1956-07-11

Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the special joint committee on capital and corporal punishment and lotteries. This report, presented in English and French, constitutes the committee's final report on the question of corporal punishment only. No motion will be made for the adoption of this report at this time.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND HONDURAS

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I aim pleased to inform the house that a trade agreement was signed today in Tegucigalpa between Canada and Honduras. This agreement was signed on behalf of Canada by Mr. H. A. Scott, Canadian ambassador to Cuba, the Dominican Republic and Haiti, and by Mr. Pedro Pineda Madrid, minister of finance of Honduras.
Copies of this agreement have been tabled for the information of hon. members.
This is the first trade agreement between Canada and Honduras. It will enter into force on July 18 for an initial period of one year and will continue in force thereafter until either country takes action to terminate it.
The agreement provides for the exchange of most - favoured - nation treatment with respect to customs duties and related matters. This will provide new opportunities for Canadian exports to Honduras. Under this agreement, for example, Canadian exports will now be subject to customs duties and charges no higher than those levied on goods from the United States, on the basis of the trade agreement between Honduras and the United States. Similarly, Honduran exports to Canada will now be subject to the mostfavoured-nation rates of the Canadian tariff rather than to the general tariff rates, as has been the case up to now.
Honduras has specifically reserved the right to participate in a customs union with other Central American countries as it did in the case of its trade agreement with the United States.
As a direct benefit of this agreement, Canadian exports of wheat flour, canned salmon and sardines, upper leather, rubber tires and other products will henceforth be able to compete in the Honduran market on the same terms as exports from the United States. Honduras is a small but valuable open dollar market with no import or exchange restrictions. Canada's exports in 1955 were about $588,000, while imports from Honduras amounted to $1-7 million, about 90 per cent of which consisted of bananas.
This trade agreement with Honduras is particularly notable in that it completes the Canadian structure of trade arrangements with Latin-American countries based upon the most-favoured-nation principle. Canada has already exchanged most-favoured-nation treatment with all the other countries of Latin America.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House, Ottawa,
July 11, 1956
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Mr. Justice C. H. Locke, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 11th July, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute,
Secretary to the Governor General (Administrative).



STARRED QUESTION


Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Has the government or the Bank of Canada given consideration to requesting chartered banks to increase interest rates on depositors' savings accounts in view of the fact that loan interest has been increased?
2.	If so, when?
3.	If not, will the government give consideration to making such a request?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the inspector general of banks and the Bank of Canada do have conversations from time to time with the chartered banks of Canada; however, these discussions

Inquiries of the Ministry about matters of mutual interest are confidential and their value would be diminished greatly if they were not considered as such. I therefore feel that is the only answer I can make at this time.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: You might whisper to them that a quarter per cent in the interest rate is not much of an increase.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Dufresne: 1.	Have the Riviere-du-Loup arsenal buildings been sold? If so, on what date?
2.	What was the amount of the sale and what were the conditions of payment?
3.	What was the conversion cost of the former Canadian National shops, which subsequently became the Riviere-du-Loup arsenal?



SASKATCHEWAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) wished to ascertain how much the government of Canada had paid to the province of Saskatchewan in connection with the flood damage which occurred in that province last year.
From the inquiries I had made I have ascertained that to date only one claim for reimbursement has been received from the province of Saskatchewan. That claim amounted to $8,763.44 and was paid to the province on June 26 last.
I am informed that the government of Saskatchewan, in accordance with the agreement between the two governments, is in the process of preparing a second claim for reimbursement based on the individual claims it has received. Until that claim is received by the Canadian government, I am confident the hon. member will understand that I am not in a position to indicate its amount nor the amounts of other claims for reimbursement which may be received in the future.
As I indicated on Monday, the supplementary estimates contain an item for $120,000 to provide for claims from both Manitoba and Saskatchewan.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


In view of the information he has been seeking from other member countries of NATO concerning their intentions about article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs outline the position of the Canadian government concerning the same article?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can very usefully do that on the orders of the day apart from the fact that it is not I but the committee of NATO which is seeking this information. The committee is doing that by sending a questionnaire to the various governments to ascertain their views on non-military co-operation in NATO. This government along with the other 14 governments is now in the process of formulating its views so that the questionnaire can be answered, and while that process is going on it is not easy for me to discuss it on the orders of the day in the House of Commons.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is this committee of three going to interview representatives of the government of Canada with regard to article 2?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is hoped that when the replies have come in to the committee of three from the various governments the committee then will meet representatives of these governments in Paris to discuss the replies and exchange views concerning them.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the governments of the United Kingdom, the United States and France have been authoritatively reported as having no objection and indeed as approving Canada's action in exporting Sabre aircraft to Israel, would the Prime Minister say what the impelling reasons are that cause him at this time to say it is not an appropriate time to grant the export permit for these aircraft as requested by the state of Israel?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I do not know that there is any authority for the report that the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and France have suggested that we should supply-


John George Diefenbaker: Not suggested.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -have expressed the view that they have no objection-I do not remember just what words were used by the hon. gentleman-to Canada supplying aircraft to Israel. As to the compelling reasons, they resulted from discussions with General Burns who is acting as commissioner for the United Nations in supervising the armistice arrangements, and with the Secretary General of the United Nations who I understand is just about to leave for a second visit to that area, from which we gathered that it is still a very delicate situation which might be unfavourably influenced if a country like Canada were to attempt to take the lead in changing what is in my opinion an imbalance of armaments at the present time between the Arab countries and Israel. This is a matter to which we have given very careful consideration. The hon. gentleman knows that we would not wish to do anything that might make it in the slightest way more difficult to ensure the observance of the ceasefire which has been in force and which has been observed to a large degree for several months past.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. The Prime Minister noted that there was an imbalance between Israel and the Arab states. Has not that imbalance been created by the large supplies of planes and arms which have been made to the Arab countries by the Soviet union and its satellite states? Would not the same action by the western powers rectify that imbalance?-and when I refer to the western powers I include Canada.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker,
I quite agree with the suggestion implied in the hon. gentleman's question. I think there has been an imbalance created by the armaments supplied if not by the Soviet republics by the satellites of the Soviet republics. We would have been quite happy to join with other western powers in doing something to restore a balance, but we do not feel that when other western powers were not prepared to join in that responsibility it should be a responsibility left to the government of Canada which has not the immediate interest in the area which other western powers have.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a question of privilege which I think concerns the entire house. In this morning's
Inquiries of the Ministry Globe and Mail there appears a Canadian Press dispatch, which evidently would go throughout the whole country, entitled "Bawdyhouse Charge made by C.C.F. Member . The part to which I wish to draw your attention reads:
Alistair Stewart (C.C.F., Winnipeg North) hurled new accusations at the Commons chair after a party colleague was unsuccessful in getting the floor to discuss Mr. Beaudoin's decision to remain m office.
"I think you are making a bawdyhouse of this place," Mr. Stewart shouted at Acting Speaker E. T. Applewhaite.
Mr. Applewhaite, his voice choking with emotion, asked Mr. Stewart to withdraw the statement.
Mr. Stewart did not. Instead, he said: "I don't know what right you have to occupy the chair." Mr. Applewhaite did not again ask him to withdraw the statement.
Mr. Speaker, I think all in the house who heard the discussion will agree that the report is substantially accurate, but in reading Hansard today I find that nothing appears to that effect in Hansard. My point of privilege is that Hansard has been tampered with far beyond the propriety of ordinary revision, and I think some explanation is due the house.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. E. T. Applewhaite (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, on this question of privilege it is essential for the house and for the hon. member concerned that I should make a statement, which I hope will be brief. It was my privilege and responsibility to be acting as Speaker at the time the incident occurred. Despite what the press said, I did not clearly hear the quotation referred to, but I had my doubts. I made inquiries later and found that the expression referred to was used.
I considered it my responsibility as Acting Speaker to assume responsibility for what should or should not go into the permanent records of this house for all time to come. Time was short; Hansard goes to press very shortly after the house closes. I on my own responsibility removed the item from Hansard, not on the grounds of protection for any political party or for any line of thought but because I did consider that the expression used was one which should not become part of the permanent record of the Canadian House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker was not available for consultation at ten o'clock. The Deputy Speaker was. Nevertheless, I take full responsibility for having personally, as Acting Speaker, signed a directive addressed to Hansard to that effect. I can add only two things. The action I took was not without the knowledge -and, I think, not without the tacit approval -of the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

Inquiries of the Ministry The only other thing I have to add is that, if the excerpt read today remains part of the records of this house, then any action which I took, rightly or wrongly, will have been ineffective.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: am not prepared to allow the Acting Speaker to accept the full responsibility, as he so generously has done in this matter. I said something last night which on reflection I realized was not in good taste, and it was my own opinion that it should be stricken from the record. That is the situation so far as I am concerned, and I take my share of the responsibility for it.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, with the explanation the hon. member for Winnipeg North has given, I think perhaps we can all be satisfied.


Mr. Ellis:: You made sure it got on the record.


An hon. Member:: You keep quiet.



POULTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister state if the federal government has taken action to prohibit the vaccination of chicks on hatchery premises as advocated by the Saskatchewan poultry association at its recent meeting in Saskatoon?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Before coming into the house, I did not have the resolution that was passed by the meeting at Saskatoon, but it has been sent to me since I came into the house. I am inclined to think that the resolution itself does not conform exactly with the published statement which appeared a day or two ago in the press, and I presume the question asked is based upon the press report. Since neither the resolution nor the press report seems to follow the policy which is followed by the department, I think it better that I should take this as notice and give a proper answer to the question later.



REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN BASIC PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward George McCullough: Could the minister add anything to what was said by the parliamentary assistant in answer to the question 1 asked the other day
[Mr. Applewhalte.l
in respect to a resolution passed by this association in Saskatoon asking the federal government to increase the floor price on grade A large eggs so that the producer might benefit?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, Mr. Speaker. I have just this moment read what my assistant had to say and I have nothing to add beyond what I have said previously, that if there is going to be any effective action in the province of Saskatchewan some additional action will have to be taken by the provincial government.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: On
a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that on the 30th of January last a motion for the production of a list of all P.F.R.A. and P.F.A.A. employees and their salaries and expenses was passed by the house. That is over five months ago. I know the list is a long one, but 1 think the time has come when the minister should table that return.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I thought it had already been tabled. It was certainly circulated in Saskatchewan recently. I shall see that it is brought down.


John George Diefenbaker: You must have done it yourself. You did not put it before parliament.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Can the Minister of Trade and Commerce inform the house whether, since his last report on the subject to us, additional sums have been advanced to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited by the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation and, if so, what amounts and on what dates?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend will put that question on the order paper I will try to get an answer.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward George McCullough: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the house whether or not any decision has been reached by the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to producer marketing boards in Ontario? I asked the same question on May 15 and at that time the answer was no. Has any decision been reached since that date?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, and if upon inquiry I find that there has been I will so inform the house.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the generality of the five-day week in the Winnipeg area, will the five-day 40 hour week soon be extended to the employees of Deer Lodge hospital?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this question was put to me in a general way yesterday, and I do not think there is anything I can add to the answer I gave yesterday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I address a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance? In view of the fact that some 90 per cent of government employees are now on the five-day 40 hour week, what reason is there for not making it universal?


Walter Edward Harris: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that is a question I shall encounter on my estimates.

The house resumed, from Tuesday, July 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris for committee of supply.



ACTION OF PRIME MINISTER WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFICE OF SPEAKER

Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: Mr. Speaker, normally and naturally on a matter of the kind that is under debate at the moment the Leader of the Opposition would be speaking at this time, but having already 67509-372i
House of Commons
spoken on the present motion the Leader of the Opposition is precluded under the rules from speaking again.
I have but six minutes to express the views of Her Majesty's loyal opposition on this matter of very serious importance.
Let me say also, sir, that the statement the bility for a situation within this house which has now become utterly intolerable rests squarely upon the shoulders of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the government.
Let me say also, sir, that the statement the Prime Minister made in the house on Monday, July 9, took the opposition, and I am sure most members of the house, completely by surprise. There was no advance communication of it by the Prime Minister to the opposition, as has been suggested in some quarters.
The statement that the Prime Minister made on Monday, July 9, was bad enough, Mr. Speaker, but the statement that he made last night was far worse.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was a bald, barefaced declaration of dictatorship which stripped away all the sham and pretence that the government has sought to build up around this problem. The Prime Minister last night expounded a doctrine that the majority in this elective chamber is omnipotent, that the majority in this house which has never yet represented the majority of the ballots cast at the last general election, is omnipotent. Mr. Speaker, the doctrine amounts to this. It amounts to saying that the majority is parliament. What the doctrine amounts to is that nothing else shall prevail. Constitutional practices; the traditions of centuries; hallowed observances of minority rights; the respected guarantees of freedom; the established bulwarks of parliamentary liberties and privileges-these matter nothing any more. The rights of the entire parliament have been subordinated to the will, the whims, the demands and the caprice of a majority in this house; for under this doctrine the majority is parliament.


An hon. Member:: Get your flag.
^r* Fleming: The issue was never any question of the publication of letters. The point was that the incumbent of the office of Speaker expressed himself in terms in which he indicated quite clearly that he wished to be free to enter the lists in partisan debate against members of the opposition against whom he had levelled certain serious charges and, so far as the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is concerned, that fact does not in any respect disqualify

House of Commons
the incumbent of that office. The Prime Minister has said, "My faith in the Speaker is unshaken"; and so far as the Prime Minister is concerned that is all that matters. We do not know under what improper pressures or influences the Speaker was deflected from the honourable course of resignation which he announced in this house on July 2.
The action that the Prime Minister has taken is without precedent. It is an act of supreme arrogance. The office of Speaker is older by centuries in the parliamentary system than is the office of Prime Minister. It is not any appendage of an all-powerful office of Prime Minister. Under the parliamentary system it is an office apart. Yet we in this chamber have seen with our own eyes the further naked exposure of subordination by this government to this government of the high office of Speaker, the very cornerstone of the parliamentary system and its freedoms. One-party government has now been all but achieved by the Prime Minister, his ministers and followers. For the degradation of the high office of Speaker, the Prime Minister is responsible, and with it the degradation of this house itself.
There is but one course now open out of these shambles. Let the electorate cleanse this place of this discredited twenty-second parliament,-


An hon. Member:: Louder.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -a parliament discredited by a Prime Minister and a government with a totalitarian mind and purpose. They fear retribution at the hands of an outraged electorate and that is why they are clinging so to office. Dissolve this discredited parliament, for only in that way can Canada now hope to rescue and redeem the integrity of the very institution of parliament itself.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Minister of Finance speaks now, he will conclude the debate.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, we listened to the hon. member for Eglinton,-


An hon. Member:: Time is up.


Walter Edward Harris: -and all I can say is this. No one in the Dominion of Canada believes the things he has said about the Prime Minister of this country, and when the time comes he will find out.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do I understand the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra is rising on a point of order?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Speaker. May I point out to Your Honour that the time allowed for this debate has expired?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. In accordance with the new practice which has obtained this session, following the change in the rules last year, on supply motions we have taken it that the Clerk will inform the Chair when the time of the debate has expired. The Clerk so informed me immediately following the time that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra rose. That has been well established, I think, on the previous five supply motions.
The Clerk now having informed me that the time has expired it is my duty, under standing order 56, to put the main question.
Mr. Harris, seconded by Mr. Campney, moves that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Gillis:: I was	paired with the Minister
of National Health	and Welfare.
(Translation):


Mr. Paul E. Gagnon (Chicoutimi):: Mr.	
Speaker, members in this corner of the house	
failed to vote, because the second clerk assist-	
ant stated too soon	that the members of the
government had voted. We would have liked	
to vote with the government.


Mr. Speaker:: It	is regrettable that this
should have happened, because I myself was
Supply-Veterans Affairs looking at the second clerk assistant who calls the names of the hon. members as they rise and I noted with surprise that the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) and those who sit next to him had not risen. I thought that they merely wanted to abstain, as they are entitled to do. I hope that this unfortunate mistake will not happen again in the future.
(Text):
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION 58. Departmental administration, $500,150.



LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
The Senate-
The Speaker of the Senate-
198. Allowance in lieu of residence, $3,000.
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE General administration-
415. Departmental administration, $628,021.
Proceedings reported.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 498. Departmental administration, $2,215,472.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, there was some consideration of the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs on Friday last and today I should like to make a few comments on this particular department. I believe the time has come to reassess the position of Canadian veterans and their dependents and the legislation designed to help them. While that legislation was designed to help these Canadians in fact it goes much deeper because in effect it is to repay them for the sacrifices they made for this nation. This obligation started right after the first war and it will continue as long as any of these veterans or their dependents remain alive.
I am afraid there is a tendency today to forget that many of the problems affecting veterans are still very serious and require immediate action, and furthermore that there always will be such problems. The reasons for this tendency to forget and for the apparent lack of interest are several, and today I should like to point out one or two of them to the members of the committee.
The first is that the veterans of both world wars are getting up in years. The annual report of the department for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1955 shows that at that date -I am quoting from page 85-the average age of disability pensioners of the first world war was 65 [DOT] 22 years. That means that today
5866	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs the average age of those pensioners would be between 66 and 67 years. Further on in the report we find the figures for the disability pensioners of the second world war. I was surprised to find that the average age of those pensioners was 42-27 years, which would bring that age today up to 43 or 44 years. The ranks of the men who served in the first war are growing very thin; many of them have joined their comrades who made the supreme sacrifice. The veterans of the second world war have been busy getting established and it is more difficult for them to be interested in and pay attention to the problems which arise in veterans affairs.
Another reason for this tendency to forget and this lack of interest in veterans' problems is I believe the amount of talk there is about the so-called veterans' charter. Time and again we hear in this house of the wonders of the veterans' charter which is considered to have pretty well settled all the problems ;hat will face the veteran for all time.
The actual fact is that veterans' legislation started back during the time of the first world war. I think the Pension Act was passed in 1919. The three main acts affecting the veterans of Canada are the Pension Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Veterans' Land Act; a similar earlier act was known as the soldier settlement act. Those three foundation acts were in effect long before the so-called veterans' charter of 1946. What was done in 1946 and during one or two sessions preceding that year was simply to bring up to date that basic legislation and to add certain other statutes to meet conditions which were peculiar to the second world war. The veterans' charter was passed eleven years ago and it does not meet the problems which are now arising and will continue to arise in connection with veterans' affairs.
Actually there is a great need today for an attack on the problems of the veteran and his dependents with renewed vigour. Yet that has not been done. Let me point out, as did the minister in his opening discussion of his estimates on Friday, that there has been no legislation brought into this house during the present session by the Department of Veterans Affairs. There was an amendment to the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act, but that was introduced by the Minister of Finance. In his remarks the other day the minister sought to excuse this situation by saying that there had been some resolutions presented at the dominion convention of the Canadian Legion held in Vancouver a few weeks ago and that there had not yet been time for the government to review these


suggestions. His remarks are to be found on page 5747 of Hansard. He said:
As hon. members know, the dominion convention of the Canadian Legion in session last month in Vancouver passed a number of resolutions concerned with proposed legislative amendments, and as soon as these recommendations are received by the government I can assure the committee they will receive the careful and thorough consideration of the government and the officials of my department.
That really was not a very good excuse for inaction, because as a matter of fact most of those resolutions were presented to the government when the dominion officers of the legion met the cabinet on November 10, 1955, in plenty of time to have them considered in the intervening months.
Then we still have the situation that the minister is only a half-time minister in so far as the Department of Veterans Affairs is concerned. He was named Postmaster General on November 8, 1955, and for those eight months has been carrying on as the minister of two important departments. I complained about this situation on January 23, when I made my first speech of this session. Other members have complained about it; veterans' organizations have made a similar complaint; but the Prime Minister has done nothing about relieving the present Minister of Veterans Affairs of his obligations as Postmaster General. The blame for this situation rests not on the shoulders of the minister but on the Prime Minister himself.
According to the report of the department, there are over 300,000 Canadians directly affected in that they receive either a pension or war veterans' allowance or have settled under the Veterans' Land Act. I do not know the exact number because there will be certain duplications: for example, a pensioner may also be receiving a war veterans' allowance or may also be settled under the Veterans' Land Act. But there are at least a quarter of a million Canadians who are directly affected by what is done by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and surely that job, if it is to be done properly, is a fulltime job. The minister should be relieved of his obligation to act also as Postmaster General. The very fact that the Prime Minister allows this situation to continue shows that he for one is not very deeply concerned about these problems facing the Canadian veteran.
Then we have the continued refusal to set up a standing committee on veterans affairs. Year after year, requests have been made that that step be taken, but every time they

have been turned down. When we form a government, we certainly will have a fulltime Minister of Veterans Affairs and we certainly will have a standing committee on veterans affairs.


Hugues Lapointe: Wishful thinking.


Howard Charles Green: The setting up of such a committee would result in rectifying the mistakes in legislation and in administration much more quickly than is done under the present conditions. It would also result in keeping the veterans legislation up to date, and I think it would make things a great deal easier for the staff of the Department of Veterans Affairs because it would bring them much more closely in contact with the people whom they are serving.
However, these veterans' problems are not to be dealt with at all during the present year. What is the result of that failure to take any action? Let me instance the case of the veteran on war veterans' allowance who reaches 70 years of age this year, and do not forget that these recipients of war veterans' allowance are in great majority front-line troops of the first world war, men who served in the trenches. The veteran who reaches 70 this year does not get a full old-age security payment of $40 per month. At least, he may get the full old age security payment, but his war veterans' allowance will be cut down. His fellow Canadians who did not serve at all in the forces will get the $40 automatically, but not this front-line fighting soldier.
The reason why he will not get it is because of the low ceiling placed on the annual income he is allowed. If that ceiling were raised from $840 per year to $1,200 per year for the single veteran, and from $1,440 per year to $2,000 per year for the married veteran, as requested year in and year out by the great veterans' organizations of this country, then that situation to which I have referred would be met. This veteran would be able to get his full old-age security payment when he reaches 70, and the small pensioner who is under 70 would be able to retain his small pension and get the full war veterans' allowance.
It is obvious that the government knows that this situation is not right, because there are palliatives being used to partially meet the needs. For example, provision is made for certain earnings to be exempt from consideration, and they are called casual earnings. We were told last year that only a small percentage of the recipients of war veterans' allowance were able to earn anything at all, but there is this provision for casual earnings, which helps some of them.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
Then the government has set up what is known as a war veterans' allowance assistance fund. If a recipient of war veterans' allowance has no other income whatsoever, then he can get a hand-out up to a total of $10 per month, subject to a second means test. He has to take the first means test to qualify for a war veterans' allowance and then, to get any help from the assistance fund, he must take a second means test. I repeat that these are palliatives which help but do not actually meet the situation as it should be met. In effect they prove the need for raising the ceiling on annual income.
The Department of Finance in its wisdom has decided that $2,000 income should be exempt from taxation; in other words, that the family man requires that amount to exist and that he should not pay any tax on it. I suggest that the same ruling should be made with regard to the married recipient of war veterans allowance. It is a very good argument in support of raising this ceiling to the sum of $2,000 per year.
I think it will not be denied that the reason why these ceilings are kept so low is to keep the veteran in line with the recipient of social welfare, although the fact is that the payments made to the veteran are payments for services rendered for the greatest kind of services that any Canadian could render; they should be treated on that basis rather than regarded merely as social welfare measures.
There is another problem concerning war veterans allowance recipients which should be met. Most of these men are getting up in years and their health breaks down. In some cases they have to go to the southern states or to Mexico, some warmer climate, in order to stay alive, and when they do that they lose the war veterans allowance. It is only paid as long as they reside in Canada. There is provision for a short absence from Canada but if they change their residence to some country other than Canada then they lose the allowance. We have always been told that it is too hard for the department to figure out any way in which special provision could be made to meet these cases where the man's health has broken down as distinct from cases where he decides to move away for reasons other than health. I submit that this problem should have been met during the present session. Furthermore, I see no reason why the allowance should not be paid to a veteran who goes to live in another part of the commonwealth, whether or not he goes for health reasons. The same ruling should not apply in those cases as is used where veterans go to foreign lands.
So far as war veterans allowance is concerned, there is also a need to meet the
5868	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs situation of widows of imperial veterans who did not live for a full period of 20 years in Canada. Other members have dealt with this matter, have explained it very fully and have urged that the situation be remedied. The fact is, as we all know, that when provision was made to help these imperial veterans we had in mind the group of imperials who came here up to and including the year 1930. However, instead of saying that any veterans who had come here by that time would be eligible the amendment when passed in 1950 or thereabouts based qualification on the ground of 20 years' residence. Of course that meant that if the veteran died say in 1945 his widow could not qualify because the veteran had not lived in Canada for 20 years. This has been a mistake in draftsmanship and yet the department has never been willing to remedy it. That should have been done this year without any further hardships being imposed on this particular group.
Then there is the Pension Act. I believe the time has come to write into that act a presumption that injury or disease occurred after enlistment. As it stands at the present time, a veteran who suffers a disability now often has a ruling made against him on the ground that the disability originated before he joined the forces. In the second world war particularly medical examinations on enlistment were very thorough, much more thorough, as we all know, than was the case in the first war. I believe that the pension commission stretches things very far when it rules that a disability which the doctors could not find on enlistment actually existed then.
This was one of the points which the Legion emphasized when it appeared before the cabinet on November 10 of last year. At that time the Legion recommended that section 13 (1) (a) of the Pension Act be amended so that, where a pension applicant who served in an actual theatre of war is found to have a disability resulting from an injury or a disease not recorded on medical examination prior to enlistment, such injury or disease shall be presumed to have occurred or had its inception subsequent to an enlistment. There seems to be no good reason why that amendment should not be written into the Pension Act.
Another necessary change is to do away with the deadline against the marriage of a veteran which took place on or after the first of May, 1954. As the law stands at the present time, a veteran contracting such a marriage cannot get any allowance for his wife, and if he dies his widow can get no pension unless they were married before the


first of May, 1954. The reason a deadline was written into the Pension Act in the first place was the fear that when Canadian veterans grew old they might be picked up by some young lady of 20 or 21 who was looking forward to getting a pension for the rest of her life. That was the basis upon which the deadline was written into the act. I do not think it ever had any justification in fact because the pension commission has always been given very wide discretion in such cases. If the veteran had not a reasonable expectation of life for a period of one year, then the pension commission has the power to refuse to grant the pension. Surely this change should be made now.
It is very significant that there is no such deadline in the War Veterans Allowance Act. I refer to the booklet on war veterans allowances which states that the widow of a veteran who died within one year of the date of his marriage shall be ineligible for the war veterans allowance unless it is considered that at the time of his marriage the veteran had a reasonable life expectancy of at least one year. A similar provision should be sufficient in the case of the Pension Act. Strange to say, there is a provision in the Pension Act that if the veteran has been living with a woman, although not married to her, before the deadline date, and marries her afterwards he can get the payment for a wife and she qualifies for payment as a widow; but otherwise if the veteran marries after the deadline date he cannot get any allowance for his wife and if he dies his widow can get no pension. It really is a ridiculous situation. I know some cases where very great hardship has been suffered as the result of the deadline, and I think it should be removed entirely.
The Legion has also advocated that there should be a change with regard to the date from which a pension can be paid. At the present time there is a restriction. Once the pension is granted it is not necessarily retroactive to the date on which the application for pension was made. It is true that power is given to the pension commission to make a six months retroactive award if the delay has caused hardship and distress and a further 18 months retroactive award where there are certain delays and administrative difficulties beyond the applicant's control. In an editorial in the March issue of The Legionary I find the Legion stating, and they should know, that the commission rarely recognizes the existence of such special circumstances. The editorial goes on to say:
It is particularly interesting to note that no provision whatsoever is made for the correction of

an error on the part of the commission or any departmental doctor or official. If an error has been committed, the pensioner must remain the loser.
That situation, Mr. Chairman, is not good enough, and I believe that provision should be made for payment of the pension from the date of application.
The final problem which should have been met this year in connection with the Pension Act is the amount that can be paid to dependent parents. These are cases in which the veteran has lost his life. The pension commission is given power to make payments to a dependent parent or even to two parents if there should be a need. At the present time they can get only $75 a month for one parent and $100 a month for two. The Legion has recommended that these payments should be increased to $100 per month for one parent and $125 per month for two. If that were done, those figures would be in line with the figures for other pensions of a similar nature. Formerly the same figure applied all round and I do not see why the distinction was made when the Pension Act was revised.
Those are some of the problems, Mr. Chairman, facing the veterans of Canada today. Of course, there are others; but certainly those particular problems should have been dealt with this session. That brings me back to my earlier statement that there is a need now to attack veterans problems with renewed vigour and to get away from this tendency to think that everything is lovely and that we no longer need to do anything about the veteran or his dependents.
The place for action primarily is right here in parliament. The responsibility to these veterans and their dependents rests here on the members of the Canadian parliament. I suggest that we must see to it that Canadian veterans and their dependents who made such sacrifices for this nation not only shall not be neglected at the present time but shall never be forgotten.


Mr. James:: Mr. Chairman, following the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra I would be among the first to assert that certainly there are still veterans problems to be solved in this country. Despite the magnificent job the Department of Veterans Affairs is doing,
I do not suppose all of those problems will ever be solved. However, I maintain that the department is doing a terrific job, that it is gradually whittling down those problems and solving them, and that it is making our veterans affairs administration the best of any country in the world.
Yesterday in the Ottawa Journal there was an extremely interesting article which I believe bears me out on this particular theme.
Supply-Veterans Affairs It was written by Walter Gilhooly under the heading "The Ottawa Scene". It mentions two veterans, by name, Dave Polowin, and Lou Mirsky. Polowin was an air gunner with 425 R.C.A.F. Alouette Squadron. Mirsky was in the R.C.O.C. and third division. These two veterans apparently have started a rather unique delicatessen down on Elgin street. This article mentions their experiences following the war. I should just like to bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman, a little bit of this experience as one of them describes it. He states:
I came back from overseas in 1946 and all that I had was the uniform on my back and the government owned that . . . Lou Mirsky wasn't much better off. We had, of course, our re-establishment credits and our war service gratuities. You should have seen this place-
This refers to their delicatessen.
-when we started-a regular hole-in-the-wall. Three of us ran the joint-Lou and me and one employee. Now we employ 14 workers, and it costs us 50, 60 thousand a year to run the place.
Here is the part that I want to emphasize.
D.V.A. fixed us up.
That is the Department of Veterans Affairs.
They helped us finance and they guaranteed us salaries for six months in case the place didn't pay enough to keep us. D.V.A. gave Canadian troops the best deal any troops in the world got after the war.
I believe that is quite true, Mr. Chairman. I only want to add that I am quite certain that the majority or, in fact, practically all of the veterans in my particular area around Durham constituency feel exactly the same way, namely that they have been given a remarkably fine deal, and they have great respect for the Department of Veterans Affairs in all of its activities.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a few remarks in this, as I suppose you might call it, most inspiring atmosphere. I must say that last Friday I listened with a great deal of interest to the minister's review of the activities of his department during the past year. Since listening to it,
I reread his speech. I think there was some quite interesting information in his remarks. However, before going on to the few things I wish to say I must express my appreciation of the courtesy of the minister, the Canadian pension commission, the war veterans allowance board, the senior officials in Ottawa and the district officials in British Columbia, for the kindness and courtesy they have always extended to me when I have had occasion to place my troubles in their laps. I must say that their kindness and prompt attention to any of the problems I have had to bring to their attention have certainly assisted me better to represent my veteran constituents.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
I think it is only fair, Mr. Chairman, that I should not omit the lady members of the senior staff. I have occasion to see them occasionally. Their charm, kindness, sympathy, understanding and knowledge is appreciated, I know, by a good many members of this house. I am sure it is quite safe to say that their knowledge, tact and kindness frequently acts as oil on the creaking wheels of administrative machinery. With others, I must say how much many of us regret the passing of Dr. A. P. Warner some time ago. I think it is only fair to say that, in his passing, the veterans lost a very good friend indeed. I want to mention the retirement of Brigadier Topp from the Canadian pension commission. He will be missed by many in this house and outside of it. I wish to make reference to the retirement of Mr. George Derby as western regional administrator on May 12 of this year after, I understand, 37J years of service with the department or its predecessors. I first met Mr. Derby in Shaughnessy hospital in 1918 and I have known him since that time. I am sure there are many veterans in British Columbia and in western Canada who will have reason to remember his services in the department with gratitude and affection. I am sure there are thousands who will wish him a long and happy retirement.
Mr. Chairman, in listening to the minister I was very glad to hear of the review of
3.000	cases of pensioners whose disabilities were from 40 per cent to 45 per cent and to know that, as a result of that review, a substantial number of those veterans are now receiving a 50 per cent pension or more. Figures do not mean much to the general public in a case like that; but any one who has been closely connected with and interested in veterans affairs knows what a great deal it means to these veterans and their dependents whose pensions are now raised to 50 per cent or above.
I am very glad to know that the pension commission undertook that review. I was also pleased to hear of the review of the
6.000	cases of pensioners suffering from deafness or defective hearing, and that over half those pensioners will benefit as the result of this review. I was also glad to note that the department is adopting a more liberal policy toward dependent parents.
Another point the minister mentioned which was of interest to me was that over
3.000	adopted children are now receiving additional pensions. These things together do indicate an active and continuing concern on the part of the minister and his officials with these veterans and their problems.

As far as this committee is concerned, there has been one major achievement to the advantage of veterans this session, in my [DOT] opinion; that is the making public of the table of disabilities, which the Legion has urged for many years. This session my attention was particularly focused on this question as a result of reading an article written by Adam W. Williams, chairman of the pensions, treatment and W.V.A. committee of the British Columbia command of the Legion. He dealt with the facts very well indeed and the need for the publication of this table.
I must give major credit to the British Columbia command of the Canadian Legion for bringing this question to the attention of hon. members and others. I think it is quite correct to say that the British Columbia command, as the minister has known on occasions, is one of the most aggressive commands in Canada, and it is staffed with some very alert and active officers.
Before passing from this subject I must pay a tribute to Bob Macnicol, who has been closely associated with the Legion and the great war veterans' activities in British Columbia, and has done such excellent work.
I think it is only fair to give credit to those people who have given such good service and, as far as Mr. Macnicol is concerned, since his retirement a great deal of voluntary service and time. This was a matter of some importance because I have heard it discussed at the Legion meetings; I have discussed it with veterans' advocates, and I have discussed it with officials of the Canadian Legion in British Columbia.
When I read the article I began to think just what could be done to ferret this out. I had a discussion with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I said to him, "I have a good notion to put a resolution on the order paper so we can have a debate on this specific question." He said, "Well, why not put a motion for production of papers?" I am one to pick other people's brains on occasions, and I immediately seized on the suggestion and placed a motion on the order paper for the production of papers. I am very glad indeed that the minister, after consideration, saw fit to allow that motion to be adopted unanimously by the house. Since then I have heard from a number of Legion officials, not in Ottawa, and from branches and from two or three veterans' advocates who said that to date it has been of considerable advantage to a number of veterans.
In concluding his remarks the minister also was frank enough to indicate that he considered that possibly some amendments were still necessary to veterans' legislation. That indicated he had an open mind and I am quite sure, being in that state of mind, he will listen

most sympathetically to any representations made by the Canadian Legion or hon. members.
The 16th dominion convention of the Canadian Legion was held recently in Vancouver, and this parliament of the Canadian veterans adopted a number of resolutions. The majority of those resolutions dealt with war veterans allowances, the Pension Act, the Veterans' Land Act, and resolutions that have come before the dominion convention of the Canadian Legion on a number of occasions. They are the hard core problems which the legion wishes the government to solve by necessary amendments to legislation. I am not going to deal in detail with those resolutions. The hon. member for Royal and the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra mentioned them. I am simply going to mention them. I am not going to take the time of the committee to tell the minister what he already knows, but the veterans I represent asked me to support any suggestions in this respect and to bring their interest in this matter to the attention of the minister and his officials.
From my contact with veterans I think the most pressing problem is an amendment to the War Veterans Allowance Act that would raise the ceiling on permissive income so it would be $1,200 for single men and $2,000 for married men. From personal experience I know that would be a great help to a good number of veterans in this country. I say it is the most pressing problem and possibly the first problem in the minds of the greatest number of veterans. As a result of attending Legion meetings and discussing it with people in my constituency and in other places, I do most heartily support representations made in that respect. The Legion indicated its continuing interest in that matter even as late as March of this year, in an editorial in The Legionary.
I also want to support the plea on behalf of those veterans of the first world war who served in England only. They should receive the war veterans allowance. They are growing fewer and fewer in numbers. I am sure it would not be a great expense. The present circumstances are somewhat unjust and unfair for reasons mentioned by the hon. member for Royal and by four other hon. members.
It just happened that a veteran stayed in England. I know a veteran in my company who just before we left for France was transferred to the pay office and did his best to get out of it. He was an accountant, so he went to the pay office and stayed in London for the rest of the war. Another veteran went to France and stayed at Havre working
67509-373i
Supply-Veterans Affairs around the camp. He gets the war veterans allowance. Really there was no possible difference in risk between staying in London in the pay office and staying in Havre working around the camp, both doing what they were told to do as soldiers. I do support the representations made on behalf of those veterans.
I also support the representations made on behalf of widows of veterans who now have 20 years' residence in Canada. As one who is interested in this, I must at this point mention the work done by the ladies of the non-pensioned widows' association. I also want to compliment the parliamentary assistant on his special and particular interest in this problem. I know he has been very kind to this group of ladies when they have visited Ottawa, and I know he pays particular attention to their problems'.
My final appeal with respect to the war veterans allowance I have mentioned several times in recent years. It has to do with veterans who have to reside outside of Canada for health reasons and who obtain a certificate from a departmental doctor to prove it. They should continue to receive the war veterans allowance. They are very few in number indeed. I know from my personal experience of one very unfortunate case. Under the present law and regulations nothing can be done for this man; consequently he is now living in Mexico as the result of a fund which is being organized and to which his veteran friends contribute every month. I think they manage to send about $50 a month to him in Mexico City, and I am very happy to chip in my little bit to help out.
I also think there should be the few minor amendments to the Pension Act with respect to dependent parents that have been suggested by the Canadian Legion. Compared to what has been done these are minor amendments, and I urge the minister and the government to give consideration to them. That is all I have to say concerning the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Pension Act. Now I want to say a word with respect to the Veterans' Land Act.
First of all I must say the local administration so far as I can see is excellent, that part of it of which I have knowledge. The officials with whom I deal in my constituency are competent and always willing to try to deal with any particular problem to the advantage of the veteran according to the law and regulation. However, in my constituency there are over 200 veterans, particularly young married veterans, who are unable to take advantage of the small holding section of the Veterans' Land Act because of the acreage required. I know the minister looks at me as

Supply-Veterans Affairs if to say this is a boring topic and one which I have mentioned before, but this is a serious problem for veterans in a country with topography like ours where there are mountains, lakes and valleys and where it is not easy to obtain two or three acres of land. Most of these men are working in the mining industry or the lumber industry. A quarter of an acre is a quite sufficient area for a small holding for any man working in industry, and I suggest that further consideration be given to these particular circumstances and the regulations so amended that a veteran can obtain a holding as small in area as one quarter of an acre.
I think there is general recognition of the good work being done by the Veterans' Land Act administration. I have received one general criticism, not of the particular officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation concerned nor of any' individual, but for some reason or another veterans like to come under the administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is a department with a head and a heart-some have considerable head but not very much heart-and I find it is the almost unanimous wish of veterans who have to build houses that the administration of all housing in which veterans are concerned remain within the jurisdiction of the Veterans' Land Act administration.
The Department of Veterans Affairs, Mr. Chairman, is spending about $245 million this year. Changing conditions and circumstances create new problems almost from day to day for the veterans, the dependents of veterans, the administration and the government. In our opinion a standing committee on veterans affairs is necessary if parliament is going to deal effectively and with fairness with all the human beings concerned.
I know that the area in which we can tackle the government with respect to veterans affairs is somewhat circumscribed. We have certain particular problems that are not settled. We will have other problems that will arise in the days to come, and that is why we think it is essential that there should be a standing parliamentary committee on veterans affairs. It would provide an opportunity for representations to be made by veterans' organizations. It would provide an opportunity for the hearing of evidence from the departmental officials and a resume of their activities, and would give us a better understanding of the administration of the affairs of the department. It would provide for an annual review of veterans' legislation as the result of listening to representations made by veterans' organizations, for amendments and improvements, and it would provide the


committee, in addition, an opportunity to make recommendations to the government as a result of these representations, this evidence, this hearing of the officials and as a result of the personal experience of the members concerned.
The request for a standing committee on veterans affairs is genuine and has been voiced from this side of the house and by some hon. members on the other side for some years. I think the need is obvious if we are going to serve the veteran to the best advantage. All that is required is recognition of that need and recognition of the facts by this government.
That is all I am going to say on the estimates at this time. I may have some comments to make under particular items, but at this point I shall conclude my remarks.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, it was just
about a year ago that we started to discuss the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs during last session. During the course of my remarks at that time I commented upon the fact that the Minister of Veterans Affairs for five years in succession had failed to make any statement at the beginning of his estimates. I did not think he would accept my advice which I tendered to him on that occasion, but to my astonishment he came forward this year and made a statement at the opening of his estimates.
That is an encouraging advance, and if the minister has charge of this department on some other occasion I hope he will continue that practice, because it is essential that a minister should review the work of the year and place it before the committee. Of course when I examine his statement made just a few days ago I find there are many omissions, but I am going to be patient and generous with him and hope for improvement as we go along.
I do not propose during the course of my remarks today to offer any criticism of the work of the officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I think within the limitations of the act and the limitations of the direction given to them they are doing an efficient piece of work but, if necessary, I do propose to be critical of the actions of the minister and the ineffectiveness of the legislation as I see it.
The minister pointed out that no legislation was introduced this year and seemed to imply by that remark that everything was all right. That struck me as being rather odd, because last year the estimates of this department went before the estimates committee of the House of Commons and a fairly exhaustive study of the Department of Veterans Affairs

was carried out in that committee. Various officials appeared before us and gave the committee all the information that was asked for and disclosed to us that they are as efficient as any members of the civil service. During the course of that comprehensive study of this department last year several points came up which I thought would be reviewed in the interval, and I expected that the minister would comment on them at this time.
In the estimates committee we went into the subject of the rates of pension with considerable care. Facts and figures were produced. For perhaps the first time the pension commission in the person of the chairman appeared before us and gave a great deal of information with regard to disability pensions. I thought we indicated to the minister at that time, and subsequently when the estimates came before the committee of the whole house, that the pension rates were not entirely satisfactory.
We get the same thing in connection with war veterans allowances. We went into that and pointed out the alterations that should be made to improve war veterans allowances. We discussed at considerable length the benefit of doubt section in the veterans' charter, yet nothing is said about it this year by the minister. We discussed at considerable length section 13 (2) of the Pension Act which provides for the granting of pensions to veterans or dependents where the veteran has suffered injury or death in connection with a disability which arose out of or was directly connected with his military service. That section has been a stumbling block for a number of years in connection with the granting of pensions. It was discussed thoroughly by the committee which sat last year, but it is passed by without any comment by the minister this year.
We discussed also the question of pensions for men who served in England in the first world war, but it passes without comment this year. We discussed at some length in the estimates committee and again in the house last year the problems of our veterans. We urged the setting up of a standing committee on veterans affairs, but again no result.
That is not good enough. There was a much more exhaustive study last year of the affairs of the Department of Veterans Affairs than we have had in previous years. The officials were there to be examined and to answer our questions. Problems which required rectification were brought to the attention of the minister. Yet the minister informs us that there is to be no legislation brought down this year, which gives the impression that everything is fine with regard to veterans
Supply-Veterans Affairs affairs. Consequently we are placed once again in the position of having to draw to the attention of the minister the fact that everything is not right with veterans affairs. Some changes need to be made and should have been made long ago. They can still be made. Just a few minutes ago the hon. member for Durham was telling us how wonderful the veterans' charter was, and he quoted from a newspaper to the effect that members of the forces had benefited greatly after the conclusion of the last war from the assistance they had received.
That is all very well, but it should be placed against what is contained in the departmental report of 1955, the last one that is available to us. That indicates that 5,305 veterans of world war I made application to the pension commission for decisions of one sort or another. The same report contains the information that disability pensioners of world war I made application to the pension commission for additional or other allowances to the number of 1,543. Similar information with regard to world war II shows that in 1954-55 veterans of that war made 8,873 applications to the Canadian pension commission. If everything were perfectly all right with regard to veterans legislation we would not have applications of that nature coming before the pension commission at this stage, certainly not from veterans of world war I. It is quite obvious that the situation is not quite as rosy as some people attempt to make out.
As I pointed out to the house last year, and as I repeat this year, a fairly exhaustive study indicates that the picture with regard to those who are on pension is not particularly satisfactory. The chairman of the pension commission gave figures to show that in the case of world war I pensioners, those receiving a pension of 50 per cent or better constituted only 25 per cent of the total number. Three-quarters of world war I pensioners are receiving pensions of less than 50 per cent, and the average pension is $32.64.
World war II pensioners receiving pensions of 50 per cent or more constitute 17 per cent of the total, and 83 per cent are receiving pensions of under 50 per cent. The average pension for world war II pensioners is $24.52. It is quite evident from those figures that the Canadian pension scheme is not particularly generous. If it were a generous scheme, how does it come about that 10,000 disability pensioners have to receive additional assistance by way of war veterans allowances or other assistance plans?
Things are not as satisfactory as some people would try to persuade us, and much more
5874	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs activity is required on the part of the minister to make sure that veterans are not in trouble. It is for that and other reasons that we keep asking for a standing committee on veterans affairs where matters such as this could be reviewed. Otherwise things are likely to be taken for granted. As I have pointed out, the work of the pension commission did not come under detailed review until last year, before the estimates committee; at least not for a number of years. The facts and figures which I have given emerged from that review.
A standing committee meeting every year would be able to receive representations from veterans organizations, would be able to interview the officials of the department, and could keep closely in touch with the veteran situation throughout the country. We must remember that this is a continuing problem. It is safe to say that for 70 years after any war there will be problems concerning the veterans of that particular war. The figures shown in the departmental report indicate that the ages of world war I veterans run from 50 to 99 years. Those who are in their fifties on that disability list may live until they are 99; thus you could have another 40-odd years in which you would have to deal with disability pensioners of world war I. The ages of pensioners of world war II run from 25 to something in the sixties, so there will be a long period ahead in which problems affecting veterans of world war II will have to be considered. We are not going to get rid of the problems facing our veterans for a long time, and we must settle down and accept the fact that we have to look after the veterans of wars in which Canada has been engaged. Don't forget that the South African veterans are still with us. So for those reasons and others a standing committee on veterans affairs is the proper thing to set up. There too we would discover some of the reasons why there are so many thousands of applications for pensions being made even at the present time by world war I veterans. We might be able to find out why so many of those applications are brought forward and why so many of them are turned down.
May I point out to the minister, and he may pass the word along to his officials- and this is the only criticism I am making of the officials-that it is about time they altered a sentence in their departmental report. I think I drew it to their attention last year. If I did not I do so now, and if I did I repeat it. In the report in 1951, and it is repeated in the reports of 1953, 1954


and now in 1955, words like this appear in reference to applications for pensions:
In all cases, every effort is made to obtain final settlement without recourse to an appeal board-
I worked out the figures and discovered that despite all those efforts, 91-2 per cent of all first and second hearings failed. So I think the sentence is completely meaningless. It occurs in the report for 1955 with the additional phrase added:
-and in many instances finality is reached by this means.
That does not happen. Most of these applications fall to the ground on first and second hearings despite all these efforts. I think a standing committee on veterans affairs might investigate that particular problem and see whether anything could be done about it.
I am not going to cover the ground that has already been touched on by other members on this side of the house, but I certainly am in complete sympathy with the veterans' organizations that continue to press for attention with regard to disability pensioners, that continue to press for attention to the War Veterans Allowance Act and the regulations thereunder, and that continue to press for increased financial assistance to war veterans. I am not going to touch on the question of casual earnings; that comes up every year. It has been mentioned here again this year, and the veterans' organization continue to draw it to our attention. These are problems that are pressing; they affect individuals many of whom are in desperate circumstances.
It is certainly not right for anyone to attempt to create the impression that everything is all right with regard to veterans affairs in Canada and that there is a great charter which looks after all the veterans. My investigation shows that that is not so. I am not going to repeat the figures I used last year, when I dealt with this at some length and indicated that thousands of veterans have not received any assistance whatsoever since the first world war, and the same is going to be true of veterans of the second world war. Many thousands, of course, have not asked for assistance, but it struck me as very odd when I looked into it last year that half the number of those who had been wounded in the first great war had not been placed on the pension roll, and it strikes me as odd at the present time that men are getting pensions now, 40 years after the first world war, for gunshot wounds suffered then.
I noted that the minister referred to a review made of about 3,000 pensioners who were receiving disability pensions of 40 per cent and 45 per cent. He stated the other day that a very substantial number of these awards were increased to 50 per cent and

more, making their dependents eligible for an award in the event of death. I had hoped there would be a table in the 1955 report indicating that activity-it may be there and I have not found it-or that the minister would give us the exact figures and not merely the statement that a very substantial number of these awards were increased. Why not pin it down and let us have the actual number, and give us the percentage of those who now get 50 per cent or more pension so we may make a proper comparison?
I think it would not hurt at all for a standing committee on veterans affairs to examine the matter I raised last year in the estimates committee and mentioned in the house, that a ceiling seems to have been set on the amount of money available for pensions over the years. I have traced the course of these for 20 years. There seems to be a ceiling, and as men die others can be added to the pension roll. Why did it not happen that a few years after the first world war the number on pension went away up to a high figure and then declined, instead of running almost level for a long period? I asked the question in regard to the second world war. Why should not the pension roll for the second world war have mounted very rapidly and then soon started to decline? If you look at the record you will find that there is a sort of dead level for 25 years, and that year after year men are being placed on the pension roll.
The only conclusion I can draw is that some ceiling has been set over all these years for these pensions, and as 800 or 1,000 men die each year, the pension board can receive applications from and consider adding to the pension roll 800 or 1,000 men, so the financial obligation remains the same. A standing committee could look into that as well as other things.
I have some other remarks on the Department of Veterans Affairs to be made later.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, at this time I wish to record my support for a number of suggestions relative to veterans' legislation. This afternoon we listened to the hon. member for Durham congratulating the department on the splendid achievements of the past, and he made some remarks relative to the widespread satisfaction that exists with regard to the legislation as we now have it. I am sure that none of us believe that every problem has been taken care of and solved, but I may say that all veterans and those who are interested in veterans affairs are appreciative of what has been done. Nevertheless, I think they will take at face value the implications in the minister's speech the other day, when he made the remark that further amendments would be possible in the future.
Supply-Veterans Affairs Certainly we shall be looking forward to the introduction of some of those amendments, and we hope it is going to be in the not too distant future.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, in speaking this afternoon, made the statement that some of these problems would be solved when the Progressive Conservative party forms the government. I certainly hope we do not have to wait that long, because if that is so there will be a great many more opportunities to raise some of these very same problems in the future. However, we hope that as the days go by the minister and his department will give serious and favourable consideration to many of the subjects that have been raised in the course of this debate.
It has been indicated that one of the main problems faced by the veterans and those interested in veterans affairs is the matter of the permissive income. In reading the speech the minister made when introducing his departmental estimates I noticed that he referred to the significant change that had been made in the War Veterans Allowance Act last year with reference to the rates and the ceilings. Prior to the introduction last year of the legislation to which the minister referred we had hopes that he would be prepared to meet the requests of the Legion and the other veterans' organizations with respect to permissive income. However, when the legislation was introduced, we were disappointed to find that he had only gone part way. Perhaps it was just meant to appease those who had been persistent in their requests for increases. However, whatever the reason the department did not see fit to go all the way and grant the requests that the permissive ceiling be raised to $1,200 for single recipients and $2,000 for married recipients.
I think some satisfaction was taken in the view that these increases had taken care of the situation to a large extent. When we think of the entire picture and consider those who have the opportunity to supplement their allowance or income by casual earnings, perhaps such recipients are in a fair position; but then we are also reminded of the fact that there are those who are not in a position to take advantage of the casual earnings clause. There are those who are not physically able. There are those who are unable because of the economic situation in their communities. They do not have the privilege of supplementing their income, and we find they are still in a very difficult financial position. I think the minister and his department should give serious consideration to that particular class.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
Another group to whom references have been made during the course of the debate are the veterans who are residing outside of Canada. I raised this same matter with respect to old age pension recipients. I felt that they should not be disqualified if for some particular reason, health or otherwise, they were required or desired to live outside of Canada. Certainly I feel just as strongly in the case of veterans who, for health or perhaps other reasons, want to live outside of Canada. I do not see why they should be disqualified so far as the war veterans allowance is concerned.
I know this matter has also been brought to the attention of the minister and the department not only during the course of this debate but on other occasions, and also by the Canadian Legion and the other veterans' organizations. I trust it is still under consideration. If not, I hope the minister and his department will take it under advisement and give serious consideration to this particular matter having to do with veterans' legislation.
There is another request to which I should like to give my support. I refer to the request on behalf of the widows of those who served in the allied forces during the first war and whose husbands died before they had fulfilled the 20-year residence qualification entitling them to the war veterans allowance. I believe this matter has also been given consideration by the department, but for some reason or other they have not seen fit to accede to the request. I suggest that the recommendation that when the widow has fulfilled the 20-year residence qualification she should be qualified to receive the allowance is valid and fair, and I would suggest that this recommendation be given consideration and the request acceded to.
There is another matter to which I referred last year during the debate on veterans affairs, and I believe it has also been referred to today. It has to do with those veterans who served in England during the first world war but did not get to the actual scene of battle. Last year when I spoke I referred to the fact that I had not been aware that during the first world war even those in England were subjected to enemy attack and bombardment. I think that should qualify them to receive the war veterans allowance, because I imagine there may have been some, perhaps not many, who crossed the channel, set foot in France and yet were not subjected to even the same degree of attack and bombardment as these men in England were on some occasions. It has also been indicated that the conditions in England under which these veterans were required to live were 

difficult, and this fact certainly should warrant some consideration of the matter. Again, their service in England may have been more arduous than in the case of some of those who perhaps just landed in France and did not actually go into a theatre of combat.
While discussing veterans affairs with veterans' leaders in my own constituency one particular matter was drawn to my attention, and I want to pass it along to the minister at this time. It is the request that consideration be given to providing medical services, drugs, etc., to the wives of war veterans allowance recipients. I feel this is a request which should be given serious consideration. I know this matter has also been raised before and drawn to the attention of the department; nevertheless up to the present favourable action has not been taken in relation to the request.
These are some of the matters to which I should like to draw attention. Perhaps they have all been mentioned before. It has been suggested today that some of these problems have been brought to the attention of the house and the department on many occasions, that they have been contained in briefs submitted by the Canadian Legion and other veterans' organizations. It may be that the department feels there are justifiable reasons why the requests should not or cannot be granted, but I certainly feel that until these requests are met and the problems are solved we should not be too ready to settle back and take the attitude that the veterans' charter covers all the problems that confront our veterans in this day and age.
In introducing his estimates the minister referred to the fact that with the exception of one minor amendment to the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act, no veterans' legislation was to be introduced at this session. I trust that is not an indication that no further pressing problems are evident, and that we can settle back and take a breathing spell and perhaps review the situation again in the years that lie ahead. These matters call for urgent consideration.
The request has been made that a standing committee on veterans affairs be set up. I think I have heard the same request made in the past three sessions during which I have served in the House of Commons. I have also seen this subject referred to in the various veterans' periodicals. However, so far the government has not seen fit to set up such a committee. Last year a special committee was established to deal with veterans' legislation that would be referred to it. I know we appreciated the setting up of that committee last year, but even at that time we indicated that we felt it was not adequate

for the needs because of the fact that the terms of reference were limited to those matters which had been referred to it by the house. This session we have not even had a committee set up in this session.
I think this is another indication that perhaps we are kind of settling back as far as the veterans' legislation and the veterans' problems are concerned. I certainly hope that favourable consideration will be given to the setting up of a committee and that the request that has been made on so many occasions in this regard will be acceded to.
So, Mr. Chairman, I call attention to these problems, I give my support to the request for a solution to them, and I trust that the minister and his department will give serious and favourable consideration to each and every one of them.


Mr. Philpoti:: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of unduly delaying the passing of any of these items, but I think I should make some comment on some of the statements made from the opposite side of the house today and one statement made by the hon. member for New Westminster the other day.
While I generally agree with what my good friend the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre said, I thought he made one most unfortunate suggestion, and one which certainly will do the cause of the veterans in Canada no over-all good, when he suggested that there was some kind of sinister thing like an over-all ceiling on expenditures and therefore new applicants could be taken on the list as pensioners only as the old ones die off, or something to that effect.
When that suggestion was made, I think last year, I discussed this rather remarkable proposition with some of the responsible officials. I found, of course, that they were highly incensed at the implication or insinuation that there could be anything of this kind because it was, to a certain extent, a challenge to their integrity. I think it is obviously true that of all the departments in this government, there is no department of government where the officials from the top to the bottom give more faithful and fairer service to this house and to the people of Canada than do the officials of that particular department.
On reflection I think my good friend the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre will realize that, while it is a very melancholy thought, any good statistician can figure out in advance how many of us "old sweats" are going to die off every particular year. I think nobody but the Lord God Almighty himself can tell whether the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre or the hon. member for Vancouver South is going to be with us
Supply-Veterans Affairs next year; but I think any good statistician can say how many of the veterans of world war I, of age 60 to 70, are going to be with us one year from now, how many are going to be with us five years from now, how many are going to be with us 10 years from now and so on down the list.
I therefore think it is quite obvious that the statisticians of the department always know in advance just what the trend is; and I believe the implication is most unfair that they are slanting their judicial decision as to the eligibility of applicants according to the amount of extra money that might be made available from "old sweats" passing to their reward.
Then with regard to some of the remarkable misstatements made by some of the members of the opposition, I thought also that my good friend the hon. member for New Westminster was certainly on false ground the other day when he suggested this. I forget how he put it, but it was to the effect that the British Columbia government had a grievance against the federal government for not giving free treatment to war veterans allowance recipients. Mr. Chairman, everybody in British Columbia including the people on war veterans allowance is forced to pay the 5 per cent compulsory sales tax which is collected for free hospital treatment.


Alexander Bell Patterson: No, it is not. It is 2 per cent.


Elmore Philpott: If we are going to charge to the people what they ought to pay to the federal government, the government of Canada should be presenting a hospital bill to the Social Credit government of British Columbia every year to make up for the free hospital treatment that is given the veterans allowance patients in federal hospitals, for which not a single cent is charged to the Social Credit government of British Columbia.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Put the record straight. It is 2 per cent, not 5 per cent.


Elmore Philpott: It is 5 per cent over-all. All we know is who pays it and how much. I think it is a very poor suggestion for the hon. member for New Westminster to make, especially when the same Social Credit government of British Columbia will not even make eligible for hospital services the incoming dependents of the people in the armed services until after they have lived in British Columbia for so many months. I think it is a year or so many months additional.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I think they tried to work it out with the federal government, did they not?

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Elmore Philpott: It takes two to make an agreement.


Alexander Bell Patterson: That is the trouble.


Elmore Philpott: I think they had better start. To concentrate now on the happier side, I cannot agree either with some of my hon. friends opposite that there have been no improvements in the general set-up. I know this if my own mail bag is any criterion, and I think I probably get as much mail as most members of this house. I know that in the first year of this parliament my mail ran to over 1,000 letters per month asking for increases in the war veterans allowance, for the raising of ceilings on casual earnings and so on. This year I do not think I have had four letters from my constituents on the general question of increases or anything to do with the general set-up of the war veterans' system. I have had some letters of the other kind.
I remember one of the first modest things I tried to do when I came to this house, apart from doing what other members on both sides of the house were doing, namely trying to get increases in war veterans allowances which we subsequently succeeded in getting. I remember that one of the first letters I wrote was to the present minister.
May I interject here for just a moment, Mr. Chairman, that I have heard some rather ridiculous talk from the other side of the house about wanting a full-time minister. Our minister is a two-handed minister, quite capable of carrying two jobs at once. If the time ever came when he was not able to carry out one job with each hand, I know which job would be given up. The Prime Minister would be looking for a new postmaster general, because the veterans of Canada are smart enough to know that they have the most friendly and co-operative of all the distinguished ministers who have held this distinguished post. None has had a greater and more deserved hold on the affections of the veterans of Canada than has the hon. gentleman who sits in that position today and who is too modest to say so himself.
May I mention one of the relatively small things which we sometimes find pay big dividends. I remember almost the first day I got in this House of Commons-certainly in the first week or month-taking up the question of making adopted children eligible along with natural children for the allowances drawn by veterans. This year we saw in the report that several thousand of these children are now drawing those allowances.
Sometimes when we think of it in terms of how much it costs the country we may be


inclined to forget the human equation. I have a letter in my file from a very fine war veteran in British Columbia who has a couple of children of his own and three adopted children of rather mixed parentage, perhaps. I remember both that man and his wife telling me that they were not so much interested in the actual allowance they would draw for those adopted children, but it was the idea that they could tell those children that the government of Canada had just as high a regard for them as it had for the natural children born in the ordinary course of the marriage relationship. Perhaps some of these small things are just as important in human terms as some of the spectacular things about which we all hear.
One other thing in the report this year that certainly warmed my heart was that somebody-I do not know who was responsible; perhaps it was a combined effort-took it upon himself or themselves to review the assessment of all the disability pensioners in the 40 per cent and 45 per cent disability group. We all know, Mr. Chairman, the practical effect of that was to make eligible for widows' pensions, when the unhappy occurrence takes place that the husband passes on and the wife remains, several thousand Canadian women who were not eligible until that general over-all revision.
While I do not think, Mr. Chairman, there is anyone certainly on this side of the house who is going to be inclined to rest on the laurels of our pension legislation, I certainly do not think we have anything to be ashamed of. I remember just about a week or so ago reading a long account in the New York Times of the discussion in the congress of the United States of the proposed revisions in their pension system, and it certainly gave me a thrill to read that even after all these years the United States has nothing that can remotely compare with the system we have in Canada with respect to disability pensions and war veterans allowances. After all these years the great rich United States, by far the richest country in the whole world, is only now coming around to propose, if you please, a very moderate and limited form of system which we have had ever since 1930 in our war veterans allowance legislation in this country. When I say we have had it ever since 1930 I mean we have had it by reason of the support that veterans' reforms have always received from all sides of the house.
I am not going to close my little talk today without making some practical suggestions. I believe we should have a select veterans' committee of this house meeting more often.



II. 1956

[Stage Direction]
I certainly hope there is a veterans' committee next year if we get a chance to set it up. In any event, there are certain things we were not able to bring to finality at the last session of the veterans' committee which I personally would like to see reconsidered. One thing in particular I would like to see reconsidered is the question of the eligibility for war veterans allowance of world war I men who served only in what is called the British theatre, especially as the people in world war II are eligible for that allowance.
It will be remembered, Mr. Chairman, that when we had our last veterans' committee at the last session of parliament, the veterans' organizations of Canada were sharply divided on this particular question. While the Canadian Legion was strongly in favour of making eligible those who had served only in England in the first world war, there were other very powerful and very widespread veterans' organizations which took a very strong position against that suggestion. I say time is marching on. In my opinion this is one subject at which we should take a second look and of which we should certainly take a more liberal view.
There is one other thing I should like to mention. I do not think any other hon. member has mentioned it so far. If he has, it must have been done when I was not able to be here. I think it was a very fine thing that the minister and the government have agreed to the proposals of the Canadian Legion and have decided to build here, on one of the finest sites in the capital of Canada, a fitting cenotaph or national memorial to the fallen of all wars.
I know, Mr. Chairman, that the beautiful memorial to the fallen of world war I which stands in Confederation square is a fine and inspiring work of art, but for various reasons it could never be transformed into a fitting memorial for the fallen of all wars. Someone pointed out to me the other day that even in its cultural aspects it is dated. I think of the gunners and their artillery horses. That was certainly all right for world war I, but I do not think the people of world war II would even know how to put the harness on the horses, let alone what to do with the spurs and so on. Therefore I think it is a very fine thing that the government has decided to yield to the suggestion of the Canadian Legion to build on one of the finest sites in the whole Dominion of Canada a fitting permanent cenotaph at which suitable ceremonies can be held from year to year.
Sometimes I think, Mr. Chairman, it would be almost worth the price if this nation would pay the fare of people across the ocean to the great battlefield of Vimy Ridge to see
Supply-Veterans Affairs what I think must be the most inspiring war memorial in the whole world today. I know that I have never looked at anything which moved me as much as did the sight of that beautiful work of art which stands on the crest of the hill dedicated forever to Canada by the grateful French nation. I think if we assign our best artists and our best sculptors to design something equally fitting for the site in Ottawa we shall have done something of which this house will always be proud and of which no Canadian need be ashamed.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, without taking up the time of the committee any further, may I say there should be no disposition whatever for us in any part of this house to rest on our laurels in regard to veterans' legislation. What we have done is good. There are some spots in which it could be better, but we have given a fair break to the people who served this country in her hour of need.
Mr. While (Haslings-Fronlenac):: There are just one or two matters on which I wish to comment very briefly. The first is the remarks of the minister at page 5748 of Hansard. He advised us of the review made by his department of the pensioners who were receiving 40 per cent and 45 per cent disability pensions. I should like to ask the minister whether that is the start of a review of the cases of all pensioners who receive less than 40 per cent, in the hope and expectation that physical changes that have taken place over the years will show that they are entitled to a larger pension.
The minister should be commended on what he has done in that respect, and I sincerely hope that he and the officials of his department will review the cases of all other pensioners who receive less than 40 per cent. I would also like to have the minister explain to the committee the yardstick or whatever it is that is used in establishing the percentage of disability pension of the husband to which the wife is entitled on his death. I know it is 50 per cent, but I would like the minister to explain to the committee why and how they arrived at 50 per cent, and also why the widow of a pensioner who receives a 10 per cent to 45 per cent disability pension is not entitled to at least some pension on the death of her husband.
The minister may reply that if the veteran receives a 30 per cent pension his wife would be entitled to war veterans allowance on his death and that is quite true; but as the minister knows, when the widow reaches 70 and receives the old age security pension her war veterans allowance is reduced accordingly. On the other hand if she were in receipt of a pension on account of her husband's disability she would be able to retain that and

Supply-Veterans Affairs also receive the old age security pension. I for one would be interested in having the minister tell us when he speaks how and why it has been set at 50 per cent and why his department feels that the widow of a veteran who receives less than a 50 per cent pension is not entitled to a pension on the death of her husband.
The second point which interests me is a point the minister must be tired of hearing, and that is the old question of the veteran who served only in England in world war I. On Friday last the hon. member for New Westminster read into the record an interesting letter from Mr. Garneau, chairman of the war veterans allowance board. In that letter Mr. Garneau made a most interesting statement in which he said:
... in accordance with the act, veterans of world war II who had actually left the shores of Canada before the 8th day of May, 1945, and were on their way to an actual theatre of war, may be deemed to have been on service in a theatre of actual war outside the western hemisphere.
Nobody is going to quarrel with that, Mr. Chairman, but it does seem rather far-fetched that a veteran of world war II could leave the western hemisphere, and even before reaching England, when the war was over for the purpose of the War Veterans Allowance Act he could be classed as having served in an actual theatre of war. In view of the interpretation put on the matter by the chairman of the war veterans allowance board it seems difficult to understand why the minister cannot amend the act to classify England as a theatre of war as far as world war I is concerned in relation to the War Veterans Allowance Act.
The third point with which I wish to deal was mentioned previously this afternoon by the hon. member for Kootenay West, and it is with regard to the acreage under the Veterans' Land Act. The minister and his officials must know that the price of building lots has increased considerably. Not only that, but due to the change that has taken place in the various provinces-in my own province of Ontario, for example-the tax rate has become very high and if the veteran has to have the number of acres required by the present regulations he must be penalized by paying a high tax rate each year.
For example, in the small village in which I live the average lot is one quarter of an acre in size; I think that is the standard size. A building lot would cost between $200 and $800 according to its location. The municipal tax rate this year is 80 mills. The minister can readily see that if it is necessary for the veteran to have the required number of acres he has to acquire land at a high
[Mr. White (Hastings-Frontenac) .1
price and he will be penalized each year by having to pay extremely high taxes.
The only other matter I wish to mention is with regard to the pension board. I still feel there are too many cases in which the officials are not giving the veteran the benefit of the doubt, and in far too many cases they continue to hide behind the old statement that the disability was pre-enlistment and not aggravated by war service and therefore the veteran is not pensionable. To give you an example, I have in my hand a letter written to a veteran by one of the medical officers at Sunnybrook hospital. In reporting to this veteran the doctor made the following comment:
The information regarding your findings has been forwarded to the Canadian pensions commission and I understand your claim is still under study. I would think it most likely that they will find it a pensionable disability in view of our recommendations.
This report was written by a doctor who had been in charge of this veteran for several months; but despite his report, when the matter came before the officials of the pension commission they said this was the old case of the disability being pre-enlistment and not aggravated by military service, and therefore the veteran was not pensionable. In view of that I would say to the minister that I think there must be something wrong in this particular case. An outstanding medical man wrote to the veteran setting out his views on the case, and surely he must know more about it than anyone on the pension commission. Despite this fact the old alibi concerning it being a pre-enlistment disability cropped up.
I agree wth the remarks made by the hon. member for Royal on Friday and the remarks made by the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra this afternoon. Before I sit down I would like to emphasize again to the minister that I think he must be sufficiently satisfied, in view of the many remarks made this afternoon concerning the benefit to be derived from a veterans' committee, that he will find it possible to recommend to the government the setting up of a permanent committee on veterans affairs.
(Translation):


Mr. Dufresne:: Mr. Chairman, I understand the enthusiasm shown by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) who attempted to make out that the hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) is a superman by reason of the fact that he now

heads two departments in the cabinet. However, I disagree with him, because the Department of Veterans Affairs having become one of the most important in the federal administration, I believe that the minister should be relieved of his additional duties so that he may devote all his time to the department to which he had been named previously.
Mr. Chairman, under present conditions, I do not believe it is good for the country to ask any human being to head two departments in the cabinet. I hope that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) will soon take steps to fill the vacancy at the Post Office Department so as to enable the present Minister of Veterans Affairs to devote all his time to those who loyally fought for peace and the defence of our territory.
I wish at this time to make a few remarks about matters which no doubt have already been mentioned but to which I want to refer again.
On behalf of veterans, I would like to urge that the ceiling on casual earnings be raised to $2,000 from the present maximum of $1,400 set for married veterans. This would seem to me only fair and reasonable, in view of the higher cost of living, that these married people be allowed an income of $2,000 a year. In the case of unmarried veterans, I believe also that it would be but fair and reasonable that the ceiling be raised from $840 to at least $1,400.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a correction. When I referred just now to the basic earning of married people, I should have said $1,200 and not $1,400. In fact, that was the recommendation made by the Canadian Legion to the department. I support this recommendation most wholeheartedly, and I hope that it will be taken into very serious consideration by the department concerned.
I would also like to say a word about the status of veterans who fought in the first world war, as compared to that of veterans of the second great war. Everybody knows that the war veterans allowance was granted to those first world war veterans who had served in what has been called a theatre of war. If we look at history, however, we will find that, at the end of the first world war, large numbers of soldiers were sent overseas to Europe. A certain number of them were sent to the theatre of war, which happened to be France at that time, others being sent to England, in order, no doubt, that their services could be used there. At that time
Supply-Veterans Affairs England was not considered to be a theatre of war. Now those who came back from what was then considered to be a theatre of war, that is to say France, were fortunate enough to receive an allowance from the department.
Mr. Chairman, I earnestly ask the government, at this time, to do away with what I would call this unfair discrimination between veterans of both world wars, the ones of the first war being refused the allowance granted those who served as I said a while ago, in a theatre of war.
It should not be forgotten that those who were at that time sent to England rather than to France did not choose their destination. They went because their superior officers ordered them to go. To my knowledge, no one refused to be sent either to France or to England.
I also believe, Mr. Chairman, and I think all hon. members in this house share this opinion, that veterans of the first world war had no less courage than the veterans of the last war, and that they served their country with the same loyalty as those who fought from 1939 to 1945 and also in the Korean war. Those veterans of the first world war, who for the most part are now 65 years old or more, find themselves in a painful situation, to say the least, particularly those who receive no allowance whatever.
We all know that most employers will not take on people who have reached 60, and more particularly those who are over 60, although a man of 60 is, quite often, still able to work and can sometimes do a day's work better than people much younger.
I believe that all those who fought gallantly and risked their lives in the first world war should get a more tangible mark of gratitude from the government.
It is a well known fact that from 60 to 70 is the most awkward age to get a job, since, as a rule, employers will not take on people in that age group, not for lack of sympathy but because insurance companies will not take responsibility for what might happen to those who are over 60, even when they are in the best of health and can render excellent services.
Therefore, I would ask the department, and I am speaking now on behalf of many war veterans who live in the constituency which it is my privilege to represent, that such allowance be paid in order to assist them. It is true that in the province of Quebec, at the age of 65, when one is an indigent, one may draw an allowance which enables-
5882	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Mr. Boisvert:: That is so in all provinces.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I beg your pardon?


Maurice Boisvert: That is so in all provinces, and not only in the province of Quebec.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Now, I am not discussing what is done in the other provinces. I would be grateful to my hon. friend if he would let me have my say. I say that, in the city of Quebec-I am referring to a particular case in which I am interested-and I am willing to let others tell what goes on in their own ridings-


Maurice Boisvert: But, when one undertakes to state facts, they must be actual facts.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: No, my hon. friend wants to give lessons in procedure in this house. Indeed, yesterday, or rather the day before yesterday, we saw him trying to pose as chairman and Speaker. Yet he knows that he lacks the qualifications, as he was told by the Prime Minister, in his speech, not to aim at this post. He therefore should leave others alone when they are speaking.
(Text):


Maurice Boisvert: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, the hon. member for Quebec West is entirely out of order. He has made the allegation that in the province of Quebec people 65 years of age are getting pensions.
I raise the question that that legislation applies not only to the province of Quebec but to the country as a whole. All people of 65 years and over are getting pensions. That is the only thing I mention to the hon. member, but he does not answer my interjection, and he is trying to bring in a question outside the argument that he started to develop. I think the hon. member should be brought to order and resume the speech that he is making.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, I was mentioning-


Maurice Boisvert: Mr. Chairman, I have something else.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Why don't you sit down for a moment? Your speech is over. I have listened to your point of order. Take your seat. Mr. Chairman, I was mentioning what was going on in my own province. That is my privilege, to say what is going on in my province, and I leave it to the other hon. members in this house to say what is going on in their provinces; that is their privilege as well as mine.
fMr. Dufresne.]

I do not see any point of order in what was brought up by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska. Whenever someone from this province gets up he always has something to say. He is trying to play the game of Speaker. As you should know, the Prime Minister himself told him two days ago that he had no competence to be a speaker of this House of Commons, that there was only one man who had.


Maurice Boisvert: Mr. Speaker, before-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. May I remind both hon. members that we are discussing the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs. If I understood the point of order correctly, the hon. gentleman was discussing old age pensions rather than-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: No.


William Alfred Robinson: -pensions under the
Department of Veterans Affairs. We must limit our discussion to this department.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I think I should now speak on the point of order raised by my hon. friend from Nicolet-Yamaska. I was not speaking about old age pensions; I was just mentioning the fact that veterans from 60 to 70 years of age should have a better deal from this government. I mentioned that fact as applied to my province. I did not mention the other provinces, though perhaps I should have mentioned them. I am talking about the province in which I am interested at the moment, and those I represent. Those I represent are in the province of Quebec, and I say that if they are needy persons they are privileged, when they are 65 years old, to draw pensions from the provincial government. That is all I was talking about. I was not speaking about anything else.


An hon. Member:: We pay half.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska always tries to make others believe that he is a master of procedure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, he did not mention procedure.


Maurice Boisvert: You will know from me-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I invite the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska to come into Quebec West at any time he wishes to-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. May I remind hon. members that the hon. gentleman who has the floor may not be interrupted without his consent, and may I also remind the hon. member who has the floor that we are

discussing resolution 498, Department of Veterans Affairs.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: That is exactly what I was doing when I was interrupted by some silly arguments brought up by my hon. friend from Nicolet-Yamaska. 1 think I should just answer a certain invitation that was sent to me by the hon. member. I invite him to come to Quebec West, and I hope he will be polite enough to invite me to his own riding.


Maurice Boisvert: You can come at any time; tomorrow, if you like.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Not tomorrow, because I have a duty to perform tomorrow, and that duty is in the House of Commons. When the time comes, it might come too soon for the hon. member but I shall be delighted to accept his invitation.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I was just saying that from 60 to 70 is the most difficult age to get employment, perhaps more particularly so for those who served in the armed forces-not, as I said, because of a lack of sympathy on the part of the employers, but because the insurance companies refuse to take risks for persons of 60 and over.
Therefore, I repeat the request I made earlier this afternoon to the hon. minister to the effect that allowances be provided for all those who fought valiantly and courageously during world war I.
When one of those veterans passes away, I would suggest that the wife should receive the same pension as was paid to the husband even if the widow is old enough to qualify for old age pension. I feel that this would be a sign of gratitude on the part of the government.
I suggest also that the government should take care without delay of all those who, after serving their country loyally, either here in Canada or overseas, for several years, choose to return to civilian life. They did their bit, and they deserve a suitable and steady job.
Again I would like to draw the attention of the minister to a distressing situation that is taking place in the riding which I have the honour of representing. As a matter of fact, a number of young men who served in the armed forces, not particularly during the last war, for either three or five years, or since the end of the last war. sometimes
Supply-Veterans Affairs find themselves in very difficult situations after they have left the services because they are often unemployed for rather long periods of time, during which their families suffer, and are often faced with great poverty.
So I insist that the government should look after those people even before their discharge. When a man's request for discharge has been granted, and it is definite that he will return to civilian life, the department should take the necessary steps in order to give him a chance to earn a decent living.
Now, Mr. Chairman, may I submit another suggestion? I highly appreciate the fact that the Minister of Veterans Affairs can grant, and at a very reasonable price, to war veterans who apply for it, a lot where they can build a home.
As I say, those lots are sold at a very reasonable price and are reserved for war veterans.
I wonder however if it would not be possible to extend that privilege to the widows of the veterans who gave their lives on the battlefield or who died on active service.
I would like to bring to the attention of the minister a special case which has been referred to me. This man served in both world wars, that of 1914-18 and that of 1939-45. He enlisted as a private but his gallantry, his ability and his loyalty soon gained him promotions up to the rank of colonel, which he still had when he came back from Europe in 1945, I believe. Unfortunately he died leaving a wife and children who would have liked to enjoy that same privilege of which the wife would have benefited had Providence spared him for them.
I wonder whether the department could seriously examine requests by widows of veterans in order to enable them to obtain a piece of land at a lower price and build themselves a house. Supposing a lot had been purchased last week, and that the veteran died this week, I do not believe that the department would deprive the widow of the land purchased previously.
I therefore respectfully request that this suggestion be taken into serious consideration.
I would like for a few moments to speak of a matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White) and

Supply*

Veterans Affairs about which I said a few words myself. I mean the five-day 40 hour week for the employees of hospitals coming under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
Yesterday, as shown on page 5815 of Hansard, I put the following question to the minister:
I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs following the questions asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The minister said consideration was given to the 40 hour week in some localities other than where it exists now. Does he mean to suggest that consideration was given by the cabinet or by the officials of his department?
Here is the minister's answer:
I explain, Mr. Speaker, that the process which is followed is that a survey is made by the civil service commission. They in turn report to treasury board on the result of their survey, and treasury board informs the cabinet of the situation. That is what is being done at the present time.
I must say though, Mr. Chairman, that a request was sent last October by the Department of Veterans Affairs hospital employees association. Judging by the protests we have been receiving, it would seem that these people have had no answer to their request. The minister says they have. I will accept that statement. I will say, however, that they did not receive the answer they were expecting.


Mr. Lapoinle:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will no doubt allow me to interrupt since I am sure that he would like the facts he is stating to be true facts. Yesterday, or the day before, when I referred to the representations made last October, I noted that following these representations the forty hour week was extended to two hospitals, one at Calgary and the other at Halifax.
That means that we have studied their representations, since we have adopted that course in the case of two hospitals. In fact, on rereading Hansard for July 9, I noted that I had in effect stated that the government had not yet considered the representations made by that association. I should have explained that I was referring to the last representations received a few days ago by some hon. members. Those representations had not yet been taken under consideration.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, I accept the minister's explanation and I take note of it.
I was indeed referring to the telegram that most members in this house received from that association representing the employees of the hospitals under the Department of 
Veterans Affairs. I myself received one which reads as follows:
(Text):
Strongly protest the statement that appears to have been made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs to the effect that cabinet has not considered our representation for a five-day 40 hours a week for hospital employees made last October.
(Translation):
Having received that telegram today, I wanted to bring this matter to the attention of the minister and of the house.
(Text):


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired. Shall the resolution carry?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: If you will allow me, I think we have forgotten to take note of the time that was taken by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska. I think I still have at least six minutes left.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, may I say at this point that, while I am not too sure of my ground, I believe the hon. member for Middlesex East is probably the only other member at the moment who is expecting to take part in this debate.


An hon. Member:: No.


Walter Edward Harris: Very good. I was going to suggest in that event that we continue after six o'clock, but if that is not the case I will not do so.
Progress reported.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act.
An act to amend the Canada Lands Surveys Act. An act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
An act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system during the calendar year 1956, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.

An act respecting Niagara Lower Arch Bridge Company Limited.
An act to authorize contributions by Canada in respect of unemployment assistance costs in the provinces.

J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, with the kind permission of the leader of the house and the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I call it six o'clock.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I understand the humour of the hon.
The Royal Assent
member for Quebec West. It was not I who called it six o'clock; it was members of his own party who, in reply to my request, felt that they could not go on later this evening to complete both his remarks and other remarks on this particular item. Tomorrow we shall continue with veterans affairs and then take northern affairs.


[Stage Direction]
It being eight minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
588G
[Stage Direction]
Questions
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS	transport-sessional paper no. 242
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Castleden: 1.	What is the total number of box car deliveries of grain from each of the three prairie provinces from delivery points on: (a) the Canadian National Railways; (b) the Canadian Pacific Railway, for the five-month period January 1, 1955 to June 1, 1955?
2.	What were the total box car deliveries for each province on each of the railways for the same period from January 1, 1956 to June 1, 1956?
Answer by:	Mr. Langlois, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Transport:
1 and 2.
Between January 4 and May 30, 1956, C.P.R. loaded 60,561 cars.
Between January 4 and May 30, 1955, C.P.R. loaded 49,592 cars.
Between January 4 and May 30,1956, C.N.R. loaded 54,488 cars.
Between January 4 and May 30, 1955, C.N.R. loaded 32,812 cars.
The figures are not compiled by provinces as railway subdivisions overlap provincial boundaries.

Question No. 541-Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):
What was the date of each trip as reported by the Department of Transport on sessional paper No. 242 of Tuesday, June 26, 1956?
Answer by:	Mr. Langlois, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Transport:
(a)
i	May 23, 1956
ii	May 17, 1956
iii	April 24, 1956
iv	May 16, 1956
v	April 28, 1956
vi	April 30, 1956
vii	April 28, 1956
viii	April 30, 1956
ix	May 9, 1956
x	May 14, 1956
(b)
i	May 26, 1956
ii	May 20, 1956
iii	April 24, 1956
iv	May 16, 1956
v	April 29, 1956
vi	May 1, 1956
vii	April 28, 1956
viii	April 30, 1956
ix	May 9, 1956
x	May 14, 1956.

Thursday, July 12, 1956