration has been given by the government to the cancellation of his naturalization.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: The question as to the propriety of cancelling the citizenship of a Canadian citizen has in the past been considered, and the pros and cons weighed. There has been no recent consideration given to the matter.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Maltais (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. Further to an answer given on January 20 by the Minister of Justice concerning an investigation as to the existence of a combine between certain companies to control the maximum price of pulpwood, will the minister indicate if this investigation is going to be conducted all through the province of Quebec, including of course the lake St. John district, the Charlevoix and the Saguenay regions?


Hon. Sluarl S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I wish to thank my hon. friend for having given notice of his question. Since the original representations were made by the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc), my hon. friend is the third member who has suggested that inquiries should be extended to other districts.
All I can say is that all the information before the department will be given very careful study. If any person has information that he thinks bears upon the matter, he should transmit it to the combines branch. It would however be impossible at this stage to anticipate the nature and extent of the inquiries and, indeed, it might be detrimental to the success of the inquiries to try to do so.
I think we must also keep in mind that what is under consideration is the possibility of a combine. The combines branch has no jurisdiction to investigate prices in such circumstances, except as possible evidence of a combines offence.



LOSS LEADERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: May
I ask the Minister of Justice whether he has yet received the report of the restrictive trade practices commission on the practice of loss
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l

leader selling? If not, does he now know reasonably definitely when he may expect to receive the report?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The answer to my hon. friend's first question is no. The answer to his second question is that I expect we shall have this report in about a month or a little more.



NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD ACT


George Carlyle Marler: the second reading of Bill No. 181, to amend the National Harbours Board Act.


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister going to make a statement?


George Carlyle Marler: In presenting the resolution in connection with the present bill I referred to the growth since 1935 of traffic and earnings of our national harbours. Hon. members will perhaps be interested in a few figures to illustrate the increase in business of our harbours under the administration of the national harbours board.
In 1953 the number of vessels entering national harbours was almost 50,000, in contrast with 32,000 in 1935. Total cargo tonnage in 1953 was 42,500,000 tons as compared with 24,500,000 tons in 1935. Total revenues increased from $7,400,000 in 1935 to $21,000,000 in 1953.
As I have already pointed out, this growth in traffic and earnings has been accompanied by an increase in the responsibilities of the board. It is the view of the government that an increase in the membership of the board would enable its members to make more frequent visits to the ports under its administration.
I am sure it is not necessary for me to emphasize the desirability of close contact between the members of the board and various local organizations such as shipping bodies, boards of trade and municipal councils of the communities served by our national harbours. Personally, I would like to see these contacts develop in an increasing degree as I am firmly convinced that there is everything to be gained by consultation with local interests. A larger board can, I think, carry out this policy without impairing its head office administration and consideration of over-all policy.
Lest there be any thought that the costs of administration of the national harbours board are top-heavy, may I say that in his national ports survey, 1931-32, Sir Alexander Gibb estimated the annual cost of a central harbour

board at $200,000. In 1953, more than 20 years later, the actual head office expenses of the national harbours board amounted to $213,000, which includes $23,000 for a staff of the comptroller of the treasury. Having regard to the decline in the purchasing power of the dollar in the interval, I am sure hon. members will agree that head office expenses are by no means out of line with the amount originally considered reasonable.
For these reasons I would urge the house to give second reading to this bill forthwith.


Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion of the minister with respect to the connection between the national board and the local organizations in the various port cities of Canada is one which I am sure will meet with the approval of all hon. members. On reading the speech of the minister the other night, on the resolution stage of this bill, I was somewhat intrigued when I thought, perhaps erroneously, that the minister was questioning the advisability or the desirability of local advisory councils or committees. If I followed him correctly this afternoon, he emphasized the importance of having a four-member board which will be active, which will travel and which will establish contacts, as he said, with local boards of trade and with other organizations in the various cities throughout Canada. I would suggest to him, sir, that if that premise is correct-and I think it is-then there is all the more reason why the minister should welcome the creation of local committees or local advisory councils, as Sir Alexander Gibb recommended years ago, with which organizations those members of the board can consult, meet and work together in the interest of the port.
In speaking on this matter the other night on the resolution stage, as reported at page 1513 of Hansard, the minister said this:
My own inclination, Mr. Chairman, is to believe that with an active membership on the board itself the advantages of local advisory committees can be attained through this greater activity on the part of the members of the board without running into some of the disadvantages.
When the minister closes this debate, I hope he will explain what are the disadvantages of these local committees or advisory councils on which the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green) spoke at some length and with some emphasis the other night, and which are included in the report of Sir Alexander Gibb. I know that in Halifax we have had operating for som* considerable time the port of Halifax commission, which is a body incorporated by the provincial legislature of Nova Scotia, and which includes within its membership, management, [DOT]epresenting shipping interests, labour-for 50433-109J
National Harbours Board Act instance, the president of the stevedoring union is a member of that commission- representatives of the provincial government and representatives of the municipality as well as of the public at large.
I am suggesting to the minister, sir, that this commission has accomplished a great deal of good. I would suggest that it is in keeping with the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra the other night and also in keeping with the recommendation in the Gibb report of many years ago.
The minister referred to the increased activity of those four members. I do not know whether he is suggesting that heretofore they have been inactive. I doubt very much whether they have. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat intrigued by this fact. For almost a year and a half- as I recall it, from 1951 until some time in 1952-one member of this national harbours board had retired and the government saw fit to have the board operate with two members. We at least can welcome the fact that they have now recognized the importance of this board and the membership is being increased.
I am suggesting that four members operating from Ottawa, no matter how fast they travel or where they go, will not be able to maintain the local contacts and to build up the efficiency of the ports in the same way as can be done through local commissions. Take the situation in Halifax for a moment. You have there, as I said, the president of the stevedoring union, a member of the commission. He in turn, of course, is in direct contact daily with his stevedores, and everyone knows that some of the many troubles which arise in ports are due to labour conditions and the suggestions of inefficiency, and so forth, between the unions and the shipping interests. That has been largely outdated in the city of Halifax. The unions have been brought into the field with their representatives on the port commission. They work in close conjunction with management, with shipping agents, with shipping owners and with the authorities of Halifax and the representatives of the province and city. We have not an ideal situation, of course. One never gets ideal situations in this mundane sphere, but it is a situation which I think is a relatively happy one and one which should be copied and emulated in other parts of Canada. It is true that in other cities-for instance, in the city of Quebec-they have a committee of some kind. I understand that Montreal has not; but the point is that in the Gibb report great emphasis was laid on the matter of local advisory councils. I am

National Harbours Board Act suggesting at any rate that the experience of my own province and of that port, which plays no insignificant part in the national economy of this country, one which is often referred to as "the warden of the honour of the north", is such that we have established a pattern which I suggest does not support what I took to be a rather critical view by the minister when he said that he thought that the activities of these four members would be such as to overcome what he termed the disadvantages of these local committees. There certainly is room for activity on the part of these committees.
Personally I am glad to see that the board is to be enlarged and strengthened as there are many things which I think it should be doing. I would hope that the board will now be able to study more closely the shipment of Canadian goods through Canadian ports, a matter about which we in the east feel most keenly and in connection with which I think we have fallen down very badly during the last few years. I am not going to take up the time of the house to put on the record figures which I have used at other times, but they are in keeping with the whole approach to the problem of our national harbours.
In connection with the administration of the harbours board I suggest to the minister that now we are going to have four members more attention should be paid to the development of business through our ports. I do not know whether it is correct, but I have been told that the situation in this regard has been improved somewhat during the last couple of years. There are many meetings held in Canada having to do with traffic matters. For instance, there is the international traffic authority, the international trade association, the Toronto exhibition and others. I am told that the port authority of New York, the port authority of Philadelphia and the railroads of the United States are represented at these meetings by their publicity agents.
These people are able to do much in the way of working up business and generally diverting traffic through United States ports and over United States railroads at the expense of our own. Now that there is to be an additional member on the board I would hope that the minister will see that more facilities are provided so that the members of the board may be able to travel, not only locally, important as that may be, but in order to attend these meetings. Another one that comes to my mind is the industrial traffic league of Canada made up of traffic men from


the North American continent. I submit that our national harbours board should be represented at these meetings.
I feel that this enlargement of the board will provide sufficient scope and opportunity for service in operating directly from the offices here in Ottawa and influencing trade as a whole. Of course the members should and will travel. The individual members will meet people in the different parts of Canada, but I reiterate that they cannot do this work properly by going down like a member of parliament making a sudden call on his political committee and then going away and thinking that everything is all right. We know that you have to go back again and again, and the same thing applies to the harbour commissioner. No one is naive enough to think that even by travelling you can make sufficient local contacts to enable you to deal with the development of a port and all those other problems which could be dealt with by a local committee.
I say again that I rose in this debate because I felt that the minister had suggested that there were obvious disadvantages in these local committees. I hope that when he closes his debate he will deal with this matter at length. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) and others from this side of the house have suggested, I hope that in the scheme which he envisions with respect to the national harbours board greater emphasis will be laid upon decentralization, perhaps not of control but of personnel and personal contacts, something which has not been possible during the past years.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I only wish to say a few words on the second reading of this bill. I was not in the house a week ago when it was considered in the resolution stage, but I have glanced over that debate and I wish to refer to a few of the points which were raised at that time.
This group will support this bill. The national harbours board of Canada is today big business. Without being able to offer any expert opinion on the matter, I feel that an additional member on the board is quite justified. This is a large country and if members of the board are going to keep themselves informed about the various harbours they will undoubtedly have to travel.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) suggested last Friday that as there is to be a fourth member appointed the new member should come from the Pacific coast. Without doubt Vancouver is one of the most important harbours in Canada. I do not wish to reflect upon any other section

of the country when I say that the Pacific coast province is the fastest growing province in Canada at the moment, and before many years go by Vancouver will be Canada's greatest port.
If my recollection of what I read in Hansard is correct, I believe the minister said that when members are appointed to a national board they become nationally minded regardless of the locality from which they may be chosen. I agree with the minister and I think that that is a good thing indeed.


George Carlyle Marler: If my hon. friend will permit, I suggested that they lost their geographic attachments. If a member comes from the west I think he is rather apt to lose his attachment over the years.


Angus MacInnis: They become nationally
minded instead of parochially or locally minded.


George Carlyle Marler: I was not suggesting that.


Angus MacInnis: The minister could have
suggested that as I do not think there is anything wrong with it. However, if he does not want to agree with my point of view I shall not impose it on him.
There is another point which was not covered by what the minister said. If someone from Vancouver were appointed to the national harbours board I think he would have a better knowledge of the conditions in Vancouver than if he came from some other part of the country. I am not sure that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra made this point but I think it is important and I hope the minister will keep it in mind when making the new appointment.
The other matter I want to refer to is the question of an advisory committee. This is not the first time that this matter has been raised. It certainly is not the first time it has been raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). Probably in this house members do not like giving a political opponent credit for good work, but in this case I wish to give honour where I think honour is due. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has been consistent in urging the appointment of advisory committees over the years, and in doing so I think he is merely expressing the wishes of the people in Vancouver who have a special interest in the harbours board.
I think these committees could be of great assistance to the members of the board. At the present time when a commissioner goes out to Vancouver he meets people there who are interested in the work of the port. However, if there were a committee appointed whose business it was to correlate all the
National Harbours Board Act various activities, the commissioner or commissioners would have someone to contact who would be able to supply them with more accurate information than they can get at the present time.
These, Mr. Speaker, were the only two points that I wished to make. I hope the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) will take them into consideration because I believe they are legitimate requests. The first point, so far as I am concerned, applies to Vancouver and I think one of the commissioners should be from the Pacific coast province. The other point applies to any part of Canada where there is a national harbours board.


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Defence Production):: believe there will be general support in the house for this bill but I do want to add a few words in connection with one or two matters which have been referred to in this debate.
I followed with interest the words of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) in connection with the port of Halifax commission. I clearly remember the representations made by people interested in the future of the port of Halifax over a number of years in connection with some form of local board or commission that would have the interests of the port at heart and which would be in a position to assist the national harbours board in the discharge of its duty relating to the port of Halifax. I believe that an excellent solution was found in the formation of the Halifax port commission which arose out of local initiative.
For a number of years there had been repeated requests that the government or the national harbours board set up some sort of local board. That was countered with the suggestion that with appropriate local initiative a board or commission of this nature could be constituted and the national harbours board and the Department of Transport would be only too pleased to co-operate with it. That suggestion was taken up and acted upon. The result is the port of Halifax commission which has been operating for several years.
I realize that we were very fortunate in the personnel that were selected to act on this commission. They were men of considerable experience with local matters and in connection with port operations particularly and they have done an excellent job in carrying out their responsibilities.
I also know that the port commission is very appreciative of the co-operation which it has received from the national harbours board. I think, all in all, this has proved
1722	HOUSE OF
National Harbours Board Act to be an excellent development and a good experiment and it will continue to bring about good results in the future.
As the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings suggested, this is perhaps not an ideal arrangement. I do not think any arrangement could be properly described as ideal. However, it has I think, worked well and to the advantage of the port of Halifax. It also has been useful to the national harbours board in their dealings with the port and in their attempts to make the kind of decisions that will be to the long-range advantage of the port.
I think it also should be pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that in addition to dealing with the national harbours board and in addition to taking an interest in the development of new facilities and improved equipment in the port, the port of Halifax commission has followed an excellent program of disseminating information and publicity about the port of Halifax and the facilities which it offers to shippers in Canada and to shippers from outside of Canada who wish to send goods into Canada. The commission publishes a regular bulletin which is widely distributed and which lists all the expected arrivals and departures of cargo and passenger ships to and from the port of Halifax. This information is provided so that those who wish to make arrangements to send cargo can have, in convenient form, up to date information on the freight space available into and out of the port of Halifax. I think this is a valuable service. It is a service which I believe the harbour board could not be expected to supply in the same way for every port. It is the kind of service that a local commission such as the port of Halifax commission can supply both effectively and usefully.
The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings referred to the problem of endeavouring to ensure that the greatest possible volume of Canada's foreign trade moves through Canadian ports. That end is being served by the port of Halifax commission through the activities which I have described.
One of the arguments which used to be presented by some shippers when they were approached in connection with this subject was that they had some difficulty in finding convenient cargo space from Canadian ports. Today none of them can give that excuse in so far as the port of Halifax is concerned because up to date and reliable information is provided in the way I have described.
The national harbours board, from a national point of view, has a responsibility in this connection, of course. I think that some improvement can and will be achieved in regard to that matter. However, in saying


that, I do want to say as well that the board does maintain a traffic department which has the responsibility of trying to ensure that Canadian goods are routed through Canadian ports. I have followed the activities of that traffic department since I have been in this house and I know that the activities and the efficiency of that department have been very materially improved during that time. I do not think this occasion should be missed to express our appreciation of the improvements which have been achieved and to express our hope that further effective action will be undertaken.
The volume of all types of cargo through the Atlantic ports, and particularly through the port of Halifax, has shown a gratifying increase last year over that of the year before and so far this year over that of last year. The activities of the port of Halifax commission and the traffic department of the national harbours board have both contributed to this welcome development. I am sure that both these agencies will continue to operate as they have in the past.


Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I think there would be reasonably general agreement on the advantage of an extra member to the national harbours board. However, in the discussion on the resolution and again in the minister's explanation today I think it was evident that there were some large areas in which explanation might well have been given to this house concerning the appointment of this additional member of the board.
The national harbours board operate a vast amount of valuable real estate in Canada, worth approximately a quarter of a billion dollars, and they operate a business whose consolidated revenue is some $20 million a year. This house must therefore have more than a passing interest in the operation which comes under the direction of these gentlemen. We have had expressed by the minister the idea that, in his opinion, the appointment of this additional member will enable the board to make more frequent contact with localities, and to travel more widely; and implicit in all his remarks has been the suggestion that the appointment of the additional member would enable the board to do a much better job. Having read the minister's remarks and having listened today with considerable interest, I would also go as far as to feel that there was some reservation about the job currently being done by the national harbours board, that reservation being contained in the minister's remarks. That is my impression. I am not attempting to put words into his mouth, but that is certainly the impression I received.

I do not think that the appointment of an additional member is going to erase the type of problem which the minister, in his various remarks in connection with this bill, seemed to admit exists. The basic problem which affects many of our ports across the country is the lack of local knowledge and the lack of liaison between the local operation and the headquarters at Ottawa. We must admit immediately that in the operating branch there is liaison between the port manager and the board at Ottawa. But there are many other things which affect a port in addition to the operation. As the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) pointed out just a little while ago, there is the entire question of the future of that port, and that matter falls largely outside the field of operation.
In discussing this particular point here, Mr. Speaker, we are at a disadvantage because the minister has brought down this bill just before the report of the national harbours board would normally be tabled in this house. Therefore, in examining the achievements of this organization year by year, in order to ascertain what the three members have achieved and what might be expected through the addition of a fourth member, it would have been most helpful if we had before us the report of the harbours board. We find that in 1953 it was tabled on March 6. In 1954 it was tabled on March 17. We are now at the commencement of March of 1955. One would have hoped that we might have this report before us so that a number of the observations which are being made here today could have been confirmed by reference to the current report of the board. In opening this debate today the minister himself gave us figures which are now some 15 months old. They refer to the operations of 1953. Had he waited even a few days, perhaps he could have given us current figures and we could have seen the situation as it exists at present.
To return to the subject which has been touched on by several members, namely that of the local advisory council, may I say that my feeling is that, in certain of his remarks today and last week, the minister himself made the case that the board, with the addition of this member, cannot possibly fulfil the function of the local advisory council. Referring to the appointment both of this new member and other members, he pointed out that no matter from what region of Canada the man came, he would lose that local contact over a period of time as the result of his association with the board on a national level. If therefore the national harbours board, composed of three members, or of four members as is proposed in this bill,
National Harbours Board Act is a body which has the national point of view and if they are concerned with the national interest-and I am quite prepared to agree that they should be, and in the new appointment I hope that matter will be taken into consideration-then the point of view of the local area can only be advanced by a local advisory council charged with the interests of the local community and having no responsibility for the immediate problems of operation of the port as such, which problems are presumably adequately handled by the port manager. It would be an advisory committee without pay.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the national body-referring to this local situation-are much in the position of another group that I heard referred to at one time in these words: What they cannot understand themselves, they explain to one another. Even with the addition of this fourth member, the national body cannot understand adequately and sufficiently, because of lack of time, the problems of the local area. The addition of the fourth member-which I certainly am prepared to support and to encourage-will be a valuable asset to the operation of this board but it will not do away with the need for a local advisory committee or council.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, one of the harbours that is much affected by the amendment of the act now before us is the harbour of Vancouver. I notice from the definition of the harbour of Vancouver that, while the city of Vancouver has possibly received the attention it should have, most of the so-called harbour of Vancouver is actually in the riding that I have the honour to represent. On behalf of the people who are interested in the development of the facilities of the harbour of Vancouver I should like at this time to congratulate the minister on his appointment to his new position and to tell him that we in British Columbia are looking forward to seeing great things take place in his department under his guidance over the next several years.
I rise to support the amendment and especially to emphasize the importance of the recommendations put forward the other day by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). I regret that one member on the government side immediately saw fit to hint that we were asking for a measure of local autonomy. I am sure that the member for Vancouver-Quadra, who put forward the proposal, has no such thought in mind, and certainly I have not. We realize full well and I think people from the west generally realize that since confederation there have
1724	HOUSE OF
National Harbours Board Act been national interests that have always superseded local, narrow issues and always must.
It is not for that reason that we ask for such things as the appointment of a harbours board member from our area and the recognition of a local advisory committee. For the purpose of what I intend to say I should like to read what the minister said the other day on the resolution as found at page 1510 of Hansard. At that time he said:
I am sure that hon. members will agree that the operation of such a body as the national harbours board can be efficient and satisfactory only to the degree that the board is fully cognizant of actual conditions and local problems in each of the ports under its jurisdiction.
I think that was very well and ably stated, and I am sure it was exactly for that reason that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, endorsed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis), made the recommendations that they did. In the course of the discussion the other day the minister went on to point out that once a man is appointed to the board his local interest rapidly recedes and fades from the picture because the man's work is in Ottawa. That is the very reason why we feel that one of the four members of the board should come from the Vancouver area, one of the great harbours of the dominion, so that at least one of the four members will be familiar with the local situation there at first hand.
I listened with a good deal of attention to the two members from Halifax who pointed out the valuable work that their local advisory committee had been doing, and certain things they mentioned are unquestionably applicable to some of our difficulties. My appeal in this respect is that the minister and the department should take the lead in seeing to it that a local advisory committee is established and recognized in our area. We more or less wonder who should be responsible, if not the minister, for the initiation of a local advisory committee. Should it be the municipal council of Burnaby? Should it be the city council of Port Moody? Should it be the longshoremen's union or should it be a particular shipping interest? In my opinion it is only logical to expect some leadership from the minister in this regard and I hope that he will give it.
The appointment of one member of the board from our area as well as the establishment of a local advisory committee would go a long way towards helping to solve some of the difficulties now confronting us and many of the difficulties that, with the rapid development of British Columbia, I am sure will face us. I should like to refer to the


statute, being chapter 187 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, which established the national harbours board and to read the description of the harbour of Vancouver from the schedule in order to indicate its size. It says:
For the purposes of this act, the harbour of Vancouver shall include Burrard inlet, with the Indian Arm, formerly known as the North Arm, and Port Moody, False creek and English bay-
I should like hon. members to take note of this part.
-and all other tidal waters lying east of a line drawn from the Point Atkinson lighthouse southerly to the most westerly point of Point Grey.
This area comprises some 60 or 70 miles of navigable waters. It includes such relatively distant places from Vancouver as Pitt lake, Pitt river and parts of the Fraser river that are not under the jurisdiction of the New Westminster local. It takes in the whole of Burrard inlet and Indian Arm. There is a great area there that eventually will be developed. In my opinion the expansion of harbour facilities ties in with such local problems as traffic congestion. Not many months ago we had a problem arise in connection with the unloading of heavy industrial machinery at the port of New Westminster. Long steel prefabricated structures had to be hauled through the main thoroughfare of New Westminster and other streets all the way up to Port Moody simply because New Westminster was the nearest unloading place available. A good deal of inconvenience was caused to the cities.
I believe that the harbour business is going to increase and that some attention should be paid to spreading out the facilities. In the city of Port Moody, which at one time had some harbour facilities, there is now established a $6 million pipe mill. That is no small undertaking, and I am sure it will have to make a good deal of use of harbour facilities. We have a chemical plant there as well as a large saw mill. In my riding we also have the largest saw mill in the British Empire. I understand they have to provide their own harbour facilities.
There is also another local difficulty that the minister's department will soon be faced with. I refer to the matter of a new bridge to replace the present drawbridge across the Pitt river. It is a dilapidated, utterly inadequate structure which needs to be replaced in the worst way. I am sure that as soon as the government of British Columbia has attended to the little matter of the Marpole bridge it will be tackling the Pitt river bridge and will be at the minister's doorstep asking him what he intends to do about it.
A local committee should also be at work to study what effect the St. Lawrence seaway

project is going to have on local employment and the shipping situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid the hon. member is embarking upon ground which may not be exactly relevant to the subject matter before the house at the moment. If he wants to enumerate the various studies or problems with which the board will have to concern itself, then I believe we are embarking upon a discussion which will get us farther away from the principle of the bill.


Howard Charles Green: If I may interject a word, I would say that the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) dealt with the different problems which a local committee in Halifax had been able to study. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) is doing the same thing, as it affects the harbour at Vancouver. I submit he is in order and that, in addition, he is giving the house useful information.


Mr. Speaker:: I am thankful to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) for having injected these observations, because I have no desire to prevent that latitude which might be considered necessary for the discussion of the bill. However, it is a question of being reasonable.
This bill has to do with the addition of one member to a board already in existence. It would be perfectly correct to set out to prove that the addition of one member is good, in principle, and that it is necessary, and it would also be proper to enumerate the various problems the members of the board would have to tackle.
However, my reason for interfering is that if one allows a member to make certain observations in respect of matters that are not strictly and directly relevant to the issue, and while that member may make such observations only by way of passing reference, I would foresee that the next member might decide that he could speak at length about nothing other than what the government should do, for instance, in connection with the Marpole bridge.


Howard Charles Green: A good subject.


Mr. Speaker:: It might be a very good subject, but it is a subject I would prefer to have debated under the estimates of the Department of Public Works or the Department of Transport.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I realize the position in which I placed you, and also that some of the details I have been discussing might more properly be discussed when the estimates are under consideration. However, I had hoped that when we were discussing the enlargement of the board, and the greater 50433-110
National Harbours Board Act services we would have reason to expect following the support of a bill of this kind- especially if the minister saw fit to add the establishment of local advisory committees- some of the problems with which we in one of the major ports are faced might receive attention.
However, I can finish in one sentence what I was about to say. I feel the new board should give serious consideration to the effect the St. Lawrence seaway expansion will have on our seaport. Also we would have liked to have a study made in regard to the difficult problem of grain shipments, which has been discussed in the house, and further consideration of the ships that are available.
One hon. member from Halifax has said that eastern Canadian goods are now going out through Halifax harbour. I regret to say that, because of the lack of convenient shipping facilities and dates, some western Canadian goods are going out through American seaports, a procedure that is to be regretted.
Once again I would congratulate the new minister upon his appointment. I know the one who formerly held that office had much of his time taken up in recent years with matters immediately connected with the St. Lawrence seaway. I am sure the new minister is not faced with that great detail, and we are looking forward to an indication of greater interest by the department in what is happening on the Pacific coast.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, we in Saint John would appreciate a definite statement from the minister regarding the relationship existing and that will exist between the national harbours board and local port committees. I did not place the same interpretation on the minister's words as did some other hon. members. But in view of the fact that we have never had a port promotion group, and are now making plans along those lines, we would like to know if we are on the right track in what we are doing.
I do not subscribe to the sectional views expressed by other hon. members when they have requested that the new member of the board be someone from one of the areas they represent. I think that the factor of merit in connection with the appointment is worthy of consideration. If this procedure were carried to the extreme we would have to have an eight-man board, with one member from each of the principal ports.
So, in spite of what has been said by the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey), I am inclined to take Mr. Speaker's advice and save most of my observations concerning the
1726	HOUSE OF
National Harbours Board Act port of Saint John until we are considering the estimates. Let me say in closing that, so far as Halifax is concerned, Saint John can meet them on the sea, or can match their men and ships any day in the week.


Mr. G. D. Weaver (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity in the debate on second reading of the bill to pay a well-deserved tribute to the national harbours board. It may seem odd to have someone from western Canada take part in this debate, but-


Mr. Sinclair:: Central Canada.


George Dyer Weaver: However, it is probably better known each year that Manitoba has a much-used seaboard. The national harbours board has done a good job in guiding the destinies of Churchill in recent years.
It used to be said in western Canada that there was more ice in Montreal than in Hudson bay. But I can assure hon. members that since coming to Ottawa I have found nothing but good will toward the port of Churchill. This is evidenced by the continual growth in traffic, to an extent that last year 12,500,000 bushels of wheat or 36 cargoes were shipped out of Churchill. This may not sound like a great quantity. However, it may sound greater when I point out that there used to be friendly rivalry between myself and the two members from Halifax, because in recent years Churchill has come very close to equalling the Halifax tonnage in that commodity.
The Hudson bay route association is a body of public spirited citizens in western Canada who have made it their business to promote traffic through this route. They have had excellent relations with the national harbours board on all their visits to Ottawa.
In conclusion I would say that if there is the same growth in traffic in other Canadian harbours that there has been at Churchill, then it becomes obvious that the addition of another member to the board is a sensible procedure at this time.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we have had a very interesting discussion concerning the national harbours board of Canada. I do not wish to repeat what I said a week ago on the resolution stage, but rather to sum up the arguments that have been made today in favour of the two points I raised then. The first one, of course, was that there should be representation on the national harbours board from the west coast.

In his remarks on February 25, the minister reacted to that suggestion in this way. He said, as reported at page 1513 of Hansard:
While a commissioner may originate from a particular part of Canada such as the maritimes or the west coast, when he moves to Ottawa, as necessarily he must as a member of the national harbours board, he does after a time lose the rather close association with the place from which he came that existed at the time of his appointment. I do not think that members should be under illusions as to what I might describe as territorial representation. I think that territorial representation is in fact and in practice of rather brief duration.
He has stirred up a hornets' nest by that remark. I hold in my hand the Vancouver Sun of Wednesday, March 2, just two days ago, and their leading editorial is headed:
West Coasters Maligned. Minister Challenged to Name Local Man to Harbours Board
We challenge Transport Minister George Marler to test out his rather unflattering opinion of a lack of character among Pacific coast shipping men.
Let the minister name one of them to the fourth seat on the national harbours board which the government is about to add. We can think of several who would make Mr. Marler eat the words he used to try to deflect Howard Green. M.P., from his advocacy of a local appointment for the extra commissionership.
You know, Mr. Speaker, we really have to be a tougher breed to exist on the west coast when we are up against such competition from the rest of Canada and when we are so far removed from headquarters. I suggest to the minister that he read the rest of that editorial. I am sure if he does he will not hesitate to appoint a west coast member to the national harbours board.
Seriously speaking, I do not wish to ridicule the editorial in the Sun, because I think it is an accurate summary of the feeling on the west coast on this point. Incidentally, there is the fact, as the minister announced today, that this new commission to investigate the coastal trade will be dealing with the trade from the west coast to the east coast, yet there is no western representative on that commission. I know the minister had difficulty in making appointments to that commission, but I do urge that he appoint a member from the west coast to the national harbours board.
There is one additional argument in favour of such an appointment, and it is this. Our port is in competition with the United States ports on the west coast such as Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Many of the problems which arise in these west coast ports are different from the problems on the east coast and in the St. Lawrence river. That is a very good reason why there should be a representative from the west coast on the national harbours board.

To go on to the other submission I made to the effect that there should be local advisory committees in these different ports, the minister emphasized in his remarks a week ago the fact that one reason for increasing the membership of the national harbours board was that the board could keep in closer touch with the different harbours.


George Carlyle Marler: I think I said more frequent touch.


Howard Charles Green: His remarks are found at page 1510 of Hansard. He said:
With the increase in use of our national harbours greater responsibilities rest upon the board to determine the adequacy of facilities, to plan for future development and in general administration.
There he dealt with two of the factors that are of vital concern to us, namely, the adequacy of facilities and the planning for future development. It is in that regard that we believe the local advisory committees would give the most help. Then he went on:
I am sure that hon. members will agree that the operation of such a body as the national harbours board can be efficient and satisfactory only to the degree that the board is fully cognizant of actual conditions and local problems in each of the ports under its jurisdiction.
It is physically impossible for a board, with headquarters here in Ottawa, where the members must remain for most of the year, even though they do make trips out to the different ports from time to time, to be fully aware of the conditions which are arising in the different ports. Today again he said that the contacts with the ports should be developed by the national harbours board to an increasing degree, or he used words to that effect. With those sentiments I heartily agree; but the point is that in order to reach that objective I am convinced the minister must see that local committees are set up in each of the ports.
Today the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey), the junior member last Friday, and the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) today, told us how well such a committee is working in the port of Halifax. It is that type of committee we want to see established in the other ports. Of course, it was the recommendation of Sir Alexander Gibb. Today the minister told us how well Sir Alexander Gibb's prophecies had come true with regard to the expenses of administration of the central office here. What we are asking is that he follow out the other recommendations made by Sir Alexander Gibb.
When this bill was under discussion in 1936 I asked the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who was then the minister of transport, about the possibility
50433- llOi
National Harbours Board Act of setting up such local committees as recommended by Sir Alexander Gibb, and this is what the minister had to say as found at pages 2999 and 3000 of Hansard of 1936:
There is nothing in this bill which prevents the establishment of local advisory councils if it should be found that they are necessary. But it was considered that the port manager would give all the necessary local contact, and that there would not be need for local advisory councils.
In our experience in Vancouver the port manager has not given all the local contacts [DOT] that are necessary, and I do not believe it is possible for one man on the payroll of the national harbours board to give such local contacts. The minister went on:
But if the need becomes apparent I can assure my hon. friend that local councils will be established, which may be carried out under the terms of the bill.
The need obviously has become apparent in Halifax, and the committee has actually been set up and is functioning there. I see no reason why a similar course could not be followed in the other ports. Then I questioned the minister as follows:


Howard Charles Green: If the minister finds it will be helpful to have a local advisory council at the port of Vancouver I understand he will provide for such council by by-law under the present bill.


Mr. Howe:: Yes.


Mr. Bennett:: Under what authority in the bill?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may be mistaken, but I see nothing in the bill which prevents us from obtaining advice anywhere we like. I think there would be no great difficulty under the bill to secure advisers of any kind we wish.
The minister may feel that there might be patronage under local advisory committees, which of course was one of the main objections to the old set-up of harbour commissioners in the different harbours having complete control. I think one important function which the national harbours board has fulfilled is to do away with or minimize local patronage in the ports. I do not want it to be understood that I am urging the setting up of local advisory committees with the idea that there will be patronage again. I think that system should have been abolished and it was quite properly abolished.
The only thing that worries me about the present set-up is that as conditions develop and new problems have to be faced there is no opportunity whatever for the people in the community to place their views before the national harbours board in such a way that their opinions will carry any authority. Not that the national harbours board would refuse to hear representations. For all practical purposes the fact is that it is impossible to get the viewpoint of the city of Vancouver and the adjacent municipalities before the
1728	HOUSE OF
National Harbours Board Act national harbours board because there is no body which meets to consider those recommendations.


James Sinclair: What about the role of the port manager? We have a good one in Vancouver.


Howard Charles Green: We had a splendid port manager, and I think the present port manager is an excellent man. I am not criticizing them for a minute, but they are busy with the actual * administration of the port. I submit that if you could set up a committee made up of representatives of the municipal councils, of the shipping interests, of the labour unions and of the grain trade you would have a group which could study what developments should be brought about. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) will remember that a year or two ago we had a great deal of trouble about getting the first narrows dredged. The oil pipe line was-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure this is an interesting discussion between the Minister of Fisheries and the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra, but may I remind them that we are discussing the principle of a bill to amend the National Harbours Board Act, and I really feel the hon. member is somewhat far afield.


Howard Charles Green: Before Your Honour took the chair we had argued this point with His Honour the Speaker. I believe I am in line with the remarks which were made by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier). As a matter of fact I came to the rescue of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and now I am in trouble myself.


James Sinclair: I think I should come to the rescue of the hon. member, because I think that dredging of Vancouver harbour is the concern of the national harbours board.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am aware of what happened before I took the chair. I do not wish to interfere with any latitude which was previously allowed, but I think to discuss dredging and other matters, which I thought the hon. member was proceeding to do, would be to go far afield from the principle of this bill.


Howard Charles Green: I was merely citing as an example of the need for these local committees what happened with regard to dredging. I was pointing out that we were greatly worried because we were told that United States tankers would not be able to come into Vancouver harbour to get oil because the first narrows was not sufficiently deep; there was concern that the ships would have to be diverted to United States ports. It was


difficult to get concentrated the opinion behind the further dredging of the first narrows because there was no body such as a local advisory committee. After some time the shipping men took the lead and called in different representatives and all members of parliament and eventually we were able to persuade the government that this dredging should be done. Part of it has been done to the great benefit of the port.
I merely cite that as an example of the sort of problem the local committee would be well aware of, as the sort of problem on which it could concentrate its thinking. I shall not go any further as I think the minister realizes the point we are trying to make. I hope he will assure the house that he will give serious thought to having these advisory committees set up in the different national ports of Canada.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to thank hon. members who have taken part in the debate on the second reading of this bill and assure them that when I have had an opportunity of reading Hansard and refreshing my notes on what they have said I shall be glad to consider their representations to see how far they ought to be carried out.
If I might say a word to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), it would be that I hope my words the other day with regard to the attachments of those who might be appointed to the national harbours board were not to be interpreted in the sense in which he and the Vancouver Sun appear to have interpreted them. I hope that I said nothing which would effectively dampen the hopes of the west coast for representation on the national harbours board. I had no intention of suggesting to hon. members of this house that their hopes for representation were to be at an end. On the contrary, I hope that all hon. members will believe that their representations will be received as they hope they will be.
I should like to say also that I hope that nothing I have said about the activities of the present board and its contacts with the communities served by the national harbours board will be looked upon as criticism of what has taken place in the past. I have always thought it desirable that there should be more frequent contacts with the local communities, not because I wish to criticize what has taken place in the past but because I thought the advantage in increasing the membership of the board would be that the board would have a greater degree of familiarity with local conditions. It seems to me that that is a strong reason for increasing

the membership from three to four. In concluding my remarks on that point I want to say that I hope when the new board is appointed after this bill has been adopted it will be easier for the four members perhaps to divide up and thus make more visits to the ports under their administration.
May I say a word on the subject of advisory councils to which several hon. members have referred. I think I should repeat what was said by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in 1936. I shall not reread what has already been cited by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). I would merely like to digest the substance of what he said. In effect, he was speaking of the local advisory councils. If the need becomes apparent I can assure my hon. friend that local councils will be established and this will be carried out under the present bill. I have read carefully the statute governing the harbours board and I can find nothing in it which would prevent the establishment of local advisory councils if they were thought to be advisable. I do not wish to go into the question in any great detail but I would like to set at rest any doubts which might exist in the minds of the hon. members on the subject of contact between the national harbours board and local interests in the various harbours coming under the control of the board.
Reference has already been made to the port of Halifax commission. I do not think it necessary to add to what has been said on that subject, particularly in view of the fact that there is a body which exists between the board and this local authority which I do not think quite qualifies as a local advisory council in the sense in which it has been referred to during the course of this debate. At the same time, however, it serves to show that, where local interests desire to set up some form of committee or body to coordinate interests and activities connected with the board, there has been a close harmony between the board and the local body.
I think the same might be said in regard to the port of Saint John to which my hon. friend referred a moment ago. I have a note here which says that there is a shipping committee of the board of trade and this body has recently been enlarged. There seems to have been quite close contact between this committee and the national harbours board. The same might also be said for the ports of Quebec and Three Rivers. In those two cases the local board of trade maintains a close contact with the national harbours board. In Montreal, the shipping federation of Canada has taken a direct interest in the activities of the board and
National Harbours Board Act there have been close and harmonious relations between the board and the federation. In the case of Churchill there is the Hudson bay route association, which I had the pleasure of receiving in Ottawa quite recently. There again a close relationship has existed between the board and the body representing the local interests. So far as Vancouver is concerned, I am informed that the British Columbia wharf operators association, the transportation and customs board, the Vancouver board of trade and other organizations such as the chamber of shipping and the coastwise ship operators association, the merchants exchange, the British Columbia towboat owners' association and the British Columbia branch of the Canadian Manufacturers Association have maintained particularly close and frequent contacts with the national harbours board.
I do not wish to continue further but I would like to say that I am quite sure hon. members will realize that, if we were to think in terms of a local advisory council, it would be one which would be set up under some bill adopted by the national harbours board. I believe all hon. members will realize that would seem to suggest some displacement of some of these bodies to which I have referred. I do not wish to be dogmatic about it; far from it. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra made his representations on the subject this afternoon with great efficiency. I shall most certainly give his representations my most earnest consideration without promising him that I shall necessarily accede to his views or come around to his way of thinking.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Board constituted.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, in closing the ' debate on second reading, the minister mentioned contacts which exist at the present time in the different ports with the port manager.


George Carlyle Marler: No, not with the port manager but with the board.


Howard Charles Green: With the board?


George Carlyle Marler: Yes, with the board.


Howard Charles Green: In effect, I think the contact would largely be with the port manager rather than with the board because the board is here in Ottawa and the port manager is in the port.


George Carlyle Marler: Yes, I fully realize that.


Howard Charles Green: In the case of Vancouver, for example, the minister mentioned that there
1730	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act was a close and frequent contact with the wharf operators. I did not get the full name in each case.


George Carlyle Marler: It is the British Columbia wharf operators association.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, and with one bureau of the board of trade, the chamber of shipping, the towboat owners' association and the C.M.A.


George Carlyle Marler: I mentioned two others.


Howard Charles Green: Such contacts are valuable, of course, but what I have in mind is that there should be a committee set up which would include not only representatives from these particular bodies but also from the councils and from the labour unions and possibly from other bodies as recommended by Sir Alexander Gibb.
I merely point out to the minister that there is a very wide difference between certain associations having occasional contact with the harbour board and there being a composite committee, comprised of representatives of all these bodies and other bodies, which meets to consider the problems of the port. In actual experience the contacts to which he refers merely mean, I believe, that those men in those associations have business to do with the harbours board and get in contact with the board for that reason. It is in no sense an advisory committee for the port.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, bill read the third time and passed.


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 164, to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952.
He said: In moving the second reading of this bill it is not my intention to make a lengthy statement. Hon. members have had the bill for a week and I believe the details of it are now familiar to them. As I pointed out when I introduced the resolution on war veterans allowances in this house I believe that the most important amendments in the minds of all hon. members are those which deal with the increases in the rates of allowances. I mentioned at that time that the maximum single rate of war veterans allowances would be increased from $50 to $60 per month and that the married rate would be increased from $90 to $108 per month. I


should like to say that in fixing these new rates we have endeavoured to maintain the proper relativity between the single and the married rates. It will be seen that in both instances the increases represent a 20 per cent raise over the previous rates. Similarly, it will be noted that the increase in the married rate is about twice the amount of the increase in the single rate. This is consistent with the practice which has been followed over the years in amending this act with reference to rates.
At that time I also mentioned that the income ceiling for recipients at the single rate would be increased from $720 to $840 and that the ceiling for recipients at married rates would be increased from $1,200 to $1,440. While the increase in rates is in the same proportion with respect to both the single and the married rates, it will be noted that the increase in the income ceiling for the married veteran is twice the amount of the increase for the single man. I believe this increase will restore the relative position of the two groups as it was prior to the 1952 amendments to this act, and will conform to representations which the department has had on this particular point from hon. members of this house and from various veterans organizations.
I said that at this stage I had no intention of speaking at any length. However, during the course of the brief debate which followed the introduction of the resolution it became apparent that the points which were of particular interest to hon. members were those relating to rates and to income ceilings. I fully appreciate the fact that hon. members would study the matter, would ask for information they wished to have on these points and would wish to put forward their views.
I do not like to repeat myself but I recall that, during a debate on war veterans allowance during the course of the last session, I mentioned that any amendments dealing with rates and income ceilings in legislation such as the War Veterans Allowance Act could not help having some far-reaching effects, and that in determining what should be the proper rates and the proper income ceilings, many factors were involved. At that time I dwelt at some length on the subject. Without wanting to repeat myself, I think it would be in order just to point out briefly some of the effects which a higher ceiling- since that was the point that was particularly mentioned when the resolution was introduced in this house-or an increase in the ceiling and an increase in the rates would have.
For instance, it has been suggested that the ceiling should be set for the single

War Veterans Allowance Act recipient at $1,200 and for the married re- ceilings were raised, but if one takes as a cipient at $2,000. As I pointed out previously measure the suggested ceilings of $1,200 for in this house, a ceiling of $1,200 for the single the single rate and $2,000 for the married man and of $2,000 for the married man could rate, without changing any of the other con-easily have the result of war veterans allow- ditions of eligibility under the act, there ance becoming a supplement to what I might would be 14,750 additional recipients, term normal income such as superannuation The additional cost for these new recipients earned after many years of service and, alone would be approximately $5 million a in some cases, the earnings from full-time year. As a matter of fact, for both present
employment. There are quite a few veterans over 60 years of age who are regularly employed and who have yearly salaries which are under $2,000. They would qualify for an allowance under the ceiling of $2,000. Whether or not that is a state of affairs which should exist is something upon which I do not wish to pass any judgment; but I am convinced that at no time since the inception of this legislation was it ever intended that such a situation should develop.
If we compare these suggested ceilings with the levels of pensions for war service disability-that is pensions paid for disability incurred in service-it will be seen that a ceiling of $1,200 would be equal to an 80 per cent pension for a single man, and that a ceiling of $2,000 would be nearly the same as a 100 per cent disability pension for a married man. A 100 per cent disability pension for a married man is $2,040. The practical result would be that veterans in receipt of a low rate of disability pension or who are not receiving any pension for disability or injuries incurred on service but are receiving some small superannuation, would automatically have their pension or superannuation as the case might be increased to 80 per cent or 100 per cent of a disability pension, upon reaching the age of 60 when they otherwise qualified under the War Veterans Allowance Act. The rate which is proposed in this bill of $60 allowance for the single man equals approximately a 50 per cent disability pension; and the ceiling of $840 is equal to slightly over a 55 per cent disability pension. The married rate of $108 proposed in this bill is approximately equal to a disability pension of 65 per cent and the ceiling of $1,440 is approximately equal to a disability pension of 70 per cent.
As I have pointed out previously in this house, there has always been a measure of balance between what a veteran could receive under the War Veterans Allowance Act and what a veteran could receive under the Pension Act for disability incurred on war service. I believe it was the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) who, during the course of the debate on the resolution, asked what would be the number of cases that might come under the act if the ceiling of permissible income were raised. Of course it would vary depending on how high the
and additional recipients an increase in the ceilings up to $1,200 and $2,000 a year would result in an additional annual expenditure of about $13 million over and above the cost of the proposals included in the bill. Hon. members will recall that I stated in the debate on the resolution that the estimate of the increased liability for the proposals included in the bill was between $9| million and $9J million. The $13 million to which I have just referred would be additional to the $91 million or $91 million.
But, Mr. Speaker, the determining of these rates and ceilings, I should like hon. members to know and to believe, has not been done in a haphazard fashion. We have been continuously studying this situation. We have had surveys made in every district where the department has offices in this country. We have had studies made in particular localities of all the groups of war veterans allowance recipients, and it was following these very serious studies that the government arrived at this decision. I should like hon. members to realize that the proposed ceilings of $840 and $1,440 represent the amounts which the vast majority of recipients will actually receive through payment of the allowance plus the receipt of a small disability pension or old age security payments or other income or through the medium of assistance fund payments supplementing the war veterans allowance.
I should like to say a few words later about the assistance fund because the fund is going to be continued. I may say that in the proposals which have been made to the government setting out various levels of rates and ceilings there has never been any suggestion that the assistance fund should be continued. The assistance fund does fulfil a very useful role.
I can say without hesitation that the proposed ceilings are consistent with the relationship which has existed since the inception of the act in the increases granted from time to time for both rates and ceilings. We believe that the new ceilings are capable of allowing recipients to maintain a reasonable level of subsistence.
In this connection, it has been our experience, and the surveys that we have made have revealed to us, that in most cases recipients of war veterans allowance have
1732	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act been supplementing these incomes through the medium of section 4 of the act or casual earnings or farm income. As hon. members know, we have extended considerably during the last year the rules governing both casual earnings and farm income, and a great number of recipients have benefited by this. But for those recipients of war veterans allowance who have no other income and must depend entirely on the allowance for their subsistence, it is proposed to continue, as I said before, the use of the assistance fund to supplement the basic rate to the level of the income ceiling where need is shown to exist. It is intended, however, to amend the present formula used in determining need and to make it more flexible.
At the present time payments from the fund are made in two ways: First, through continuing monthly grants to meet basic costs of food, rent, fuel and specific health needs; second, through lump sum grants to meet emergency situations and specific needs not covered by the formula. It is now proposed to authorize an addition to the monthly allowance for clothing and personal care, thereby adding these two items to the normal formula and making it more generous.


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


Hugues Lapointe: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: The use of the assistance fund, as I understand it, will in no case put total earnings over the ceilings on permissible earnings, that is, $840 for a single veteran and $1,440 for a married veteran?


Hugues Lapointe: That is correct.


Howard Charles Green: He will not be able to get more than those ceilings?


Hugues Lapointe: My hon. friend is correct. Of course lump sum grants will still be available.


Mr. Brooks:: May I ask the minister a question? Can he tell us how much is being paid out at the present time through the assistance fund?


Mr. Hosking:: Wait till we get in committee.


Hugues Lapointe: I am sorry, but I have not got the exact figure.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Around $600,000.


Hugues Lapointe: I have not the exact figure now. I know it has been increased lately.
I would be very glad to give it in committee. That is all I intend to say at this stage on rates and ceilings, but in introducing the resolution I also remarked that the bill would extend the benefits of section 4 to female veterans at the age of 55 instead of 60 as 

at present, and to widows. This had been sought by various groups, and we believe it will permit women, who even though 55 years of age can still undertake employment in various capacities, to supplement their income without losing their entitlement to the allowance for ensuing months of unemployment.
I should like to say a few words regarding section 3 of the bill. It sometimes happens that a veteran, having made an application for an allowance, dies suddenly, perhaps as the result of an accident or by reason of some other cause, before a decision on his application has been rendered, and it is found that the decision would have been favourable had he been still alive. We intend to provide that in such circumstances the adjudicating body-that is the district authority-may deem the veteran to have been a recipient of war veterans allowance at the time of his death, and thus enable the 12 months' special award to the widow to be granted.
Hon. members will also find in the bill sections increasing the salary of the chairman of the -board from $10,000 to $11,000, and the salaries of the other members from $8,500 to $9,500. I believe this is in keeping with the increases which have taken place in federal government fields in the last few years, and from which these gentlemen have not as yet benefited.
I do not believe I should go into any more details at this stage in the discussion. I would like to say in closing that I believe sincerely this bill will be of great benefit to the veterans who are now recipients of war veterans allowances, and those who will become recipients in coming years. As I said before, the decision as to rates and ceilings was not arrived at without a very serious study of the subject, and I am convinced that it will be of great help to our older veterans.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker,
we have listened with great interest to the remarks of the minister with reference to Bill 164. I think it was quite obvious to all hon. members, when the resolution preceding the bill was before the committee, that it was not meeting with approval. I am quite certain that the same disapproval which was felt then will continue to be felt, despite) the remarks of the minister this afternoon.
When we received the bill we found it disappointing. As I proceed this afternoon I hope to show in what ways it is disappointing to the war veterans across this country.
I believe it is fair criticism to say that the bill was introduced about three years too late. In 1952, in our veterans affairs committee, we urged that the war veterans

allowances be $60 for single veterans and $120 for a married veteran and his wife. We also recommended at that time that the ceilings be raised.
Neither of these things was done, although it was quite obvious to everyone that they should have been done at that time. When I say it is three years too late, we realize that in the three years that have passed many hundreds of war veterans in Canada have died. It would have been a great blessing to those men if they had had that extra allowance during the last years of their lives.
To get some idea of the number of men who have received help by war veterans allowances, I shall place some figures on record. Let me say at once that I think the War Veterans Allowance Act was one of the finest pieces of legislation ever enacted for the benefit of veterans. Between 1930 and 1954 there were 113,636 recipients of war veterans allowances. Since that time
72.149	have either been discontinued or have been cancelled. We realize of course that probably more than 90 per cent of these
72.149	are veterans who died since the bringing in of the act.
All one needs to do now, as has been done in the past, is to read each month the "Last Post" column in The Legionary to see that these men from the first war are passing away by the hundreds each month.
For a few moments this afternoon I should like briefly to go over the history to show why war veterans allowances were granted in the first instance. This is a long history, and I do not intend to give it in detail. I shall mention only some of the highlights and the important parts.
It all started back in 1927. Veterans hospitals, veterans doctors and veterans organizations such as the Canadian Legion became aware that there were many hundreds of men who had no disability that could be seen, and who were not qualified for pensions, but who were not able to carry on the ordinary procedures of looking after themselves and their family. Certain types of cases appeared for which no provision had been made in the existing legislation. The man who had been wounded and was suffering therefrom would be in receipt of a pension; but it was found that there were men who had served in a theatre of war who, upon coming home and trying to re-establish themselves, had found it impossible to do so. I might add that these men from the first war suffered far greater handicaps than those from the second.
In 1928 this matter was brought to the attention of the meeting of the dominion
War Veterans Allowance Act command of the Canadian Legion in the city of Saint John, and received wide publicity across Canada. The whole subject was brought to the attention of the people generally.
Dr. White, who was mayor of the city of Saint John and who welcomed the Legion to the meeting at that time, and was at the same time an outstanding doctor in Canada, and a man who had intimate knowledge of the conditions of these men, had this to say about them:
The war and its effects, the stress and the strain, the privations, the wants and the diseases, and all that he may have suffered while he was away have lessened his efficiency, have drained his vitality, which came about in three, four, five, six-yes, perhaps ten years and we find that a man, a robust man, with all his ambitions before him, which have been largely set aside on account of his patriotism now unable to carry on as he would have been had he remained at home.
That is the situation they found. At the time they said a man had aged 10 years. An hon. member said that here not long ago. I know it did not apply to every veteran who saw service in France, but it did apply to a great many men, because they are different constitutionally one from another. Other very able men took up the cudgels for this class at about this time. I mention the former minister, the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). He was very sympathetic. He was at the Legion convention in Saint John at the time that Dr. White spoke. Sir Arthur Currie said that every man who experienced the hardships of war is paying some penalty. There was Brigadier General Alexander Ross, who spoke at the Legion convention at Calgary the next year. In his remarks he had this to say:
The most serious problem proved to be that of the broken-down or burnt-out veteran whose faculties were prematurely impaired but who suffered no apparent war disability as such.
Because he suffered no apparent war disability as such, he was not eligible to receive a pension of any kind.
In 1930 Colonel LaFleche, afterward Major General LaFleche, spoke as dominion president, and he had this to say:
The long and arduous years had changed the mental outlook of many men, as had the privations and hardships of war service ravaged their bodies and sapped their strength.
Mind you, Mr. Speaker, that was over 25 years ago. The men we are dealing with today are 25 years older than the men who were mentioned at that time. Twenty-five years ago they were young men. They had earning capacity that the men who are living today do not have.
1734	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act I have mentioned these remarks ol men who brought about the war veterans allowance 25 years ago. I have done so, Mr. Speaker, for fear there may be in this country and possibly in this house people who still contend that we are wrong when we claim that the men-again I say not all of them- who are spoken of here were aged some 10 years by their service overseas and in the war. I should like to quote what the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., had to say a few weeks ago. His remarks are found at page 49 of Hansard, as follows:
A great deal ol nonsense has been talked about war veterans allowances.
I have been on committees of this House of Commons since 1935, and I think I can truthfully say that I have heard very little nonsense with reference to war veterans allowances. The hon. member went on:
The fact that it is an allowance for assistance and not a pension for a disability has seemingly been obscured and lost sight of.
I shall have something to say on that point in a few moments. Further on the hon. member said:
I was going to ask the hon. member for Esqui-malt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) to allow me to use him as an example.
Well, he was very unfortunate in his choice of an example when he picked out the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich because, as we all know, the harder the road the better he likes it, and the tougher the going the more he thrives. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich does not represent the type of man we are talking about here, the young man who was a clerk in a store or a young farmer who had no experience in roughing it. The service which they had to give in the trenches, going over the top and the great fear which everyone knows gripped the hearts of thousands of these young men did leave its mark. As I said a moment ago, these men I have mentioned and the thousands of people since and the millions of people in Canada who are in sympathy with this realize that a great debt is owed to them.
With reference to the argument that this allowance was for assistance and not a pension for disability, may I say that we all realize that was the original intention. There is no doubt about it that 25 years ago it was expected that these men would be able to supplement their war veterans allowance. It was also realized that they needed some help. The war veterans allowance has been raised from $20 to $30, to $50 and now to $60 for single veterans. I should like to quote, if I may, the remarks of Dr. Lumsden ex-president of the Canadian Legion, which fMr. Brooks.]	- - *	:

appeared in The Legionary of October 1953, with reference to this argument of subsistence. He had this to say:
Now much could be said in favour of the existing rates if it was the original intention of the War Veterans Allowance Act to give assistance and not subsistence.
At that time it was $40 for single men and $70 for married men. I continue:
For example, if it were regarded as assistance, then the man on a small pension-a pension of less than 50 per cent-could use war veterans allowance to bring him up to a minimum standard of living. The man on a retirement pension from the railroads, industry, et cetera, would be able to supplement his retirement allowance by war veterans allowance and so get by with a minimum standard of living, but that is not the way it now works.
And it is not the way it is going to work under this new bill the minister is sponsoring. I continue:
The maximum permissible income is so low that war veterans allowance itself must be regarded as the sole means of subsistence.	,
There is the point, Mr. Speaker. Dr. Lumsden goes on to tell how they were recommending $60 per month for a single man and $120 a month for a married man. Then he had this to say about permissible income:
The permissible ceiling on income is based too low, and so we have been pressing vigorously that this permissible ceiling be raised in order that the individual may supplement his war veterans allowance by pension, by retirement allowance if he has it, or it might be by steady employment, obviously of a submarginal standard and not enough to afford a living.
Because of the present ceiling, the war veteran cannot receive war veterans allowance and the old age pension, as we think he should.
The minister speaks about raising the permissible income. Permissible income has not been raised, Mr. Speaker. Under the old act, it was $120 for a single man. It still is $120 for a single man. Can you call that raising the ceiling? It is exactly the same. It is now $144 for the married man; it was $120. It has been raised around $2 a month. Before 1952 we had a permissible income of $250; now we have $144. It is practically the same as it was before. Certain veterans will be doing all right, and we are glad to see that. The single employable veteran is in a much better situation at $60 per month; there is no doubt about that. The employable veteran can take advantage of casual earnings, and I commend the minister and the department upon their definition of casual earnings and extending casual earnings so that a man will be able to earn an average of $50 a month. Also the single employable veteran can take advantage of section 4 of the act. The same applies to

the married veteran who is employable; he can take advantage of section 4 and also of the casual earnings.
The veteran who loses out is the man with a small pension. His pension and his war veterans allowance now have a ceiling beyond which he cannot go, and he may not be employable. The minister says there are a great many veterans who can take advantage of section 4 and do casual labour, but I believe that if a survey were made of those under the War Veterans Allowance Act it would be found that there are far more veterans who would not be able to take advantage of casual labour and section 4 than those who could. These are the men who are not getting the assistance they should get under a new act of this kind.
As I mentioned a moment ago, the veteran who is 70 years of age or over sees other men who have reached 70 years of age receiving as a right an old age pension of $40 per month, which interferes in no way with any other income they may be receiving by way of pension or from any other source. The older veteran under war veterans allowance may be living in a town with men who are worth $100,000, $500,000 or $1,000,000; yet he must exist on a paltry $60 a month while these other men have the full advantage of the $40 per month payment. That seems unfair to me, and I think it seems unfair to a great majority of the people in this country.
When this bill comes before the committee it is our intention to follow the same course we followed in 1952. At that time we asked that single men be given an allowance of $60, and this has been granted. We asked that married men be given $120, but they have been granted only $108. I am not finding the same fault with that as I am with the fact that no increase has been made in the permissible earnings. I have confidence that when Bill No. 164 comes from the committee it will not be in the same state. I have [DOT]confidence in the men who composed the committee last year and who I feel will be on the committee again this year. I remember members of the committee of last year and previous years stating time and time again that they were dissatisfied with the permissible income. This was said by members of the committee from all sides. If those bon. members are going to be consistent they will have to indicate their dissatisfaction with the permissible income which remains today just the same as it was last year, and which is lower than it was in 1952.
When the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) spoke the other day he said he was thrilled in 1954 when he was called back to his constituency to speak to
Income Tax Act
some irate veterans. If the hon. member does not ask for an increase in the ceiling on permissible income he is going to get another thrill when he goes back to Vancouver South after this bill has been through the committee. I am satisfied from what the hon. member said that he will support an increase in the permissible income under this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the house must proceed to consider private and public bills.



INCOME TAX ACT


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 163, to amend the Income Tax Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, because of the very short title which appears on this bill I have received a number of inquiries as to what it contains. Some of those inquiries appeared most hopeful, but I have had to reply that the really hopeful things that might be done by way of amending the Income Tax Act would have to be introduced by a minister of the crown. Much as I would like to be introducing a bill which would reduce the income taxes of those in the lower brackets or raise the exemption levels or take care of some other matters that need to be corrected in the Income Tax Act, as hon. members know it is not within the province of a private member to move such a bill.
This bill has as its purpose the lifting of some of the secrecy which surrounds corporation income tax matters as the act now stands. If I may use the language which I hear sometimes from some of my hon. friends to my right, the aim of this bill is to break through the veil of secrecy. I hope that certain hon. members like the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and others who appear most anxious to break through the veil of secrecy, particularly when crown corporations and public bodies of that type are being considered, will join with me in supporting this bill so we may break through the veil of secrecy with respect to corporation income tax matters, which after all are matters of public concern.
I wish to lay that down quite firmly, Mr. Speaker. The reason I differentiate in this bill between individual income tax returns and corporation income tax returns is that in the latter case there is always a public interest. Therefore I believe the public has a right to more information than it is now able to get regarding corporation income tax matters.

Income Tax Act
I should point out that my bill has two sections. Perhaps I might say that it has two parts or two propositions in order that I may refer to them without breaking the rule which says that one may not refer to the clauses of a bill on second reading. Actually my bill might be regarded as two bills rolled into one, having, therefore, two principles to both of which I must speak.
The first aim of the bill concerns hearings before the income tax appeal board. As hon. members know, there is a provision in the Income Tax Act which makes it possible for hearings before that board to be heard in camera, upon request. My proposal is that that section of the Income Tax Act should be amended to add the qualification that if the appellant is a corporation the appeal shall be heard in public. In other words, if that part of my bill becomes law it will still be possible for a private individual taking his case to the income tax appeal board to request that his appeal be heard in camera, but it would not be possible for a corporation to have its case before the income tax appeal board heard other than in public.
I think it has been an open secret that the incident which has prompted my interest and perhaps the interest of others in this proposal is the case covered by the income tax appeal board judgment No. 227, which concerned a certain firm which sought income tax deductibility with respect to some $27,789.02 which was spent for repairs and improvements to a certain property which it claimed it was using to entertain public officials in order to obtain contracts for government work. As hon. members know, the Department of National Revenue denied that claim in the first instance. The corporation in question thereupon appealed to the income tax appeal board, and in the end that board took the side of the Department of National Revenue and the deductibility was not allowed.


Mr. Harris:: I take it you approve of the action of the government?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I approve of the action of the Department of National Revenue in the first instance, and I approve of the judgment of the income tax appeal board in supporting the action of the Department of National Revenue; but I deplore the fact that we have a law which made it possible for this firm-


Walter Edward Harris: To be taxed?


Stanley Howard Knowles: -to have a hearing of this kind in camera and enjoy the secrecy which has continued to surround the fact that it even tried to get income tax deductibility for an expenditure of this kind. Not only should it be taxed; we should know what firm it was.

The judgment of the income tax appeal board, signed by W. S. Fisher, a member of the board, had this to say:
I express no opinion as to why it should be necessary to entertain public officials in order to obtain contracts for work to be done for the benefit of public bodies, but apparently the appellant-and, no doubt, its competitors-have found that such entertainment has been not only necessary but also beneficial from a business point of view.
I suggest that this is a scathing indictment concerning the way in which some private businesses carry on. I suggest it opens up a very broad question as to whether there are any firms that are getting income tax deductibility for expenditures of that kind or for other expenditures which might have a political connection of one kind or another. It does seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that the time has come to lift the veil of secrecy behind which matters of this kind are considered.
The hon. member for Eglinton and perhaps other hon. members in his party and some of us in this party have asked questions of the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Revenue a number of times, but to date we have not obtained much information about this firm or any dealings it may or may not have had with the federal government. Likewise, we do not know whether or not it had dealings with other governments.
I was interested in an article dealing with this matter which appeared in the February 12 issue of Saturday Night. This most interesting issue carried a picture of the Minister of National Revenue on the front cover, and on page 4 there appeared an article entitled "Tax Secrecy". After reporting the difficulties which I had experienced in obtaining an answer to some of my questions the article said:
Dr. McCann did not elaborate, but he should be questioned further. It might start a needed debate about the virtue of secrecy in cases that involve matters of public concern.
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the basis of this part of my bill. I feel that what is involved here and the whole matter which has been raised by Mr. Fisher's judgment is a matter of public concern. I suggest that the virtue of secrecy in cases such as this has been shattered, and that it is time we changed the law with respect to corporation hearings before the income tax appeal board.
Having raised the question of the appellant in case No. 227, I wish to say that I believe in the rule of law. I do not believe in changing the rules in the middle of the game, although I have seen that done. I do not think it is now proper to change the law in any retroactive way and deny to this firm the secrecy it enjoyed in that particular case.

Mind you, the government has the information. The government, through the Minister of National Revenue, was the respondent in the case and therefore must have all the information. It is up to the government whether or not it wishes to disclose the identity of the appellant. It is up to the government to decide what interpretation it places on the law with respect to that matter. The point I wish to make is that my bill does not try to change the rules with regard to the past. It is not unfair in that respect. It does propose, however, that the change should be made from here on and that in future no corporation should be allowed to go before the income tax appeal board in camera, in private, or behind the veil of secrecy.
I have been privately asked by some who are interested if there are not instances where individuals should not have the right to private hearings either. I have no doubt there are individual cases which might be borderline cases where secrecy should not be allowed. However, one has to lay down general rules, and I would say that there may be some individual cases which should not be denied the right to be heard in camera. Most individual cases should be accorded that right. Therefore the only way to deal with the matter is to leave it that all individual cases are covered by the provision that they can be heard in camera, on request.
On the other hand, so far as corporations are concerned, they are public bodies. What they do is a matter of public concern. I do not think they should ever have the right to take these appeals to the board and have them heard in camera. I hope those who have been concerned about the rather staggering or shocking revelations that came out of the appeal board consideration of case No. 227 will share my view that this is something not just to ask questions about, not just to make big speeches about on the floor of the House of Commons, but something to legislate about so it shall not happen again. On that basis I urge support of the first proposal contained in Bill No. 163, which is now before the house.
As I have already indicated, Mr. Speaker, my bill has two principles, two parts or two proposals. The other proposal is not new in terms of a public bill. It is a matter which I have laid before parliament on a number of occasions in the past. It is like some other matters that we fight for from this side of the house; we are obliged to keep on fighting for a long time until we win. I urge hon. members to think of this second aspect in the light of the things we have just been
Income Tax Act
discussing with regard to the judgment in case No. 227. Under that heading I drew the attention of hon. members to the fact that corporations are, after all, matters of public concern. What they do or how they carry on their business affects the economy of the nation. Not only does it affect the economy of the nation, but the revenues of the federal government are influenced largely by the arrangements-if I may call them that-that are made between the income tax branch and corporations that pay taxes.
Most individuals who pay taxes use the income tax form. It has been simplified. It is cut and dried and there is not much leeway as to what the tax will be. If you have the receipts for various allowable contributions or expenditures you get your deductions for them. If you have not the receipts you do not get the deductions. As I say, there is little leeway one way or the other as to the amount that, in the end, is paid by individuals.
In the case of corporations, however, there are many factors that are taken into consideration. There are such questions as allowances for depreciation and depletion. There is the question of the allowance for expenditures, what expenditures are necessary in the carrying on of the business and so on. We know that corporations retain legal counsel and accountants to work on these matters, and we know that many corporation income tax returns are the subject of claims and counterclaims between the corporation and the Department of National Revenue. However, the public does not know what the result is, although the public is affected by the amount of money that corporations, in the end, are required to pay-or are excused from paying-to the federal treasury.
I remind hon. members that on quite a number of occasions we have asked questions which I think were perfectly legitimate, the answers to which we have been denied on the ground that there is in the Income Tax Act section 133, which says that no information obtained from income tax returns can be given out. I think of occasions when there have been labour disputes, when the company or corporation involved has run huge advertisements ostensibly setting forth its side of the dispute but, in our view, castigating the workers unfairly. We have asked whether the cost of those advertisements would be allowed as an income tax deduction; or in other words was the public treasury paying for advertising of that kind. Every time we have asked that question-and I submit that it is a perfectly justifiable question-the answer given by the Minister of National Revenue has been that he could not give

Income Tax Act
that information because of section 133 of the Income Tax Act which provides for ironclad secrecy.
Similarly there have been times when we have felt that advertisements by chartered banks-even these harmless advertisements which nobody reads, setting out the annual report-have really been political documents. I have some on my desk-I shall not take time to read them-in which such comments are made that I do not think anyone would doubt that they are attacks on a certain political party in this country. Again we have asked whether the costs of political advertising of that kind are allowed income tax deductibility and we are met with the same reply, namely that this information cannot be given out by the minister because of the ironclad secrecy set out in section 133 of the Income Tax Act.
A few days ago-as a matter of fact, it was on the very day this bill of mine was introduced and given first reading-my colleague the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) presented a motion asking for certain correspondence exchanged between the government and certain corporations which he named. I am looking at a motion found at page 1331 of Hansard for February 21, 1955. This correspondence related to the question of tax liability and/or tax remission for the years 1946 to 1952 inclusive. My friend the hon. member for Dauphin has some information with regard to this matter which he obtained from government sources, and he may have something to say about it later.
The point I want to make here briefly is simply this. These corporations which were named by my colleague entered into certain negotiations or dealings with the federal Department of National Revenue which ended in a certain remission of tax even while the matter was still pending in the courts. I understand that this was done by order in council under the authority of the Financial Administration Act. I am not in a position to suggest that anything that was done was improper, but I suggest strongly that the public interest is involved and that we have the right to that information. When my colleague the hon. member for Dauphin proposed his motion on February 21, everyone knows what the reply was by the Minister of National Revenue, namely that he could not give this information because of the section in the Income Tax Act which surrounds income tax information, even though obtained from corporations, by this thick veil of secrecy.
I move on to another example, Mr. Speaker. Last session, on June 23, 1954, I drew the attention of the house to a rather fantastic

story, namely that of United Distillers Limited of Vancouver. As hon. members will recall, this is the case of a few men who were able to pyramid $4,000 into $20 million in a very short time by setting up certain corporations that were manufacturing and selling liquor just at the end of world war II. It really is a fantastic story, how they made the liquor in Canada, incorporated companies in Cuba and Panama and sold it in the United States, thereby making all kinds of money. Some of these people, including three Canadians, have been under indictment in the United States for evading the payment of some $16 million in income tax in that country.


Mr. Philpott:: For alleged evasion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right. I will say
allegedly.


Elmore Philpott: Let the courts decide.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are under indictment for the alleged evasion of some $16,400,000 in taxes. As I understand it, the case is still being kicked around in both the United States and Canada. An aspect of it with which the hon. member for Vancouver South is probably familiar is that certain people in Vancouver are now claiming that this company got certain money back which went into the possession of some people in Canada, whereas these other people should have had their share of it. That is their private fight, and it is in the courts. Incidentally, in connection with this very case the court in British Columbia cast doubt upon the authority of the government to withhold income tax information even though it was written in the law.
The point I wish to make, as I pointed out on June 23 last year, is that it seems to me there is a public interest in this matter. These people were making these huge sums of money, and in questionable ways, too. The questipn arises, did the Canadian tax authorities get from them all the money to which they were entitled? The Minister of National Revenue interrupted my remarks early and often when I was speaking on June 23, 1954, to assure me that the Canadian tax authorities got a jump ahead of the United States tax authorities and got a sizeable chunk of tax money out of these people. I have no doubt he did, and I can only take his word that the department got all that it felt it should get out of this huge ill-gotten gain of these people. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, we have the right to know what kind of deal, what kind of arrangement was made with these people, and how much of this money found its way into the federal treasury. When I asked the minister if he

would tell me how much they paid in taxes, of course I got the same answer, that he could not do so because of the secrecy provision in the income tax law.
There are one or two other things I should like to say in connection with this case. It has been considered at length in the United States, and I have in my hand a voluminous document entitled "Internal Revenue Investigation." It contains the report of the hearings before what was known as the King committee at Washington, and this book of some thousand pages or more is described as part 4 of those hearings. I want to read a sentence or two from page 3023. Mr. Klein, a brother of one of the Canadians involved in this huge deal about which we cannot get any information here because of the secrecy provision in our law, was on the stand before this congressional committee in Washington. When he was asked certain questions he made a reply, the pertinent part of which was:
I went further than that. We also consulted tax counsel. As a matter of fact, I made a personal visit to the deputy minister for taxation in Canada at Ottawa, and asked his opinion also, and got a written opinion from him as to the taxability of the operation.
He went on to say that he also obtained tax opinions from attorneys in other countries about this whole fantastic deal. The next day when this same witness was on the stand he made it clear, as found at page 3064, to whom he had been talking in Canada. He said:
At this point again I would like to point out that I had gone to Mr. E. Frazier Elliott-
They have the right name although it is misspelled here.
-deputy minister for taxation for the Dominion of Canada. I explained the method of operation in Canada. I requested an opinion from him whether the corporations were taxable under the Canadian laws. I received a written opinion from Mr. Elliott which is in the hands, I believe, of the government-
I believe he was referring to the United States government at that point.
-stating that it was not taxable.
Later on the same page he makes it clear, in response to other questions, that Mr. Elliott had told him that this fantastic operation in which these people were engaged was not taxable in Canada. He had a written statement, he gave it to the United States authorities, and he discussed it before the committee down there, but we can get no information here.
I shall go on and read two or three more questions and answers. Mr. Klein was asked
Income Tax Act
about his interview with Mr. Elliott. The passage is as follows:


Mr.   DeWind@: Did you tell him accurately all of the facts concerning the method of operations?


Mr. Klein:: Yes.


Mr.   DeWind@: You are sure of that?


Milton L. Klein: I am reasonably sure. sir.


Mr.   DeWind@: It is a matter of considerable
importance. Are you entirely sure you told him correctly?


Milton L. Klein: I believe I did, sir.


Mr.   DeWind@: Coming back to this $20 million,
how was it distributed? Do you know which persons or corporations received the $20 million?
That is t'he $20 million that was pyramided up from the original investment of $4,000.


Milton L. Klein: I believe it went to the United
Distillers of Canada Limited, the holding company.
Look at the picture, Mr. Speaker. This man says that he discussed the matter with Mr. Fraser Elliott, then deputy minister for taxation, who told him verbally and gave him a written document to the effect that this operation was not taxable in Canada, and on that basis they carried on and made this money. Later the Minister of National Revenue tells us that the outfit was taxed and that a huge sum was taken from the earnings of this company. I have no reason to doubt that the sum would be huge, considering such facts as we are able to get; but does it not seem obvious that the public has a right to know what is going on here, what it was that Mr. Elliott told these people, and what sort of arrangement has been made in the end, if indeed the end has yet been reached?
I have more information about this particular company and operation, but the basic facts that are of concern to the public, how much it has paid to the federal treasury and whether or not that is the total amount it should have paid, are on the other side of that veil of secrecy about which the hon. member for Prince Albert talks in the house sometimes. It is true not only of shady corporations that make money as this outfit did and which find themselves in the courts, but also of all kinds of corporations, that they are involved in these arrangements, discussions, negotiations and deals, if we may call them that, with the Department of National Revenue; and I submit that the public interest is involved in these matters.
I am not suggesting that we should swing the pendulum clear to the other extreme and start publishing huge books containing all the information the Department of National Revenue possesses, but I do submit that when members of parliament in the Senate or in the House of Commons on their responsibility as members feel that certain information regarding corporation income tax matters

Income Tax Act
should be brought out in the open, the minister at least should be free to give that information. That is all my bill asks for, so far as these matters are concerned, and I submit that there is not a member in the house who should refuse to agree to that proposition. 1 leave the section regarding secrecy in its present form and merely add these words:
Provided that nothing in this section shall operate to prevent a minister of the crown from communicating to the Senate or to the House of Commons any information with respect to corporations obtained under the provisions of this act.
As I have already pointed out several times, the bill makes no change in the strict secrecy provisions that now apply to income tax matters so far as individuals are concerned. That is true both with respect to the right to be heard in camera before the income tax appeal board if you are an individual, and with respect to information contained in individual income tax returns. But I strongly urge that the time has come for a new look at the whole picture so far as corporations are concerned.
I have noticed some of the editorial comment criticizing this bill even before it has been debated in the house, and I do not mind that. In fact, I am glad to see it, and to know what are the arguments against the bill. For example, the Financial Times a while ago pleaded that a corporation is an entity and, as such, is entitled to all the rights and privileges accorded the individual. But I notice when we advocate that certain matters should be publicly or socially owned one of the stock replies is that corporations today are publicly and socially owned, that they are owned by the people. It is said that they are not private entities unto themselves, but that they are part of the warp and woof of the economy we have today. I suggest to these people that they cannot have it both ways. If private corporations, so-called, are really publicly owned, in the sense that the people of this country own them through their ownership of shares and so on, and if they play the part that the apologists of private enterprise say they play in building up the economy and in paying money into the federal treasury, then I submit that makes them clearly a matter of public concern, and that they should not be allowed to hide behind this veil of secrecy which is found in the act.
It has been there a long time, I know. It is one of the traditions of the income tax legislation in this country, and it is hard to break it down. But I submit to hon. members who are annoyed by the veil of secrecy with respect to some other matters that here is a place where one should start to pierce the veil.

I invite hon. members to give serious consideration to both aspects of the bill, and I would remind them that it does simply two things. First, it provides that future hearings before the income tax appeal board would always have to be in public when the appellant is a corporation, so that no firm could hide behind secrecy with respect to any Shangri-La, or the like. Second this bill asks that the secrecy clause regarding information obtained by (the income tax branch be modified so that it would be possible for a minister to give information to the Senate and the House of Commons, particularly when asked for by members of the Senate or of the House of Commons on their responsibilities as servants of the public, in their pursuit of the best interests of this country as a whole.


Mr. Zapliiny:: Mr. Speaker,-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. Before the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) speaks, while I am not going to presume to give a ruling at the moment, I am going to direct the attention of the sponsor of the bill to a citation or ruling as it is found in Beauchesne's third edition which, I suggest, may have some application to the validity of his bill as it is now submitted.
At page 357 of this volume there is reference to the rules of the House of Commons in connection with the preparation and printing of bills, and it says in part:
2.	In the text of the bill, on the left hand page, new matter shall be indicated by such typographical means as may best suit the varying circumstances of each case, such as brackets, italics, underlining, asterisks, etc. Opposite each clause, on the right hand page, the enactment amended thereby, or so much thereof as is essential, shall be printed with the proposed changes to be made therein similarly indicated.
3.	When a clause repeals an existing section, subsection or other minor division of a section, that section, subsection of division, or so much thereof as is essential, shall be printed opposite the clause.
It is possible that these regulations would apply only to bills submitted by the government. As to that I make no decision at the moment. However, I am inviting the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, not at the moment but before his bill comes up again, to give some consideration to the point raised.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would you permit me to say one word. I shall certainly study the matter you have raised. But my one word is this, that the section or subsection proposed to be amended in both cases is there, on the left-hand page, previous to the words that are underlined.

Income Tax Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: 1
may tell the hon. member I had noticed that. I am also not too impressed by the wording of the rule I have just read, which says that it shall be printed opposite the section referred to.
However, I draw this point to the hon. member's attention because, should his bill receive favourable consideration in the House of Commons and proceed further, I am sure he would not want it at that time to be ruled invalid because of some technical error which had developed at this stage of proceedings.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If necessary, we could consider having the bill reprinted.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the bill, and do so because I believe there is a definite public interest to be protected in this matter.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has made reference to a certain return I attempted to have passed by the house on February 21. The reply given at that time by the Minister of National Revenue, in refusing to bring down the return, was that the secrecy provisions of the act would prevent his doing so.
I am not questioning that reply or the position he took, because if the act does not permit his making public certain information, then of course he is bound by the act, just the same as anybody else. But there have been some serious doubts in the public mind as to the basis upon which certain decisions were arrived at, particularly as they referred to corporations.
Today I should like to bring to the attention of the house one particular case in which I feel there is room for considerable doubt, and where the decision reached calls for an explanation by the government. That was the reason I asked for the return. I wanted to know on what basis the government arrived at the decision which they made valid by order in council, and what were the factors which led them to believe they were making a good deal for the treasury.
The return for which I had asked had to do with certain tax remissions made by the government, by orders in council, to a group of companies. The companies concerned were the Aluminum Company of Canada Limited, the Gatineau Power Company, the Saguenay Power Company Limited and the Bell Telephone Company.
So no one will think I am singling them out for any particular reason I would refer hon. members to part II of the Public Accounts, at page 4 of which they will find a statement as required by the Financial Administration Act, which sets out
the total list of companies receiving tax remissions. There are a few other than the ones to which I have referred, but these four happen to be the larger ones. A large amount of money was involved, and it was for that reason I wanted to have all the facts.
My first question asked whether these particular firms received any tax remissions for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1954, and there was an affirmative reply. The amounts of the remissions given were as follows: The Aluminum Company of Canada Limited, $549,697.68; the Gatineau Power Company, $496,772.60; the Saguenay Power Company Limited, $576,598.15 and the Bell Telephone Company, $371,659.68. That adds up to almost $2 million. Naturally any citizen of Canada who is a taxpayer and who looks through the public accounts would want to know why these companies should receive tax remissions amounting to almost $2 million, particularly those who have been harried and pursued by income tax inspectors in recent years, and those who are wondering what is going to happen to them this year. For example, only yesterday the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Johnson) asked the Minister of National Revenue whether the government was going to allow any leniency to those who suffered crop failures in the west when it comes to the collection of income tax. Part of his question reads as follows, as found at page 1677 of Hansard:
Can the minister assure the house that the practice of garnisheeing entire bank accounts which are required for spring work operations will be discontinued?
The minister replied:
I can give no such assurance.
I have a particular case in mind where the equipment of a farmer has been garnisheed by the government in order to collect the tax they claim is due. Very little consideration was shown as to whether or not that person was in a position to pay. But if a harried taxpayer looks into the public accounts and finds that four Canadian companies have had remission of taxes amounting to close to $2 million, he will want to know why. It was for that reason I sought the information. The only information I was able to get was contained in the return of Monday, February 14, 1955, sessional paper 99-B. The explanation given to my inquiry as to why these remissions were made is as follows:
In 1946, the legislature of the province of Quebec imposed a tax, known as the Quebec education tax, on certain companies.
Among them were the four to which I have made reference. The return continues:
In computing the federal tax liability of the companies in question for the years 1946 to 1952,

Income Tax Act
this tax was not allowed as a deduction for the purpose of establishing net taxable income.
That was interesting to me. I looked up the statutes and I found that the authority for the non-allowance of the deduction is contained in section 12, paragraph (g) of the act, which reads as follows:
A corporation tax, as defined by regulation, paid to the government of a province or to a municipality, or-
That was included as one of the deductions not to be made for income tax purposes. Quite clearly this was a tax paid to a provincial government. The result was that the matter was submitted to the income tax appeal board, presumably by the companies concerned, and the board decided in favour of the companies. Then the government took the matter to the exchequer court as an appeal, and the board's decision was reversed.
The important thing to remember is that the only instance in which a court ruling was obtained was that of the exchequer court, and that court ruled in favour of the government. In other words it ruled that that tax could not be deducted, and that the companies had to pay their income tax as assessed.
The next step was that the companies concerned appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. Before the appeals were heard by the supreme court the government introduced an amendment to the act. They amended that section of the act by providing for the deletion of paragraph (g). The amendment reads as follows:
Subsection (1) of section 12 of the said act is amended by inserting the word "or" at the end of paragraph (f) thereof and by repealing paragraph (g) thereof.
That was to be effective from January 1, 1953, and for subsequent taxation years. In other words they removed the paragraph which provided that certain deductions such as I have described could not be made, and the amendment was to apply to 1953 and subsequent years. In other words, by no stretch of the imagination could it have any effect whatever on the tax liability of those companies for the period 1946 to 1952, which was then in question before the supreme court.
But what happened next? Those companies approached the government. There is no information to show whom they approached or whom they met over there, but the government of course has to take the responsibility. I read again from the return of February 14:
The companies in question, prior to the hearing of the appeals by the Supreme Court of Canada and subsequent to the passing of the above-mentioned legislation-
[Mr. Zaplitny.l
The legislation referred to is the amendment which removed paragraph (g) of section 12. I continue:
.-made an offer to settle the appeals on the basis that they be allowed, as a deduction in computing their taxable income, one half of the amounts of the Quebec education tax paid by them in respect of each of the years 1946 to 1952, inclusive.
It is a very interesting situation. The exchequer court had already ruled in favour of the government, that the companies were liable for a certain tax. The companies took their appeal to the supreme court, but before the appeal was heard in the supreme court the government amended the act to make it possible to make such deductions from 1953 on. On that basis, they received an offer from the companies concerned to pay half their liability and let the rest go. There is something very fishy about an approach of that kind. What was the reaction of the government? I read again from the return:
Taking into consideration the uncertainty of the outcome of the pending appeals to the supreme court-
I see no particular reason why there should be any great uncertainty in the mind of the government, when one considers that the exchequer court had ruled in its favour. Apparently, the government had very little confidence in the good judgment of the exchequer court. I continue:
*-and of the effect of the new legislation, it was considered advisable to accept the offer of the settlement made by the companies.
The second part of their reason or excuse is very interesting. They say "taking into consideration the effect of the new legislation". What was the new legislation? It was the amendment to section 12, which was to take effect in 1953 and subsequent years, and which had absolutely nothing to do with the taxation years 1946 to 1952. The government had absolutely no grounds for speaking about the effect of an amendment passed in 1953 which plainly stated it was to take effect in that year and in subsequent years only. It was not retroactive. They had no reason to believe that legislation would have any bearing on the dispute between the government and the companies in the years 1946 to 1952. On that alleged basis the government allowed a cash remission to these four companies amounting to almost $2 million.
There should be no surprise that the government did that. Hon. members and the public generally should feel very suspicious about that kind of deal. Certainly the grounds on which the government claims those tax remissions were made appear to be very fishy. Here we had a court ruling, the only one up to date, in favour of the treasury.

War Veterans Allowance Act
An appeal was taken to the supreme court by the companies. Certainly the government would have every reason to believe that it the exchequer court had ruled in its favour, and if the legislation which was on the statute books until 1953 was sound, it could have relied on the judgments of the courts rather than on the shaky premise outlined in this return in which they say:
Taking into consideration the uncertainty of the outcome of the pending appeals to the supreme court and of the effect of the new legislation-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: have been trying to follow the hon. member, and I think I have been following him fairly closely. In so far as he is directing his remarks to the disadvantages of the secrecy provisions in the act he would be at liberty to proceed, but it seems to me that he is arguing the merits of certain taxation cases rather than the secrecy which surrounds them. Perhaps he will try to keep as closely to the bill as possible.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I shall be glad to do that. In order to place clearly before the house why I was objecting to the secrecy provisions contained in the act it was necessary for me to refer to particular cases and go into some detail. I have covered that ground now, and would go on to point out that clearly there is a legitimate reason for the citizens of Canada feeling doubtful and even suspicious when tax remissions amounting to almost $2 million are made to four companies on a basis which does not appear to be well-founded. When we attempt in this house, as I did on February 21 last, to obtain copies of the correspondence between these companies and the government dealing with the tax dispute, we are met with a refusal.
I should like to point out that in this proposed return I was not seeking information as to the financial position of these companies, or as to anything contained in their income tax returns. I was simply asking for the correspondence between the government and the companies with respect to the dispute, and that is so stated in the question. That was refused on the grounds of this secrecy provision.
If this house and the public are ever to get the full story behind this deal, which after all involves $2 million which in my opinion should have gone into the public treasury; if they are going to be able to judge whether the government used good judgment and had sound reasons for accepting the deal, which on its face to me looks very shady and suspicious, the only way we can make that judgment, the only way we can satisfy our minds that everything was aboveboard and at arm's
length, is by getting copies of the correspondence and finding out what transpired. As it is now, as soon as we get near the source of information the curtain is rung down in our faces and we are told, "Sorry, boys, we just simply cannot tell you what took place. It was a deal which cost the public treasury $2 million, but we cannot tell you just how it was arrived at."
Individual taxpayers, including farmers, wage earners and others, are finding these days that the screws are being tightened by the collection branch of the Department of National Revenue, and stiffer treatment is being handed out at a time when there is a great deal of hardship in some parts of the country, when they will not take "no" for an answer, or even "maybe". At such a time the government are able to make a tax remission of $2 million to four companies and not explain the situation in this house, make no attempt to justify it; and when questions are asked they tell us they cannot give us any information because of the secrecy provisions of the act.
Under circumstances of that kind I believe that all hon. members of this house, whether they sit in opposition or on the government side, as individual private members representing the taxpayers and the citizens of Canada have a right to demand that the veil of secrecy be removed; that where there is reason to believe that something of an unusual nature has been done by the government by order in council the full facts should be placed before this house so everybody will be satisfied that the taxpayers and citizens of Canada are receiving justice at the hands of this government.
On motion of Mr. Churchill the debate was adjourned.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lapointe for the second reading of Bill No. 164, to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock when this debate was interrupted I had mentioned the fact that we felt rather optimistic
1744	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act about what would be the results after Bill No. 164 was referred to the committee. I mentioned the fact that our optimism was based on statements which were made by various members at different times. I mentioned particularly some of the hon. members on the other side of the house. I referred to the hon. member for Vancouver South, and I spoke of the thrill he received when he attended a meeting of his irate constituents. The hon. member had this to say in describing that meeting, as recorded at page 101 of Hansard of January 11, 1955:
I had to do some very frank talking.
I am certain the hon. member had to do some frank talking indeed.
I had to tell them that, so far as we on this side of the house were concerned-and I was sure it was also true of others in all parts of the house-
That was a very generous statement coming from the hon. member.
-we would continue to do our level best to see that those in Canada entitled to war veterans allowances got their just due at the earliest possible moment.
As I see it, the earliest possible moment at which the war veterans will get their just due will be when the committee on veterans affairs is set up and the matter is placed before it. The hon. member was very generous in saying-
-so iar as we on this side of the house were concerned-and I was sure it was also true of others in all parts of the house-
-considering the fact that we on this side of the house have been pressing not only this year and last year but for a number of years for what we consider, and I think the veterans and the public consider, to be the just due of the war veterans, and considering the fact that the war veterans have not received their just due entirely because of the members on the other side of the house. That statement does sound rather peculiar to me, and I am sure it must also seem peculiar to other hon. members.
I could mention many other hon. members, but I do not wish to do so at the present time. Time and time again the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode), the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Mac-Dougall), and the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) have intimated that this permissive income was too low.
The minister mentioned the fact that the female veterans, the widows of veterans and others would be included under section 4 of this bill. We highly approve of that. It certainly is a move in the right direction. This is a point which has never been given the consideration by the veterans which we expected. I was quite surprised to read in
(Mr. Brooks.]

the last report issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs that in round figures only 1,100 veterans out of approximately 30,000 had taken advantage of section 4. This was the case last year and I have no doubt the figures have increased for this year.
We need not be surprised at that because, as I mentioned this afternoon, the veterans are becoming too old. Today the average age of the war veteran under veterans allowance would be about 64 or 65. These men are getting too old for casual labour or to take advantage of section 4 of the War Veterans Allowance Act.
The minister also mentioned-and of course it is in the bill-that there will be an increase in the salaries of the board in charge of war veterans allowances. We can see no objection to this provision. Increases in salaries have been given in the Department of Veterans Affairs and every other department composed of men who have practically the same positions as these men in charge of war veterans allowances. I have always felt, and I have no hesitation in saying this, that these men have done and are doing a good job. I feel also that the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the department have been very fortunate in the calibre of men they have had administering the act.
There are some things which are not in the act which I would like to have seen included. For instance, I would like to have seen allowances granted to the men who required them who had service in England during the first war. This is an old recommendation. I have heard this recommended in this house for the past 15 or 20 years. There are very few of those men alive today compared with the number a few years ago. While we cannot use the same argument for them, that is that they were aged by service in France, I still think the same argument could be used as was used for the men under the dual service.
It seems to me that when we are bringing this act up to date we should give consideration to those men who had service only in England. Service in England during the second world war was considered as service in a theatre of war. Despite the fact that conditions were more dangerous in England during the second world war than during the first, England was nevertheless bombed in the first war, and the men who served in the first division in England were encamped at Salisbury plain and other parts of England and their accommodation did not equal that provided in the second war.
There is another matter which has been brought before veterans affairs committees on many occasions. I refer to the widows of

allied veterans. Under the act as it stands at present imperial or allied veterans who have had 20 years' residence in Canada come under the War Veterans Allowance Act, but their widows do not unless these men have had that 20 years' residence. The result is that an allied veteran might have 19 years and 360 days' residence in Canada and lack only a few days' residence to qualify his widow for receipt of the war veterans allowance should he die before those few days are up.
It has been recommended, and I think it is a reasonable recommendation, that if the widow has had 20 years' residence in Canada she should then be entitled to the allowance if her husband would have been entitled to it if he had lived here for 20 years. I think that is a most reasonable request. The widows of our Canadian war veterans allowance recipients and those who are entitled to it receive it when they reach the age of 55. I think there should be an amendment to the act to provide that these widows of imperial and other veterans should receive the war veterans allowance on reaching the age of 55, if resident in Canada for 20 years.
Mr. Speaker, this war veterans allowance has been given first consideration by the Canadian Legion, the national council of veterans, the army, navy and air force veterans, the amputations association, the war blinded association and the war widows. All these people have considered that war veterans allowance should have first priority in veterans affairs during the last few years. The one thing they have been most critical of has been the ceiling on war veterans allowance or the amount of permissible income.
A few years ago-I think it was in 1951, as I remember it-the Pension Act was before the veterans affairs committee. The committee of that day did not consider that the increase in pensions was large enough. It was only 10 per cent. It was scorned by the members of the committee and by members on all sides of the house. Representations were made, and an offer was made to increase it to 15 per cent. That figure was not acceptable to the committee. It was brought up to 25 per cent. Some of us thought it should be more, and recommended 33J per cent. But it was generally agreed that 25 per cent would be accepted, and the committee made that recommendation.
As to this Bill No. 164, I am satisfied that the members of the committee from all sides of the house are again going to feel that justice is not being done to the veterans. I am satisfied that Bill No. 164 will be amended just as the pension bill was amended a few years ago.
War Veterans Allowance Act
In. speaking this afternoon the minister rather compared the recipients of war veterans allowance with those who were ijn receipt of pension. I did not follow his argument, and I should like to read more carefully what he said; but in my opinion you cannot compare war veterans allowance recipients and those in receipt of pension. With regard to those in receipt of pension there is no ceiling on what they can earn or what they may receive outside of their pension. They may receive $1,000, $10,000 $15,000 or whatever they are able to earn whatever their income may be.


Hugues Lapointe: I was referring to disability pension.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes; the disability pension That is exactly what I am talking about.


Hugues Lapointe: You cannot get $15,000 on disability pension.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I say there is no ceiling on what they can earn. A man may very well earn $1,000, $10,000 or $15,000; but a war veterans allowance recipient if he is single can have income up to only $840 under this bill and, if he is married, up to only $1,440. There is no comparison at all. I was rather surprised to hear the minister try to make that comparison this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will be before the committee. There are many other points we can discuss at that time. I may say I am pleased indeed that a veterans affairs committee is being set up. I am sure that while members from all parts of the house may disagree on certain things, this is one subject on which we can find a large measure of agreement. I have always found the veterans affairs committee one of the most interesting that I have had the honour to sit on, and I am certainly looking forward to sitting on this committee again this year.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the minister and the explanations he gave for the government's action in introducing this bill as it now stands. I must admit that when listening to the minister, one has to be extremely careful indeed not to permit the genial atmosphere which he creates to affect one's judgment. I shall have to read carefully tomorrow what he has had to say today in order to be quite certain that I understood correctly the information he gave us.
I also listened with a great deal of interest to the historical review of the war veterans allowance legislation given by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) and to his speech in general. There is one thing to be noted about this sort of legislation, Mr. Speaker. We may be in different parties and we may

War Veterans Allowance Act question one another's judgment on certain things, but on this side of the house-and I know it is true with regard to a good many members on the other side of the house- when it comes to a question of veterans legislation, there is a common sympathy for their problems.
In the explanatory notes we find this:
The principal purposes of the amendments are to provide for an increase in the present monthly allowance and for the raising of the limits of the permissible income, and to extend certain benefits of the act to certain additional classes of persons.
We in this group support the principle of the bill. The criticism we have is that there is not enough of the principle. We are pleased indeed that the government has introduced the bill and has at least gone part way in meeting the requests of the Canadian Legion and other veterans organizations and the needs of large numbers of veterans and their dependents. But we in this group are sorry they have not gone all the way in meeting the needs of the people we are concerned about this evening. Many veterans and their dependents, the members of this house and the veterans organizations in Canada have been waiting for three years for this legislation. You, Mr. Speaker, can readily appreciate the fact that, even- with all these faults in the bill, we are glad the government has seen fit to act to this extent.
When we come to deal with this type of legislation I cannot help thinking of my former comrades, and I know other members in this house think of their former comrades on these occasions. I notice the honourable and gallant member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) is listening intently. I am pleased to see that, because I know he is interested in this question. In fairness, Mr. Speaker, I may say that while I question the hon. member's judgment on occasion, I have a great respect for his excellent war record.
Mr. Speaker, I said I thought of my former comrades who will be affected by this legislation. Many of them will benefit to some extent and others, because of the limitations of the legislation, will not have their present circumstances improved. At this moment I am thinking of a man who was in our company. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) knows him well. I refer to Jimmy Hall of Graham's landing who during an advance captured, single-handed, a German commander and a whole brigade staff. He entered a German dugout on our right flank unexpectedly. When he walked down the steps he found a brigade staff. The German commander said, "Who are you?". He said, "I belong to the Kootenay Cougars" and they all surrendered immediately. That
[Mr. Herridge.l
man saved a number of lives in our battalion on that occasion by the capture of that commander and his staff. He did great work that day for Canada, single-handed, for which he was decorated. He returned to Canada. He has worked hard since then- until last year, part of the time for the government of Canada. However, he is getting on in years; he cannot quite take it any longer. He now receives war veterans allowance. He has been thrifty and hard-working. He has saved a little bit. He has been a good citizen.
That is the type of man I am thinking of tonight when I plead for increases in war veterans allowances and improvements in the bill. I can think of another man whom the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra also knows because we served together in the same company. His name is Joseph Crowell, who lives in my home town and was a scout in our battalion. He went through the most unusual experiences and his health has suffered ever since on account of those experiences. He also was decorated for bravery. He worked up until the last year or two, and he is now on war veterans allowance. He has had an invalid wife to take care of for over 15 years. He has had to get along on an allowance of $90 a month, look after an invalid wife, and at 75 years of age look for the odd job to keep him going. These are the men of whom I am thinking tonight when I support improvements in this legislation.
I can think of a man from the native town of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, Tom Horner. We went through some interesting experiences together during one of our raids at Ypres. He is now in Shaughnessy hospital, not suffering from a pensionable disability but from a physical breakdown, without doubt occasioned by his exceptional and unusual war experiences. In my personal recollections I think of Reggie Howe, the secretary of our 54th battalion regimental association of which I have the honour to be the honorary president. He has also suffered for many years from disabilities and ill health. These are the kind of men, and their dependents, whom I am thinking of when I ask for improvements in the war veterans allowance legislation.
This legislation is of great importance, as we all know, to many veterans and their dependents, and because of that has been of great concern to the Canadian Legion, particularly during the past three years. To support that I want to read briefly from the report of the resolutions committee at the

last convention of the Canadian Legion. The paragraph is entitled "War Veterans Allowance" and reads as follows:
Before we submit our resolutions in regard to the War Veterans Allowance Act, we feel that a few preliminary words of explanation are due to the delegates of this convention.
Then there is the heading "Importance of Matter". It continues:
The importance of this matter is indicated by the number of recipients of war veterans allowance across Canada and by the acuteness of their need. At present there are approximately 42,000 veterans who are receiving some assistance under this act. There are many thousands more who are in need but under existing legislation are not eligible for the help they require. If anything is to be done to help these people it must be done soon, and we would seek to impress upon the delegates to this convention the fact that there is no matter of veterans legislation of greater or more immediate concern to the veterans of Canada than that of war veterans allowance. It is imperative that we do what we can and do it quickly.
The next paragraph is headed "The Legion's Role", and reads:
For years we have been pressing for an increase in the allowance, the raising of the permissive ceiling, and a broadening of the basis of eligibility. Some progress has been made in legislation and amending of regulations, which has eased the problems of those able to do light work. But little has been accomplished for those who are unable to work. There is not much we can do in the way of presenting suggestions for new legislation or for the development of new arguments for positions already established. The current Legion thinking along these lines has been crystallized in the brief submitted to the cabinet in November of 1953 and we do not see how we can go much beyond that.
Further progress must depend upon the ability of the local branches to convince their federal members that this matter is of primary concern and that we insist on immediate action. Dominion command must give direction and aid in the development of such a campaign, but the ultimate responsibility must rest on the branches, and success or failure will depend upon their ability to convince their M.P.'s both of the justice of their cause and of their determination to see that action is taken.
I read that to illustrate the great concern of the membership of the Canadian Legion with this problem. I am sure that the introduction of the bill, as I said before, will be welcomed by the members of that organization. There is no question about that. While we criticize it as not going sufficiently far, the bill will bring comfort to the hearts of many veterans and their dependents; but we on this side of the house think that unfortunately it overlooks many others. The bill meets the proposals of the Canadian Legion with respect to the allowance so far as single veterans are concerned. It will be of considerable assistance to married recipients of the war veterans allowance.
We wish the proposals of the Canadian Legion had been met in full. We cannot understand why the government did not go
War Veterans Allowance Act the whole way and meet the requests of the Legion when it decided to go as far as it did. However, we are pleased with the improvements that have been made. Our main criticism concerns the failure of the government to raise the ceilings on permissive income. I think that is a valid and sound criticism, and will be the criticism of veterans organizations when they make their representations to the committee.
Under the old plan a single veteran received $50 a month, and his total income could be $720 a year. Under the new plan he will receive $60 a month and his total income must not exceed $840 a year. So far as the single veteran is concerned that means there is no increase in the ceiling on permissive income above the allowance. We in this group think that is a great mistake. The government is losing the opportunity to assist many of these veterans who would like the ceiling raised along the lines of the proposal of the Canadian Legion. Even if the government could not see their way clear to go that far we think they should have gone much farther than they have in the bill.
With respect to married veterans, under the old plan a married recipient received $90 a month and his total income could not exceed $1,200 a year. Under the new plan he is to receive $108 a month, quite a substantial improvement, but his total income must not exceed $1,440 a year. So far as raising the ceiling on permissive income for married recipients of war veterans allowance is concerned, such a man now has the magnificent extra and additional sum of $2 a month allowed with which to improve his standard of living.
I think the government can be soundly criticized for not going further than that. I know the minister mentioned that the cost of the changes proposed in the bill will be somewhere between $9 and $9i million. We know that is a large sum of money, and we in this group recognize the fact that we have a responsibility to the taxpayers as a whole. But we think there is such a thing as relativity. I admit that raising the permissive income would mean an additional expense of possibly several million dollars, but when we consider that we are expending some $4,000 million a year I do not think it can be said that we are unreasonable when we ask for a few extra millions to be expended on war veterans allowances to provide for the old age of men who protected and defended this country, particularly in the first world war, while in many cases others made substantial profits and fat livings.
An increase in the ceilings on permissive income would be of material assistance to
1748	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act many veterans. As the hon. member for Royal mentioned, we appreciate the new definition of casual earnings which the department issued last year. There is no question about it; it has been of great assistance to many veterans. I think personally it was an excellent definition of casual earnings, quite fair and generous. We recognize that. Further than that, I am willing to compliment the officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs who have been responsible for administering that definition of casual earnings. I think they have been most fair, and most anxious to do for veterans all that the law and the regulations permit.
But while that new definition of casual earnings has been of considerable advantage to many veterans, it has not helped a good many others. I believe that in failing to raise the permissive income the government has failed to think of those who cannot work, whose health is such that they are unable to undertake any employment, even of a casual nature. The income of those people is confined strictly to what they receive as war veterans allowance.
In addition there are those who have some tiny regular income, either from earnings or from some other source. Under the definition of casual earnings even today, as I understand it, if a veteran has a job, we will say in a hospital at $20 a month the year round, that is not classified as casual earnings. He is on regular earnings. I see the minister wagging his head. If I am wrong in that, he can correct me.


Hugues Lapointe: You are incorrect.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Then I apologize. I shall raise the figure. Let us say $25.


Hugues Lapointe: It is $50.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: All right, I will say $50, because the minister says it is $50. He can earn $50 a month as casual earnings. That means he cannot earn $55 a month. The man who had a job as a janitor at $55 a month would not benefit from these regulations.


Hugues Lapointe: Yes, he would, up to the $50.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Up to $50; but he would not be able to get the full benefit.


Hugues Lapointe: That is right.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Then the failure to raise the permissive income will affect a good many veterans who are not able to take advantage of the definition of casual earnings and who are unable to engage in any kind of work at all. I know of a few such cases in my constituency although, as I said before, I must
TMr. Herridge.]

admit there have been quite a number of difficult cases whose condition has been very much eased by the new definition of casual earnings.
Those are our main criticisms of the bill. Our first criticism is that we think the government should have gone all the way, so far as payments to married recipients of war veterans allowances are concerned. They should have met the proposal of the Canadian Legion. Then, second, they should have at least gone further than they have in the matter of permissive income. The other amendments to the act, which make provision for a small group who to date have been overlooked, are welcomed. I am sure they will be of great value to what I understand to be the relatively small number who will be affected.
Before concluding I wish to make two further suggestions. Like the hon. member for Royal, we in this group wish the government would introduce amendments to the act so that veterans of world war I who served in Great Britain would come under its terms. As the hon. member pointed out, these veterans are few in number; the number is growing less every day. But I know of cases of men who served in various posts in Great Britain, and did so quite unwillingly. Indeed there were several such men in my own battalion, and I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra will bear me out in this. When we got to England they were sent to London or to the north of Scotland or somewhere else to do a job, and were not allowed to go to France. Because of the decision made by their military superiors which resulted in their continuing to give their service in England or in Scotland, they are now denied the benefits of the War Veterans Allowance Act. I do think it is about time we brought those veterans of the first world war who had to serve in that fashion under the terms of the act.
Then I believe recipients of war veterans allowances who have to leave Canada because of their health should receive the allowance while they are out of Canada. We allow judges and other pensioners, as well as pensioned civil servants, to go to the West Indies or anywhere they wish. There is no restriction on their residence. But I know of several cases where men have had to go to other countries for health reasons, on the recommendation of their doctors, and while absent from Canada they lose their war veterans allowance and can only receive it for three months upon their return. That is three months' allowance is retained for them until they come back.

I know of a case in my own constituency of a man who was on war veterans allowance for some years, and who suffered from a serious non-service chest disturbance. I met him on the street a good many times, and his lung condition was so bad that his breathing reminded me of a horse with the heaves. He has gone to Shaughnessy hospital repeatedly, and they can do nothing for him. They have done the best they could, and may I say I have the highest regard for the services rendered by the officials and the staff at Shaughnessy hospital. Upon seeing his doctor again he was advised to try Mexico. Two months ago he left Canada and is now residing in Mexico City. I am not sure of the medical term describing his malady, but I do know he has benefited by the altitude and dryness of the climate there. He can now breathe with reasonable comfort, and life is more comfortable and happier for him because of that.
When a veteran who has served his country finds it necessary, on the advice of his doctor, to live outside Canada under circumstances such as I have described, we should allow that veteran to receive war veterans allowance while it is necessary for him to remain outside the country.


Mr. Dupuis:: Would the hon. member allow a question? Are not our veterans the best looked after in the world?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Perhaps the hon. member has just arrived in the chamber-


Hector Dupuis: It may be that I do not express myself very well in English, but there is a question I wish to ask.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I shall answer it. Yes, members on this side of the house readily admit that we believe we have the best veterans legislation in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: And now that the handclapping is over, let me proceed. Our veterans legislation is largely the result of the magnificent work on behalf of the veterans and their dependents by the Canadian Legion and other veterans organizations. Our legislation is excellent, yes, and that is the basis of our argument from this side of the house. Why not make it better, as we suggest? Why not improve it as much as possible? Why spoil it with a few blots on the record, such as the failure in this bill to meet the requests of the Canadian Legion?
I am sure all members of the opposition recognize the fact that we have excellent 50433-111
War Veterans Allowance Act veterans legislation in this country. All we are asking is some minor improvements to meet the existing needs.


Hector Dupuis: You would still criticize.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I cannot hear what the general is saying over there.


Hector Dupuis: You would still criticize.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We hope when the bill goes before the committee, and the Legion and other veterans organizations make their representations, the validity of their arguments and the common sense of the committee will combine to so soften the hearts of this administration that they will accept the amendments we on this side of the house have been advocating in this debate. We do not want unnecessarily to delay the passage of this legislation. We have been waiting for two months for the introduction of this bill and the opportunity to discuss it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Three years.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Two months this session. I am leaving off the other three years.


Hugues Lapointe: Who made all the speeches?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The minister asks who made all the speeches. All the speeches on this bill will be over in a few hours, compared with a three-years' delay.


Hugues Lapointe: I am referring to this session.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We have been waiting for this bill. We do not want to delay it unnecessarily, because we wish to have an early reference to the committee, and we trust that on the bill's return to this house it will be improved along the lines we suggest.


Mr. MacDougall:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. McLeod:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As hon. members know, on the first round of speakers after a minister introduces a bill we recognize a spokesman for each of the opposition parties. The hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke.


George William McLeod: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Lest I be accused of delaying this measure I shall make my remarks as brief as possible. However, I do think that one of the important functions of parliament is to have proper and thorough discussion of whatever comes before it.
I listened with considerable interest to the Minister of Veterans Affairs this afternoon, and I felt rather sorry for him because I am satisfied that he was not expressing his own personal opinion. I believe that if it had

War Veterans Allowance Act been left to him personally we would have had a little more complete legislation than we have before us at this time. Throughout his whole speech there was one conclusion I was able to draw, namely that there is a vast difference between veterans allowances and veterans disability pensions. I sometimes wonder why this should be so. However, I shall have more to say about that later.
Mention was made of the fact that the new scales of subsistence benefits that are allowed under clause 4 will assure "a reasonable standard of existence" for the veterans. I wonder whether that is all these veterans, who gave so much of their lives to the service of this country, are entitled to. I can recall recruiting meetings before the first war when we pledged to these people that they would be looked after completely by the country for which they were willing to offer their lives.
Another thing I notice is that allowances are under constant study, and that need for revision upward will be under consideration. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, how many of these veterans will have passed to the great beyond before this upward revision takes place. It is a sad state of affairs that while those people are suffering and are being forced to exist on what, on our own admission, is merely a subsistence level, they should continue to suffer while we wait to see if we can do something better for them.
I was also glad to know that the definition of casual earnings is being widened. The thing I would just like to ask this house to consider is what stability is there for the veteran if he has to resort to casual earnings. Those veterans are entitled to a degree of stability when one takes into consideration what they have done for us in years gone by. But the worst slap of all, Mr. Speaker, is that when those veterans reach the age of eligibility for the old age pension, that pension becomes deductible from their war veterans allowances.
We have been told that to increase the permissible income would cost approximately $5 million. When we speak of $5 million it does sound like a lot of money. But when you stop to think that $5 million is little more than one-tenth of 1 per cent of our total budget it does not sound like a very large amount, does it? It represents one package of cigarettes per person per year in Canada.
I was rather surprised by the optimism of the hon. member for Royal. He is hoping that good will come out of the study of this bill in committee. I hope he is right. I am sure there will be members in that committee who will press for the revision we are asking for, but I am afraid I am not quite as


optimistic as he is. However, we wish him luck. I know there will be various members on that committee who will do their best to have the injustices removed.
The hon. member for Royal dealt very well with all the extra assistance and what might be called the statistics of the bill. Therefore I shall pass that up. I should like this house to realize that we are dealing with the welfare of over 45,000 men and women. We are not critical to the nth degree of this bill. We are gratified to see it brought before the house.
While we are gratified, I must say that we are not satisfied. Our firm belief is that when a veteran has established a need for an allowance he should be entitled to the same consideration as the veteran who was disabled on the field of battle. I cannot see why there should be distinction. It is quite possible that the effects of his service in the years gone by have not shown up until this day; but if he had been disabled on the field of battle of course he would have been entitled to a pension which we know and admit is the finest in the world today. But we cannot see why there should be this great difference between the war veterans who become prematurely aged or through some other physical or mental disability are unable to earn their living in the later years of their lives, and others.
Of course we know there is no ceiling implied whatever with respect to the veteran on disability pension, and that is as it should be. We are not speaking against that, but we cannot see why this discrimination applies to war veterans who are perhaps just as disabled as others who are drawing similar pensions because of battlefield disability. We know the Legion recognizes that there should be a ceiling in accordance with the income tax regulations, but I should like to see- and I think I am speaking for every member in this group when I say this-the ceiling entirely removed.
Let the Department of National Revenue look after that; they can make a good job of it. Why should there be a ceiling against those war veterans?
There are many regulations affecting the money that is paid to these veterans. I refer now to what is commonly spoken of as perquisites. A veteran may have a few chickens producing a few eggs, or a cow to supply milk for his family; or he may go out in the bush to cut his own wood and thereby get exercise that is good for him. But the veteran is penalized for all these things. This is something else which I trust will be taken into consideration when this bill is before the committee.

In closing I would merely say, let us treat our burnt-out and prematurely aged veterans with the same consideration we show to the disabled veterans. Let us show the prematurely aged veterans that we realize that they did their best for Canada, that they sacrificed their health and several years of their lives on the altar of service. Let us treat them with fairness and not with discrimination.


John Lorne MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to enter this debate after eleven o'clock this morning, when I was hit with the 'flu bug; but there are a few things I would like to say. First of all I want to congratulate most sincerely the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the government for bringing in this legislation which in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of all those on this side who have spoken on this bill, is definitely a step which will be appreciated by the recipients of war veterans allowances from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
I should like to indicate my appreciation to the hon. member for Royal who referred so kindly to the various members of the veterans affairs committee and their willingness to press the government for additional increases in connection with this type of legislation. I think I can say safely that no matter how excellent this legislation might be my good friends to my left would still find a million and one reasons for criticism. None of us ever gets in life exactly what he wants, and I do not think any hon. member of this house would expect to find in a bill brought down by the administration that it was like Scotch whisky, ne plus ultra, and no one could find any objections to it.
There is no question but that improvements could be made in this bill. However, we have gone a long way, and I would draw that to the attention of the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. McLeod). He stated that many things were promised to the volunteers in the first world war. I happen to be one of those, and to be candid I was never promised a damned, solitary, single thing. Over and above that the members of the first Canadian expeditionary force did not ask any questions as to whether they were going to be pensioned or whether they were going to be nursed in military hospitals in Canada should they come back wounded. They went over there without any promises and did as good a job as any Canadian could be expected to do on any battlefield.
I am not for one moment endeavouring to detract from the desire of hon. members to my left to see perfection. All of us would like to see perfection. I can assure the house that as far as the recipients of war veterans 50433-1 IN
War Veterans Allowance Act allowances from east to west and at all intervening points are concerned, this legislation is going to be greatly appreciated. Make no mistake about that.
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; I am sorry about that, but I think it should be looked at in a practical way, in precisely the same way as matters were looked at by the members of the committee which brought about the recognition of universal old age security. It was realized that there must be a line of demarcation between those who are eligible and those who are not eligible. Our security legislation requires 20 years' continuous residence. What about the poor older man or woman who has been here only 19 years and 360 days? 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.
We must be fair and realize that rules must be laid down to differentiate between those who are eligible and those who are not eligible. That is all that is being done by this bill. We might in a most affable way wipe out everything, but make no mistake, there are a great many members of the Legion who still believe that as far as certain types of legislation are concerned the means test, if you wish to call it that, is still necessary.
I had one in my office yesterday. When I listened to my good friend the hon. member for Kootenay West I wondered, if the Kootenay Cougars were the fighting hounds from hades that he made them out to be, how the first world war ever lasted four years.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We cut it down quite a bit.


John Lorne MacDougall: I think we had a pretty good fighting aggregation. There were over 15,000 casualties who had come through to that body as reinforcements, but we never thought we were that good. When we gathered back here in Canada after the war to talk things over we always referred to ourselves as the fighting 46th, which never took a trench but never lost one. There seems to be a difference of viewpoint as between the Kootenay Cougars and the South Saskatchewan fighting 46th.
I cannot agree or go along with my good friend from Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. McLeod) when he says that in his opinion there should be no differentiation between the recipients of war veterans allowances

War Veterans Allowance Act and recipients of disability pensions. I do not think that is quite a fair statement. My good friend from Vancouver-Quadra said something like "tsk, tsk".


Howard Charles Green: No, I did not say it.


John Lorne MacDougall: He says he did not say it, but he was thinking it. Well, it is possibly better that my good friend from Vancouver-Quadra thinks quietly rather than out loud. However, I think there is a definite reason for having the line of demarcation drawn between those who were disabled on the field of battle and those who are the recipients of war veterans allowances and who served possibly only in the United Kingdom.
I know those of us who were on active service during the first world war thought it was pretty posh to get a bit of a leave so we could go to the old country. It was a great treat and a far cry from eating rice out of a sandbag in France. To be able to lie in a hutment in the United Kingdom was a far cry from lying on your ground sheet half submerged in water in a shell hole. I need not draw your attention to these things. Certainly there was a great deal more physical suffering and hardship in the front echelons in France and Belgium than there was in the reserve areas back in the United Kingdom. Because of that difference I think it is both fair and monumentally justified for the administration to make that distinction between the two types of service.
It is true, as one of the previous speakers has said, that with the disability pension there is no ceiling on your income as such. There is no argument about that. But in the same breath I wish to tell you that many of those veterans who are in receipt of disability pensions have never been able to earn the amount of money the war veterans allowance recipients have earned.
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) has said, and I agree, that we have the finest type of veterans legislation in the world. I shall not be quite as extravagant as he was in describing who brought it about, but with all deference to the Canadian Legion and the various provincial commands I do say that had it not been for the spirit of the government down through the years in granting additional benefits to both disability pensioners and war veterans allowance recipients, the work of the Legion by itself would have come to naught, as a Yorkshire man would say.
Consequently it has been not only the Canadian Legion and the members of parliament but the members of the government as well, from the first world war up to the present, who have made this veterans charter the thing of which we as Canadians are


intensely proud. We in this house took great pride in watching the veterans charter grow and develop from its infancy. When I enlisted in the first world war I received no promises as to what I would get if I went overseas. I think one of the main reasons I joined up was because I got only 51 per cent in my last Latin examination the year before, and so I enlisted. Believe you me, I was scared to death of the second one coming up in the fall.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Don't be so honest, or you will shame some of the other fellows.


John Lorne MacDougall: We should realize that no one, whether or not he is a member of this house, ever achieves all the things about which he dreams, and he never attains the ideal toward which he shoots. Somewhere along the line, however, there is the great factor of common interest which has as its basis and objective the desire for the betterment of conditions this year over what they were in previous years. In my humble opinion the reception afforded this legislation by the veterans of Canada will be extremely joyful. It is not going to be the end of the trail; I do not think the government anticipates that it will be what Harry Lauder used to describe as "the end of the r-r-road." Certainly, however, it is a great step forward and will accomplish something over and above what we had last year or the year before.
In conclusion I again congratulate the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and I also include his parliamentary assistant who, I know, is a strenuous worker. I also congratulate the government generally, and certainly I wish to include my good friends to my right regardless of their political affiliations. Those I have mentioned, and the Legion and the government, have taken steps for which we are extremely thankful to benefit those who have fought for us and made freedom possible in our day.


Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Victoria-Carleton):: I enjoyed listening to the hon. member who has just finished. He said one thing with which I agree, that those who went overseas in the first Canadian division during the first world war were promised nothing and expected nothing. They gave their service to our country freely, voluntarily and without having been coaxed. Those men who returned are today asking for assistance and the legislation we are considering tonight concerns them.
For that reason I consider this to be an important bill. I feel I must indicate my disappointment concerning this bill because it does not meet the demands set forth by the

Canadian Legion for the benefit of our older citizens and their families. This bill concerns and greatly affects the standard of living and happiness of many of the most patriotic citizens in this country.
While I express disappointment because I do not think it goes far enough, nevertheless I do not want to leave the impression that, generally speaking, our veterans have not been fairly well used. I think that on the whole they have been well treated. I should like to say now, because I think it is fair to say it, that under the veterans charter and the subsequent legislation our Canadian veterans have been and are being well looked after.
I want to congratulate the personnel of all branches of the Department of Veterans Affairs for the sincere and able manner in which the administration of this act is carried out. In particular I want to draw the attention of the minister to the fact-and I want him to know this-that those connected in any way with veterans affairs in my province of New Brunswick are doing a splendid job on behalf of our veterans. I know many of them through having had a good deal to do with veterans' claims, adjustments and hospitalization over the last nine years. One could not ask for or expect more courtesy or interest than has been shown in any case which I have had the pleasure of discussing with departmental officials during the past few years.
I also think it fair to state that I have found those officials who are particularly interested in the administration of the war veterans allowance claims to be not only efficient but sincere. I have found that they will go all out to do everything possible, within the act and the regulations, to assist these older veterans. I am speaking from the experience I have had, and I am sure many other hon. members in this house have had the same experience. I think the personnel of the Department of Veterans Affairs deserve to have this credit given to them by those of us in the house who have had the privilege of working with them.
I also think that the public should realize, as oftentimes they do not, that these officials are trying to do everything they can for the veterans. But the officials of the department, whose duty it is to carry out the administration of the act, are bound by the act; the scope of the act is limited by the legislation which we pass in parliament and by the regulations that are laid down by the government. I therefore sometimes do not appreciate hearing some of my good friends the
War Veterans Allowance Act veterans and others criticizing the departmental officials when, in reality, it is those who are higher up the ladder who should be criticized. It is our responsibility.
That is why I am taking a few minutes of the time of the house tonight. I feel that it is up to us, while we are at it, to try to do at least a fair job on this legislation. I realize that a good case has already been made out. Those hon. members who have already spoken have, in reality, said about all that needs to be said in order to impress upon the government that they should go a little bit further. However, I am going to add these few words in the hope that the minister and the government may be brought to the realization-not in particular by what I say but by the preponderance of our cumulative effort to impress this upon them-that they are now making a mistake in not making the limits of permissible income really fair.
I am not going to take any time to discuss the increase in the payments. It seems to me to be fair, but I think the ceiling on the permissive income should have been brought in line at least with the present exemptions allowed under the Income Tax Act. If the government does not feel that it could go as far as the Legion asked in the case of the single person, I think it should have considered-and maybe it will-the amount which is allowed under the income tax as an exemption. I think that is about the minimum that is considered should be left with a person to get along on and live on. They are entitled to that amount at least before they contribute anything directly to the federal treasury. Anything less than that for these old patriotic citizens is, in my opinion, less than fair.
I am sure that the 20 per cent increase will be appreciated, though I think it will be found that old married couples will feel that they have not been quite fairly treated, when comparison is made with the treatment given to a single person. It seems to me they will think they are not getting equivalent rates. I believe the lowering of the age limit of the female veterans and the widows is going to be appreciated.
I do not wish to take up much of the time of this house, and I have little more to say; but I believe the case for the veterans is one that should not be passed over lightly. I believe this committee is going to take a good look at this legislation. I believe they are going to come back with some recommendations to increase this ceiling of permissive earnings. I hope that they will receive a sympathetic reception from the government. For once I do not think it

War Veterans Allowance Act would hurt the government to admit that they may have made a mistake, or that they had not considered this matter sufficiently.
I believe the permissive income ceiling should be raised at least some. When you come to think of it, while you are giving a married couple a 20 per cent raise, $1,440 a year does not begin to allow a couple who have no other assets to live decently. As has been said, it is true that many of these veterans have homes. They may not be good ones, but at least they have a place to live. They have no rent to pay, and they are good homes so far as they are concerned.
But there are others who have no place to live. They must rent. I think those veterans should not only be able to get this allowance but should be allowed to earn enough to rent a decent place in which to live. I am sure that each and every hon. member in this house tonight can think of veterans in his own constituency living in rented quarters which neither you nor I, Mr. Speaker, would like to see our father and mother live in. They are compelled to live in those quarters. They have not the earning capacity to go out and earn money. They must depend upon the war veterans allowance. They might mow a few lawns and do a little bit of work of some kind to increase their income. The wife might baby sit. There are many things, but when they are confined to $240 they cannot do very much and a total income of $1,440 will not go very far.
As I said before, I think the matter has been very well covered, much more ably than I can do it, and I would only be wasting time by continuing. I concur in the many statements and arguments that have been put forward by various speakers. I am sure the Canadian Legion and other veterans organizations, from whom I have been receiving letters for the last three weeks, will be disappointed if the government do not reconsider the matter, recant and at least raise the ceilings on permissive income.


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Speaker,-


Elmore Philpott: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver South.


Elmore Philpott: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my very good friend, the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Jones), that I shall give him plenty of opportunity in just a moment, because I do not want to unduly delay the house. From the spirit of the speeches so far I know that members of all parties are


anxious to get the bill through this stage as soon as is reasonably possible and send it to the committee.
I must say that as a member of the committee last year it was a very great pleasure to me to see that no matter how fiercely we felt called upon at times to carry on our party battles, we all seemed to get together on the substance of what was right for the veterans. Some members of the house will recall that I ventured to predict we would find ways and means of bringing this whole matter to a head within a very few months, and that is precisely the way it has worked out.
I particularly want to speak tonight in support and praise of the minister's action in bringing in these changes this year, because even from this side of the house I felt called upon on my last day here last session to be sharply critical of the government for not having made changes in the War Veterans Allowance Act in that session. As the hon. member for Royal has pointed out, I made some reference to going back to an indignation meeting that had been called in my own riding. Incidentally, I may be wrong but I believe my riding has more veterans than any other riding in the whole of Canada. At least I think I have the most vociferous.
But I want to correct the hon. member for Royal in one respect. On that particular night they were not talking of raising ceilings; they were too busy raising the roof. Personally I am very well pleased with the progress we have made so far, and may I say that I do not believe for a minute that this legislation represents the ultimate in veterans benefits in this great Dominion of Canada. The whole history of veterans legislation in Canada is that we have improved it almost ever since we had any veterans legislation. I can remember the history of our veterans legislation for a great many years, because I happen to have been writing for' Canadian newspapers for 33 years without a break, and in that time I have had a good deal to do, one way and another, with veterans legislation.
I cannot say that I altogether agree with the historical memories of my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall), when he says there were no promises made to the veterans of the first world war. I can remember the then prime minister of Canada, Sir Robert Borden, saying to our Canadian army overseas, "When you come back, Canada will be yours". I can remember the prime minister of Great Britain telling the servicemen in that same war how he was out to make England a land fit for heroes to live in. As I remember those times there were many promises made to those who served in all armies, and very specific promises as to general benefits.

We can remember that when this country pioneered the war veterans allowances-I think it is true that no other country has any legislation comparable to our War Veterans Allowance Act-we started on quite a modest level; but as years went by the legislation became more generous and more generous, as some might say, but let us say more just and more just. I think all of us were highly gratified and satisfied when even in this year of considerable financial difficulties the government saw fit to make an exception to the general curtailment of expenditure and bring in a really far-reaching advance with respect to the scores of thousands of men who served Canada in time of need.
I am going to be very frank with the house tonight. I would of course like to get up here tonight and say that I think the government should have raised the ceilings on permissive income to $1,200 and $2,000. Of course I would like it better if the government, in addition to raising the cash payments from $50 to $60 a month for single veterans and from $90 to $108 a month for married recipients, had raised the ceilings to $1,200 and $2,000 a year instead of to $840 and $1,440, although according to my arithmetic these are substantial cash raises indeed in the ceilings. I ventured to point out to the house last year that perhaps we could hope for a cash increase of $5 a month with an increase in the permissive ceiling to $1,080 a year, which would have meant that a veteran on attaining the age of eligibility for old age security could have received the full $40 without any deduction.
When I went back to my own constituency and actually faced the hundreds of people who are very much concerned with this question I was asked by some of them for my honest to goodness opinion about what the veterans might get by way of an increase, in the light of what the government was up against in the way of balancing the budget and so on. I said that I thought they might get $5 a month cash raise and that the ceiling might be boosted to $1,080 a year. However, those veterans, without any exception, immediately protested to me in the strongest possible terms and told me to forget all about an increase in the permissive ceilings, that what they wanted was the largest increase in the cash grant they could get. They said that if they had to choose between a $5 a month cash increase and a permissive ceiling of $1,080 or a $10 a month cash increase and very little change in the permissive ceiling they were all for the cash raise of $10 a month, because the vast majority of them are the kind of people who are not worried
War Veterans Allowance Act about the extra permissive income for the simple reason that they have no extra income at any time.
Therefore I want to say that while I personally fully intend to continue, over the months and years, to do my modest bit to see that the war veterans of Canada, their wives, their widows and their dependents get the best possible break from the country,
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 shall tell you why I think that; because I think the minister who has had to pilot this bill through the cabinet, and who has had to convince treasury board in a difficult period that the country should stand a certain extra financial contribution, has done a pretty fair and workmanlike job, and every honest man and woman in this house should really take off his or her hat to him, because he has done that good job.
I would say the same of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), to whom last year I had the privilege of passing on the sum and substance of many hundreds of letters of protest I received from war veterans in my constituency. In many cases they enclosed detailed budgets, right down to the last penny, showing the great difficulty they were having to stay alive on what they were then receiving.
I will say that because the government saw fit to yield to the suggestions that were made, not only by myself but by a good many people on all sides of the house, I certainly intend to give my loyal support to the program this government has come out with this year, because I think it is a pretty good instalment to work on.


Owen Lewis Jones: Mr. Speaker, I hope the last speaker was speaking for himself and not for the government when he said he expected that the committee would not deal with the permissive income ceiling. Because if that is the case, and if the door is already shut, then we need not call the committee together at all.
I also take issue with the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard when he tries to draw a line of demarcation between the war veteran who receives an allowance and the veteran who receives a disability allowance. The payment of a burnt-out pension to a veteran is a distinct medical and physical disability payment; make no mistake about that. I think the late Right Hon. Ian Mackenzie made that quite clear in the early stages of the proposal to bring this payment about, when he said these people were definitely victims of

War Veterans Allowance Act the war-physically or mentally or in many other ways-and that therefore they should be taken care of in the same way as a man who lost an arm or a leg. In many cases, while they have no scars on their bodies they have them in their hearts and minds. It was the recognition of this fact by the government that made the veterans allowance possible in the first place.
It has been scientifically and medically proven that any veteran who had active service overseas in either war suffered physical deterioration to such an extent that it could be considered that ten years of his life had been taken away from him. For this reason I take exception to anyone trying to create a line of demarcation between the two disabilities. They are the same, and should be treated in the same way. The burnt-out veteran should have the same privileges, and should have the same lack of ceiling that is enjoyed by the disability veteran.
In spite of that, however, I think this bill will be welcomed by every veteran in Canada. It will be especially gratifying to those members of the Canadian Legion who have worked so hard for years to convince the government that this bill is necessary and essential. I do feel, however, that the permissive income should have been increased at least to the modest sum suggested by the Canadian Legion. It may be that during the passage of the bill through the committee stage the minister can change his mind and increase the allowable income.
I received today the last edition of The Legionary, and find that their comments on this bill are quite fair. They say in a heading: "At last: W.V.A. Increases" and in another heading "Good, but not Enough". Their chief complaint is summed up in this paragraph:
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 aging 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 standard of living; and it surely cannot be argued that this can be attained on $840 or $1,440 a year with living costs being what they are.
I think in that paragraph The Legionary has stated the case better than I could, so I shall leave it at that. While this bill also makes provision for the widows and children of veterans, it does not provide for all the widows and all the children of veterans who have died in the service of their country. That is why I wish to make one more suggestion for the inclusion of another clause in the bill to take care of that situation.

The minister has already shown a willingness to try to alleviate the distress caused directly or indirectly through service, and this loophole to which I have drawn attention should be attended to. I shall give a specific case that is now before the Department of National Defence. It is the case of a young soldier who volunteered to serve in the Canadian forces, and was sent to Germany. He was there three years, and while there naturally made German friends. One week end he was invited to go to the home of some friends. These German people met him at the camp and took him to their home. On the way back to the camp they met with an accident in which this soldier was killed.
I have tried to get some recognition for his widow and her children. True, he was off duty at the time of his death; true, he was driving with a German civilian. Through the Department of National Defence the government has promised to take legal action against the driver. That was a year ago, but that action has not yet started, and I do not know when it will start. The case is getting colder and colder all the time, and becomes more difficult to handle. Meantime the young widow and her two children are living in my constituency. They cannot obtain any pension whatever.
The sore point, to my mind, is the fact that if he had served in the army for ten years the widow and children would have qualified for pension. Why should there be this ten-year provision? I claim that if a soldier serves for only a day he becomes the responsibility of the government. I would ask the minister to remove that provision so that it would carry the restriction for only one year or, better still, have it removed entirely, so this widow would be cared for.
The fact is that the husband was in the service when he was killed. Once a man enlists he loses all contact with other sources of income, and becomes the servant of the government. His whole life is placed at the service of his country. Therefore I claim the government is morally responsible for this soldier's welfare, and it is also responsible for his family in anything it may suffer as a result of that service. This should apply from the date of his enlistment.
To cover a case such as I have mentioned and hundreds of other borderline cases, as they might be called, that are not covered by the present act, assistance being given only on a social-service basis or by a provincial government, I suggest that the minister should begin a new system whereby every member of the armed forces immediately upon joining the service would be covered by a $20,000 insurance policy. This

policy would cover him in the event of illness, accident or death, whether on or off duty. In that event a widow such as I have described would not be left at the mercy of charity.
Such a policy definitely would encourage enlistment, and would provide protection in such cases as the one I have mentioned. I believe these insurance policies can be bought fairly reasonably, payable in full in 15 years. This paid up policy could then be given to the soldier on leaving the service. It would give him immediately some security that he has missed through lack of contact with civil life, and he could start anew in the new world he has to face. Otherwise he is left with no economic security through having sacrificed the best period of his life in the service of his country. In order to protect him and give him something worth while for having done so, the least we can do is to present him with a $20,000 paid-up policy at the end of his service.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: I rise chiefly on account of what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. He did not seem to be aware of the fact that the war veterans allowance is paid only in recognition of service in a theatre of actual warfare. Unless you had service in a theatre of actual warfare you cannot get the war veterans allowance. War veterans allowance is not a general service pension; yet the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard talked about the disability pension being paid for service in France or in a theatre of actual war, while the war veterans allowance was being paid for service in England.
In so far as the first war is concerned, it is just the other way around. The war veterans allowance can be paid only if the veteran had been to France. On the other hand, the disability pension could be paid for service in England. The disability pension could be paid for service even in Canada provided the disability was incurred on duty or even off duty, because we had the insurance principle at that time. It is very important to keep in mind that the war veterans allowance is paid in recognition of service in a theatre of actual warfare, and England was not a theatre of actual warfare in world war I. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard was talking about service in world war I.
The two main grievances up to this session were the amount of the allowance and the ceiling. The bill before us makes quite a substantial increase in the allowance, but there will be wide dissatisfaction with the ceiling. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver South that of the two the amount 50433-112
War Veterans Allowance Act of the allowance is the more important. If we cannot get as far as we want to go in both directions, then it is a good thing to get the farthest in regard to the allowance.
I say that because the man we have to look after first of all is the man who is practically totally disabled and has no other source of income. To him the raising of the ceiling is of no use. On the other hand, the more you can raise the allowance the more that man will benefit. I have in mind veterans who are practically totally disabled who, because of certain limitations within the Pension Act, are not able to qualify for a pension. For instance, there are men who are disabled today, but owing to the fact that their disability was classified as of preenlistment origin they are not able to qualify for a pension. Therefore as a last resort they obtain war veterans allowance.
So far as that benefit is concerned, of course the greater the allowance the better. So far as the ceiling is concerned, it makes no difference to them. Therefore I congratulate the government on having gone so far as they have in so far as the allowance is concerned. They have reached the objective of the Legion with respect to the single veteran, but they are still $12 short in so far as the married veteran is concerned. The minister pointed out that the assistance fund would raise it another $12, but I do not know of any single veteran who is getting it. Some are getting it, but it just so happens that the only veterans I have knowledge of are not getting any assistance from the fund. I take it that assistance is given chiefly in the cities, and we do not find it so much in the country.
There is one matter that I hope the minister will give further consideration to, namely the widow of the imperial veteran. An imperial veteran who resides in this country 20 years qualifies for war veterans allowance, but if he dies one day before he has been in this country for 20 years his wife is not eligible for a pension. The government could very well say that so long as the widow has resided in this country for 20 years she shall qualify. I understand that it would not affect a very large number; therefore I do hope that the minister will give further consideration to that point.


Mr. Pearkes:: You would include the same age limit?


Victor Quelch: Yes, in line with a Canadian. I am not going to say anything about England being declared a theatre of war, although there have been requests by the Legion that England should be declared a theatre of war in world war I. I should like to see
1758	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act the conditions under which the allowance is paid to veterans who have been in a theatre of war strengthened to the point that they will get it first of all. Once we reach that, then there may be time to start talking about England being declared a theatre of war in world war I. Since time is limited I shall not say any more at this stage.


Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to participate in the debate because, although this bill is going to the veterans committee and will return to the house, this is the better opportunity for those of us interested in this problem who are not on that committee to have something to say about it.
At the resolution stage of this legislation I made some criticism with regard to the proposal the minister was bringing down. Now that we have the bill before us I see no reason to withdraw any of that criticism. The issue is becoming a bit confused with regard to war veterans allowances, owing to some of the things that have been said by the minister, and some of the things that were said tonight by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, perhaps unintentionally on his part; I do not know. He left the impression with me, as was just mentioned by the hon. member who took his seat, that war veterans allowance was payable to those who were not in a theatre of war. Of course he was quite wrong.
Confusion arises in the minds of many people in regard to this matter. In order to qualify under the act a veteran has to be 60 years of age, unless there are exceptional circumstances; he has to have had service overseas in a theatre of war, and be unable to carry on his normal duties. He may be able to do intermittent work but not able to carry on his normal duties, and he has to be unemployed.
The type of person who qualifies for this allowance is a man who is really in difficult circumstances. That should be kept clearly in mind when we are discussing this problem. Second, let us keep clearly in our minds that these men with service in a theatre of war in many instances endured just as much as the men who suffered in other ways and have since been receiving disability pensions-not that anybody wanted to suffer in that way overseas. It is well known to all veterans that many of our disability pensioners, through ill luck on their first trip to the line or their first battle, saw very little service in that theatre of war.
On the other hand this group of people on war veterans allowance include a number of men who served overseas for lengthy periods.


The hon. member for Kootenay West gave us two or three good examples of that. I well recall when I was in France serving under two sergeants, both of whom had reached that theatre of war in 1915. They had undertaken every trip into the lines, they had been engaged in every action in which the first division participated, and both of them lasted until September, 1918, when unfortunately one was killed. The other survived until the end of the war and was with the army of occupation in Germany. Think of the length of service involved in the case of that survivor, from 1915 right to the end of the war.
It should be remembered that in that war living conditions were extremely grim. Leave was a scarce article indeed. If a man got leave from a theatre of war to England once in the course of 12 months he considered himself lucky. There were many men like that who suffered from exposure to the elements as well as from the actual strain of warfare.
Our medical friends tell us that does have its effect on people. I have no medical knowledge, but I have seen men who were shellshocked immediately on going into action, without any previous experience in that connection. In the second war this was called battle exhaustion. A man could become battle exhausted with no more than five hours of service. Shell-shock resulted in what appeared to a layman as a complete collapse of the nervous system, and some seemed more subject to it than others. It is just possible that in the course of years, even though a man recovered from such an experience, he might suffer a disability which could not be shown to make him eligible for pension.
Anyone who had that experience overseas in the first world war needs no convincing as to what men should qualify for war veterans allowances. These men served their country well. They were the ones who lived in the trenches. A total of 400,000 Canadians got to France in the first world war, of whom 60,000 were killed, practically all in France. A total of 180,000 were wounded, which left about 160,000 who got to France but were not wounded. The chances of escaping were not very good. Of that 160,000 only a small portion would have served in the rear areas, and even there during the first world war there were bombing attacks as well as shellings by long range artillery.
I think of the men who are the recipients of war veterans allowances as being men who served long periods overseas without being wounded. Many of them have now reached the age of 60 years and require assistance. I believe a grateful country will give them that assistance without worrying too much about it. Niggardly ideas enter into the

minds of those who are drafting new regulations or new bills in order to accommodate themselves to the situation. I do not think the people of Canada generally want anything in the way of small treatment given to men of these types. As I have been trying to point out, and other hon. members also, these men served and suffered from exposure as well as danger.
The number of those receiving war veterans allowances is not very great. What complicates the matter is that we now have some coming under war veterans allowance who served in world war II, and then there are the widows and orphans to be considered. But taking those who served in world war I or in earlier wars like the South African war or the northwest field force, we find the total in round numbers to be 21,000 who are over 60 years of age. Those under 60 years of age total 4,000 in round numbers.
As the hon. member for Royal pointed out, they have been disappearing rather rapidly. The hon. member gave the totals of those who had been on war veterans allowance from the beginning, and showed the decrease which had occurred. It works out at about 3,000 a year. If you examine the figures for the last five years you will find that the number of recipients of war veterans allowance from world war I has been staying approximately at 25,000. Those who are given awards or are reinstated are balanced by those who
Business of the House are cancelled or who have been suspended, and the cancellations would include those who have died. So the burden is not an increasing one. As the years go by it is going to decrease.
On motion of Mr. Churchill the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: On Monday we shall continue this debate and when it is concluded take up the motion to set up the veterans affairs committee. Then we shall take up the motion to set up the radio committee. Next will be the resolution to amend the Railway Act in connection with the grade crossing fund; then the resolution to amend the National Parks Act, and then the resolution with respect to an agreement with the Toronto harbour commissioners and others.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the intention to take third reading of the two bills standing in the name of the Minister of National Revenue?


Walter Edward Harris: I understood that some legal opinion was to be obtained and given to hon. members opposite, and I am not certain whether that has been done. If that is completed by the time we reach third readings we shall call them.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 7, 1955