1957-11-07

THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, November 7, 1957
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 7th November, 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, Lionel Massey,
Secretary to the Governor General THE MINISTRY



ANNOUNCEMENT OF APPOINTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY ASSISTANT

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house I should like to table two copies of order in council P.C. 1957-1456, dated November 6, 1957, appointing John B. Hamilton, M.P., parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. Prime Minister leave to table these documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



STANDING COMMITTEES

John George Diefenbaker: That a special committee be appointed to prepare and report, with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the standing committees of this house under standing order 65, the said committee to be composed of Messrs. Cardiff, Chevrier, Gauthier (Portneuf), Green and Hahn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief statement which I think might be of some interest to the house.
In recent years it has become increasingly apparent that the development of modern methods of handling of mail by most of the world's post office departments has lagged behind similar developments in other fields. A number of countries are now studying this problem and attempting to develop machinery and equipment, particularly in the electronic field, which would be applicable to the peculiarly difficult and complicated problems involved.
The Canadian post office has done considerable work in this respect, as have the two other nations with which we are most closely associated, Great Britain and the United States. While there have been discussions from time to time among our three countries on specific problems of mail handling, there has not been, to date, a comprehensive joint review of all the work being done in each country, nor a concentrated attempt to develop the close co-operation in research and development which could bring the greatest benefits to all concerned.
When the Postmaster General of the United States, Hon. A. E. Summerfield, was in Ottawa this summer I discussed this question with him and suggested that a joint conference among the three nations referred to would be a good idea. He agreed, and informed me that preliminary discussion had already taken place regarding a visit of some representatives of the British post office to Washington this fall to discuss certain United States' developments in mail handling.
Arising from these discussions between Postmaster General Summerfield and myself, I can now inform the house that a team of five senior officials from our Canadian post office, led by the deputy minister, Mr. G. A. Boyle, will begin at Washington on November 12 a series of meetings over a two-week period with similar representations from the United States and British post offices. I shall also be present for the initial stages of the meeting. Following these meetings the group will proceed to Canada where they will study our Canadian methods and the research on equipment we have in process. Early in the new year Canadian officials will visit Great Britain for a personal study of new equipment there, and at that time may spend a brief period on the continent for the same purpose.
It is anticipated that, arising from these discussions and visits, closer co-operation will

Business of the House arise in the development programs of postal machinery for our three countries, and that the interchange of ideas will enable each nation to concentrate on those areas in which it is farthest advanced and simultaneously benefit from similar progress in other fields by the other nations concerned.
It is also expected that these discussions will ultimately prove of some help to the technical committee of the universal postal union. However, since this committee of 20 nations was set up only in August 1957, it is not expected to have its first meeting for about a year, and there would seem to be substantial advantage to be gained from these immediate discussions of our common problems.
The net result will be a substantial forward move over the next few years in more effective and modern handling of mail in Canada and the other nations concerned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday a message was received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate had passed the following bill to which the concurrence of this house is desired: Bill No. 26 (Letter J of the Senate) "An act respecting the boundary between the province of Alberta and the Northwest Territories", Votes and Proceedings No. 18. This bill should have appeared this morning on the order paper under the heading "First reading of Senate public bills" in accordance with standing order 152.
As you know, private bills receive an automatic first reading under the terms of standing order 103, subsection 2. I am afraid this bill was taken to be a private bill and consequently was not put on the order paper. However, this stage of the bill is not debatable, and I trust that the house will be prepared to proceed with it today by consent. This bill stands in the name of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois).
I suggest that after motions have been disposed of the minister give a brief explanation of the circumstances and ask for consent to proceed with first reading. Is it agreeable to the house that this course be followed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I will then call first reading of Senate public bills, Bill No. 26, letter J of the Senate, entitled "An act respecting the boundary between the province of Alberta and the Northwest Territories".



ALBERTA-NORTHWEST TERRITORIES APPROVAL OF BOUNDARY AS SURVEYED AND MARKED

['Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice, because I have not received a full report on the alleged action.']
Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 26 (from the Senate), respecting the boundary between the province of Alberta and the Northwest Territories.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister notice of which I have sent him. In view of the anxieties and threats which overshadow the world, will the Prime Minister take the lead in announcing at once Canada's acceptance of the Russian proposal for a meeting of world leaders to agree to the outlawing of war, the ending of the arms race and the establishment of peaceful coexistence between east and west?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, all of us share the anxieties expressed by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, and I think all would agree that nothing should be done at this time in any way to increase tension, and that all of us should devote ourselves earnestly toward a peaceful solution of outstanding problems. This Canada has endeavoured to do, both through the United Nations and in other international forums. Above anything else, no nation today should shut the door in any matter that might offer the prospect of any solution or diminution of tensions internationally.
The Soviet leader, while not making a specific suggestion, did state that he believed there should be a meeting of world leaders. All of us would agree that if there was any possibility that such a meeting would be successful we would not hesitate in declaring immediately that Canada would accept such suggestion. But we must not lose sight of the fact that the proposal must be read in the light of the recent refusal of the U.S.S.R. to participate further in the deliberations of the disarmament commission of the United Nations. That is a circumstance that must be considered everywhere in the world by those who are in authority. We must also bear in mind that summit meetings do not necessarily lower international tension, for all will recall that sense of security,

which turned out to be false security, which was engendered by the Geneva summit meeting.
The Russian proposal must be carefully weighed to ascertain whether it is merely another propaganda move designed to afford the U.S.S.R. a temporary advantage in the forum of public opinion. On the other hand, we must not lose sight of the fact that everything that can be done should be done, and if it is believed that such a proposal possesses sincerity, then the preparation for and the conduct of the meeting should be such as to ensure beneficial results.
You will recall that, following the visit of Prime Minister Macmillan to Washington and after consultation with the various NATO partners, a decision was taken to hold a meeting of heads of state and prime ministers from the various NATO countries. And, as has already been said, believing in the possibilities inherent in this meeting, I have decided to head the Canadian delegation. At the time of that meeting, jointly with our NATO allies, and bearing in mind the interests of other friendly powers, I think all should be prepared to consider the problem of another summit meeting. But it would be premature, in my view, and unrealistic at this stage for the Canadian government to announce its acceptance of the proposal in the form in which it was made.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
the Prime Minister this question. Was there a proposal made directly by the Soviet union to the government of Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the only
proposal-and that is why I referred to its nebulous nature-was that contained in the speech of Khrushchev yesterday.


Major James William Coldwell: I noticed a comment has
been made on that in London by foreign office officials.
ILater.-f


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister growing out of his announcement today that he would lead the Canadian delegation to NATO. May I just say I am glad to hear that announcement, and I think it is very proper; but will the Prime Minister upon his return from Paris make a report to the Canadian people over radio and television upon the proposals and the facts of the world situation? Lacking those facts now, and beset on all sides by sensational headlines, I am quite certain there is widespread 96698-54i
Inquiries of the Ministry anxiety that could easily develop into hysteria, and I believe that such a report as I have suggested would help to allay those fears.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly give consideration to that suggestion. I realize more and more that the Canadian people and people generally in the free world should be kept as fully advised as possible as to the true situation, within the limits of security and national well-being, and I certainly thank my hon. friend for his observation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. My friend the hon. member for Peace River asked if the Prime Minister would make his report over television or radio. I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he decides to make a report, and parliament is in session, would he make his report to parliament?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think I will do both. The suggestion of the hon. member for Essex East appeals to me very much, and I thank my hon. friend for realizing today how important parliament is.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: You should follow his example.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. T. Slick (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister state what action the government is taking in connection with the threatened action by the government of Jamaica to shut out the imports of salt codfish from the Atlantic provinces?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice, because I have not received a full report on the alleged action.



COMMUNIST CHINA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. On Tuesday last I asked the minister if he was prepared to confirm a statement attributed to our trade commissioner at Hong Kong that Canada is prepared to accept Canadian dollars, Swiss francs or convertible sterling

Inquiries of the Ministry in payment for certain Canadian commodities which he hopes to sell to the Chinese communist government. He promised he would give me an answer, and perhaps he is now able to do so.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I was unfortunately detained yesterday or I would have given the answer to the hon. gentleman then. This question is based on a radio report to which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was listening. There is no change in policy envisaged here at all. The Canadian government does not prevent private exporters from accepting payment in any currency for their Canadian products. That is a matter for the private exporter and the trade commissioner dealing with any Canadian businessman who wishes to engage in such business.
As a matter of practice Canadian exporters normally wish to receive payment in Canadian dollars or currencies which are readily exchangeable into Canadian dollars for obvious reasons, since such exporters must make their payments in Canadian dollars. This is doubtless the point which the Canadian trade commissioner had in mind, and I think it is perhaps what the hon. member is asking about. I have, however, no information as to the exact words used by the Canadian trade commissioner.


Major James William Coldwell: Then may I ask with respect to the Canadian wheat board, which is in a different category from the people who arrange trade with communist China. The wheat board will not accept sterling but apparently some traders who deal with the government in China will accept sterling.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, the practice of the wheat board has been the normal practice of accepting payment in dollars.


Major James William Coldwell: Why not accept sterling?


Gordon Minto Churchill: If sterling is readily and immediately convertible, that is the same thing.


Major James William Coldwell: All sterling is convertible except blocked sterling.



PORK-STATEMENT AS TO ALLEGED REPACKING OF U.S. IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Charlton (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Peace River asked the following question:
Certain news reports were circulating this morning to the effect that United States pork products have been brought into Canada during recent weeks, repackaged or relabelled and sold as Cana-

dian pork products. I want to ask the acting minister or his parliamentary assistant if he would make inquiries to ascertain whether these reports are true, and if so what the government proposes to do to stop such a practice.
I have the information here. Imports of United States pork and pork products into Canada in the first six months of 1957 totalled 160,548 pounds. In the same period 16,377,978 pounds of Canadian pork and pork products were exported to the United States.
In both Canada and the United States it is required that imported meats and meats moving in interprovincial or interstate trade must bear an appropriate legend to show that the meat has been inspected and passed for health. Any United States meat entering Canada must bear the health inspection legend of the United States, and any Canadian meat entering the United States must bear the Canadian health inspection legend. When United States meat enters Canada fully processed in consumer packages it is not permitted to be repacked under the Canadian inspection legend.
When United States meats are processed in Canada the Canadian inspection legend is applied to the finished product, and when Canadian meats are processed in the United States the United States inspection legend is applied to the finished product. An example of this would be sides of bacon, going either from Canada to the United States or coming from the United States into Canada, and sliced and packaged into consumer packages in the country of destination. The domestic inspection legend is applied in such instances because the original inspection legend is destroyed in the processing, and because the processing necessitates the reinspection of the product by the veterinary inspection service of the country of destination.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to answer several questions which have been taken as notice for me in the last few days.
The hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Murphy) asked the following question yesterday:
Has the minister received representations from the Canadian national war veterans association of Moncton or other organizations, protesting the dismantling and scrapping of thousands of dollars of very valuable machinery in the Canadian National shops in Moncton? If so, what action does he propose to take?

The reply to the first part is that I have received a letter on this matter from the Canadian National Railways war veterans association of Moncton. The answer to the second part is that I shall draw the association's representations to the attention of the management of the Canadian National Railways.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Yesterday the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) asked if I would check the accuracy of part 2 of question No. 49, answered on page 750 of Hansard.
I am advised by the air transport board that at Port Arthur three class 4 air carrier licences are held, as stated in reply to the first part of the hon. member's question. One of the licencees reported ownership of two aircraft up to May 1, 1957. At that time one of these two aircraft was lost through the ice and has not operated since. Its operating certificate lapsed at the end of August. The licencee advised the board by letter dated August 31, 1957, that it had been salvaged and was being overhauled but that it would be some time before it would fly again. The said aircraft is still registered under the name of the licencee. It was on that basis that a negative reply was given to part 2 of the hon. member's question.



STATEMENT ON LOADING INSTRUCTIONS TO C.N.R.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount asked me the following question:
Is it a fact that instructions have been issued to freight officials of the Canadian National Railways in Regina to stop loading grain in 40-ton cars and that 60-ton cars only are to be used for loading grain for Vancouver?
The management of the Canadian National Railways advise that the general practice is that 40-foot cars, which are usually 60 tons, are being used for grain shipments to Vancouver as these cars are needed on the Pacific coast for return loading of lumber, pulp and paper. If no 40-foot cars are available then 36-foot cars, which are 40 tons, are used, and if shippers specifically request 36-foot cars these will be supplied although very few such requests have been received.
Inquiries of the Ministry



STATEMENT ON PRICE OF SALES TO MILLERS IN PRAIRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has his attention been directed to the question I asked his parliamentary assistant yesterday and which his parliamentary assistant said he would bring to the minister's attention?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to give the reply. The question referred to the price at which wheat is sold to millers for milling at some central point on the prairies such as Saskatoon. The answer is that the board sells wheat to domestic millers in the prairie area at the board's asking prices basis in store Fort Wil-liam/Port Arthur, in other words at the lakehead price minus cost of freight from the point at which delivery is taken.


Walter Adam Tucker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the same formula used in regard to wheat sold to the millers for domestic consumption as when it is sold to them for milling for export?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think I would have to get an answer to that from the wheat board. ILater:]


Walter Adam Tucker: Might I ask a further supplementary question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, which he might answer when he is answering the other. In view of the fact that wheat is being sold at Vancouver for $1.71 and a fraction and at Fort William for $1.60 and a fraction, the effect being that the Fort William price is 11 cents below the Vancouver price, and that the price to millers is based upon the Fort William price, will he look into the question of whether the basing of that price on Fort William does not in effect import an element of subsidization by the western farmers to the consumers or the millers?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, a lengthy and complicated question such as this might better be placed on the order paper, but I will take it as notice.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to ask a supplementary question arising out of the minister's answer to the hon. member for Rosthern. Why is the price to millers based on the lower Fort William price instead of the higher Vancouver price?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I shall direct the question to the wheat board, who are responsible for dealing with all these problems, and the answer will be forthcoming in due course.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Adam Tucker: May I say that I brought this matter to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce hoping that he would deal with the whole question when he took it up with the wheat board, and I did not expect an immediate answer.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. When the minister is discussing with the wheat board the very important matter raised by the hon. member for Rosthern, will he consider discussing with the wheat board the possibility of establishing a domestic parity price for wheat as requested by the farm organizations of this country?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, I thank the hon. member for his suggestion.



STATEMENT ON SALE TO INDIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on Monday the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner) asked for details of the arrangements made under the Colombo plan for the provision of $7 million worth of Canadian wheat to India. This wheat in effect is being provided free alongside ship and, as in the past, the costs of shipping the wheat are to be borne by India. Depending upon decisions which are yet to be made by the Indian government as to how much No. 3 wheat they wish to take and how much No. 4, the $7 million made available will provide between 4,200,000 bushels and 4,400,000 bushels. The Canadian wheat board, of course, is receiving the going price for such wheat out of existing Colombo plan funds.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister say whether a discussion was held with India as to whether that country might not accept a much larger quantity of wheat, in view of reports that India this year will be short of food to the extent of 2,000,000 tons, equivalent to 74 million bushels of wheat?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I might say that during the course of discussions between our representative there and the Indian government it was revealed that there is a very great shortage and a need of food grains. Demands for food are rising due to the progress of economic development, and at the same time some producing areas in India are expected to harvest less grain in

the near future than was anticipated. I believe consideration will be given to conducting further transactions with India to meet the present situation. At the moment, however, they are merely in a state of consideration, and I am unable to say any more than that.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister agree to make this an additional contribution in excess of the Colombo plan payments that we are obliged to make?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend will realize, until the present discussions have achieved a higher degree of fruition than is the case at present I would sooner not say anything more in that connection.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. I think it is obvious that we are all in favour of helping India in whatever way we can, but how on earth did you get the sale of the wheat mixed up with the Colombo plan? I thought they were two entirely different things. I understood the Colombo plan was for capital assistance.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know who is mixed up, but I can say this. India is very willing to accept the grain in question as part of Canada's Colombo plan contribution, having regard to her economic position today.



ALLOCATION OF BOX CARS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the resolution passed at the annual meeting of the Manitoba pool elevators asking that the method of allocating box cars be changed to allow a farmer to deliver his grain to the elevator of his choice? If so, what action, if any, does the government contemplate taking?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I was always under the impression that questions of immediate urgency might be asked during the question period in the house, but we are getting many others. This is not a matter that has not been before the House of Commons in the past. It has been brought to my attention on several occasions during the last few months, and I realize the importance of the problem to the farmers concerned. This is a matter that has aroused a great deal of

interest among farmers who wish to deliver their grain to the elevator of their choice. I have studied letters and documents with regard to the problem. It is under consideration, and I hope some solution that will be satisfactory to all concerned will be arrived at before too long.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last the hon. member for Trinity-Conception asked this question:
Will the minister inquire into the grounding of two C.N.R. coastal boats lately, namely the Burin and the Henry W. Stone, also the derailment of a freight train near Stephenville, and report to the house?
The management of the Canadian National Railways advise that as operators of the Newfoundland coastal service they will, as a normal administrative course, conduct an investigation to determine if there was any negligence in connection with the grounding of these two vessels. As the hon. member already knows, there was no loss of life, and I am advised that the Henry W. Stone is back in service and that the Burin will be dry-docked for examination and repairs if necessary.
With regard to the freight train derailment near Stephenville, here again the management will carry out any necessary investigation and make whatever report is necessary in the circumstances to the board of transport commissioners.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY STATEMENT ON IMPOSITION OF TOLLS   COST PER BUSHEL OF WHEAT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last the hon. member for Meadow Lake asked the following question:
What will the government's decision to impose tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway cost the western farmer in cents per bushel on wheat?
The decision to impose tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway, Mr. Speaker, was made by parliament by legislation passed in 1951. The amount of the tolls is still under study, and we anticipate that tolls will be low enough to allow a net saving in the transportation costs of a bushel of wheat from the head of the lakes to Montreal. Precisely what the net saving on a bushel of wheat
Inquiries of the Ministry might be is not determinable at this time because the seaway is still under construction and the costs cannot be finalized.
With respect to the hon. member's reference to a decision to impose tolls, I should perhaps remind the house how this matter came about. It is well known that for many years the executive branch of the United States government was unsuccessful in obtaining approval from congress for an agreement with Canada for the construction of navigation works in the international rapids section of the St. Lawrence river.
In October, 1945, joint resolution 104 covering construction of the seaway was introduced in the United States Senate. This resolution contained a requirement that tolls would be imposed to make the seaway project self-liquidating. On April 24, 1947, the then secretary of state for external affairs, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent), announced in the House of Commons Canadian concurrence in principle to the seaway being made self-liquidating through the charging of tolls.
In July of the same year joint resolution 192 was introduced into the United States House of Representatives providing for approval of the executive agreement of 1941, but requiring the President to obtain satisfactory assurance of Canadian agreement to the self-liquidating principle by charging tolls.
The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act was passed by parliament, and received royal assent on December 21, 1951. On May 13, 1954, the President of the United States signed the Wiley-Dondero Act which established the St. Lawrence seaway development corporation as the agency to construct the United States portion of the seaway. Both of these acts provide for the establishment of tolls to make the project self-liquidating.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean Lesage (Montmagny-L'Islet):: May I draw the attention of the Minister of Transport to a question which was asked yesterday, when the minister was busy at other functions, by the hon. member for Saguenay about winter navigation in the lower St. Lawrence.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have an answer to that question and a similar question from the hon. member for Laurier, notice of which
848	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry was very kindly sent to me. As the questions are similar I can answer the two at the same time.
In answer to the hon. member's question I may say that the press dispatches are correct in essence, if not strictly accurate in detail. The department, which in past winters has lent assistance to commercial shipping bound for the lower St. Lawrence and gulf points, hopes to be in a position to provide a greater degree of icebreaker support, in that one and possibly two additional vessels will be available. They will assist shipping to the limit of their capabilities. In the matter of ice aerial reconnaissance, it is expected that the service of past years will be continued, and plans are now under consideration for an extension of the service to provide improved coverage.


Mr. C. A. Cannon (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: May I ask a supplementary question. Would the minister consider extending that work to the Magdalen islands, to keep navigation open?


George Harris Hees: Plans for icebreaking in the lower St. Lawrence are now under consideration, but have not been put in final form as yet.


Jean Lesage: Are the new icebreakers the minister just mentioned for service in the lower St. Lawrence under construction now, or are they in service?


George Harris Hees: I am not familiar with the exact icebreakers to which the hon. member refers.


Jean Lesage: The ones the minister mentioned.


George Harris Hees: I believe they are ready to operate at the present time.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet asked me a supplementary question regarding the one or possibly two icebreakers we expect to be using this year in the lower St. Lawrence river. One is the Montcalm, which it is expected will operate in the lower St. Lawrence river. The other is the Labrador, which is at present in drydock. It is hoped to have it in operation by the end of January at the latest.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Murphy (Westmorland):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of today's announcement


by Canadian National Railways of the construction of a $17 million railway yard at Moncton, will the minister urge the management, because of the high labour content of this type of work, that the work be commenced this fall to ease unemployment in the Westmorland county area?


George Harris Hees: I have not heard of the particular project, but if one is contemplated by the Canadian National Railways I shall urge them to bring it forward as soon as possible.



WINTER NAVIGATION AS AID TO UNEMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I wonder if I could ask a supplementary question, not of the Minister of Transport but of the Minister of Labour, arising out of the second to last question. I noticed that the minister was present at a meeting in Quebec to deal with a solution of the unemployment problem and one suggestion made was that winter navigation would assist in the solution of the unemployment problem in Quebec. May I ask the Minister of Labour whether he or his officials have studied this method of assisting unemployment, and what conclusion has been arrived at?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: I spoke at Quebec to launch the winter employment program which is undertaken by the people of that city through service clubs, the municipality and others who are vitally interested in providing employment during the winter months. I do not recall that I said anything about winter navigation in this regard at all, so consequently I cannot answer the question.


Lionel Chevrier: If I may ask a supplementary question, I did not suggest the minister had said anything. What I suggested was that, at the meeting he attended, the suggestion was made that unemployment could be solved in the Quebec area by winter navigation. My question was whether he or his officials had given consideration to that problem.


Michael Starr: The meeting I attended was a luncheon meeting, and I was the only speaker. No one made any suggestions about navigation. I might say our department has not given the problem consideration.


Lionel Chevrier: I will send the minister a copy of the report.


Michael Starr: The hon. member for Laurier was good enough to send me the press clipping to which he referred earlier this afternoon, in which it is stated that Dean J. M.

Martin, of the faculty of social sciences of Laval University, made the suggestion that winter navigation in the St. Lawrence might eventually help to bring about a permanent solution of unemployment. I think the suggestion has merit and, therefore, should and will receive careful consideration and study.



STRIKE OF RIVER PILOTS, KINGSTON MARINE DISTRICT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may ask the Minister of Transport a question. I wonder if he himself or his officials have been giving consideration to means of conciliating the strike between the pilots in the Montreal-Ottawa-Kingston district and the shipping federation of Canada?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I do not as yet have full information regarding the strike which has taken place in the Kingston marine pilotage district. This district covers the St. Lawrence area from Montreal to Kingston, and is a pilotage district under the supervision of my department, set up in accordance with the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act.
Apparently a large number, if not all, of the pilots are at present on strike. No advance warning of the strike was given to my department, nor were there any advance consultations with my department regarding problems which may have given rise to the strike. First indications received from individual pilots were to the effect that the cause was a heavy load of work, which is normal toward the end of the season; but subsequent information appeared to indicate that the reason was a desire on the part of the pilots to compel the government to introduce what is known as compulsory payment of pilotage dues.
A formal submission from the representative of the pilots had just reached my department at the time the strike took place, and there has not yet been any opportunity to consider its contents in detail, although I understand that the pilots' demands relate to, and indeed go farther than, demands submitted to and rejected by the previous administration over a year ago. They would involve compelling all ships which pass through this area of the river, Canadian and foreign, to pay dues to the pilots regardless of whether or not a pilot is required.
The action of the pilots would appear to be a violation of the officially authorized by-laws of the pilotage district, and the pilots have accordingly been warned that
Inquiries of the Ministry they have rendered themselves liable to the penalties provided in the by-laws. The official pilots' committee is being requested to come to Ottawa to explain its position forthwith, and immediate consultations are also planned with representatives of the deep sea and great lakes shipping companies whose vessels may be involved.
In so far as the effects of the strike are concerned, it would appear that these would be more serious with regard to deep sea tramp shipping which hoped to leave the great lakes at the end of this season, rather than on deep sea ships which have regular routes or on Canadian and great lakes shipping which is fully familiar with the area.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you.



EFFECT OF DIRECTIVE TO NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Will the minister report to the house at an early date the effect of his directive to the national employment service in increasing placements of workers seeking jobs?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, this is an effort on the part of those carrying out the directive the results of which are fairly hard to judge. However, if a survey can be made to ascertain the result of the directive and the efforts that are being made to carry out that directive I will be glad to report to the house, if such a report is available at the time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: As
we still see through a glass darkly, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the growing disquietude due to the present inscrutable and intangible arrangements with respect to the command of Canadian armed forces by General Partridge, would the minister make a statement to inform the house as to General Partridge's present powers, with respect to the disposition of Canadian forces in Canada and his authority with respect to logistics and other matters requiring decision in the operation of such forces?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: I thank the hon. member for sending me notice of his question a few minutes
850	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry ago, and if I can in any way clear up the situation by a brief statement, I shall be only too happy to do so.
First of all I must emphasize the fact that General Partridge does not in any sense command any Canadian armed force. The command of the Canadian R.C.A.F. units assigned to the defence of North America is vested in the officer commanding the air defence command at St. Hubert, Quebec. An integrated United States-Canadian headquarters was established last August; this integrated headquarters is known as NORAD.
General Partridge's authority does not extend in any way to the disposition of Canadian forces in Canada, nor has he authority over the logistics of our forces. In peacetime this integrated headquarters, NORAD, will be responsible for the development of plans and procedures to be used in war. These plans and procedures are to be agreed to in peacetime and to be ready for immediate use in an emergency. They will be reviewed, amended if necessary and approved by the chiefs of staff of the two countries, Canada and the United States, and government approval will be sought before any plans are implemented.
NORAD will be responsible for the general pattern of training and the general supervision of practice exercises designed to ensure the readiness of the forces and facilities in time of emergency. In time of war NORAD will be responsible for the direction of air operations in accordance with the plans which have been agreed to in peacetime. These plans will include the rules for identification of aircraft, for action to be taken if aircraft do not comply with those rules, and for the various methods designed to prevent surprise, thus providing time for consultation between service commanders and government leaders. One of the methods I have referred to regarding the gaining of time was the establishment of our warning lines in northern Canada which are now in operation. I emphasize the fact that the decision to go to war must rest with the government of this country and not with any general, of Canadian or any other nationality.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if, arising out of his statement, I might ask the Minister of National Defence if his attention has been drawn to a report in this morning's Globe and Mail in which the honourable and gallant gentleman is reported as having stated at a press conference on October 15 that NORAD commanders would have the power by simply pressing a button to send both United States and Canadian fighters, and eventually ground to air missiles, into action.
[Mr. Pearkes.l


George Randolph Pearkes: After consultation with the governments concerned.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He did not say
that.



PRINCE ALBERT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldi-Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made recently by Lieutenant General Sim-onds, is it the intention of the Prime Minister to reconsider the proposed expenditure of $2 million in constructing a radar installation at Prince Albert, Saskatchewan?


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know what is the meaning of that question. I will simply point out that there are going to be two research radar installations in North America, made necessary in consequence of the consideration given both by the military authorities and also by the scientific groups connected with defence, and I see no reason for a change in any way in so far as that prospective building program is concerned.



R.C.A.F.-REPORTED CHANGES IN TRAINING COMMAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister confirm speculation that certain major changes are planned in the operation of the R.C.A.F. training command in the immediate future?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. Reductions in the R.C.A.F. NATO training program will lead to certain reorganizational changes involving a reassessment of the facilities required by the R.C.A.F. training command. No firm or positive action has yet been taken on this matter, and in any case no changes are planned for 1958, with the exception of the R.C.A.F. stations at Claresholm and London, which it is expected will be placed on a care and maintenance basis by the end of next year.


Arthur Smith: A supplementary question. Can the minister tell us, then, that there will be definitely not cut-back in R.C.A.F. training other than NATO units?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, that is correct.



REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF EXPENDITURES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In the light of the reported statement of Lieutenant General Guy Simonds, former chief of staff, that at least 80 per cent of our present defence expenditure is totally wasted, can the minister assure the house that he and his officials are engaged in a serious and realistic appraisal of Canada's defence position, and is he now prepared to recommend to his colleagues that a committee of the house be set up to investigate the situation?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that I and the officials of my department have been making a very careful and realistic study of the problems to which he refers.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister. In the light of recent international developments, has the Department of National Defence reconsidered the decision to continue with the development of the CF-105?


George Randolph Pearkes: The decision was taken the other day to continue with the development of the CF-105 for another year because we believe that in the foreseeable future, if any threat from the air develops against this country the manned bomber will be at least an important part of that threat, and therefore we must have a manned interceptor capable of firing air missiles which will have a homing ability, enabling them to direct themselves on the target. We believe that to be essential.



ROLE OF MILITIA IN CIVIL DEFENCE-REPORTED STATEMENT BY GENERAL WORTHINGTON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is General Worthington's statement in the Kingston Whig-Standard of November 6 with respect to the militia's role in the civil defence set-up, a copy of which I gave the minister, a statement of policy respecting the new role of the militia in Canada?


George Randolph Pearkes: I thank the hon. member for sending me a copy of what purports to be an interview with General Worthington on the subject of the militia's role in connection with rendering aid to the civil authority in an emergency. As I think the hon. member
Inquiries of the Ministry knows, General Worthington recently resigned his appointment as national coordinator of civil defence; therefore he would not be in a position to express government policy. He has been expressing his own views, and as he is a gentleman with wide experience those views will receive careful consideration.



H.M.C.S. &quot;MARGAREE&quot;    TRANSFER FROM EAST TO WEST COAST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmoulh-Clare):: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the destroyer Margaree being transferred from the east coast base at Halifax to the west coast base at Esquimalt on a permanent basis? If so, what ship will replace the Margaree at Halifax?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, Mr. Speaker, H.M.C.S.
Margaree is being transferred to the west coast on a permanent basis. This ship was commissioned in Halifax on October 5 of this year for service on the Pacific coast. Since she is a new ship and has never been in service in the Atlantic command, there is no question of a replacement.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Montmo-rency):: May I direct a question to the
Minister of Public Works. In view of the reply of the minister to my question regarding the establishment of a pulp mill at Bonaventure, I would like to ask him if his government recognizes any responsibility or jurisdiction in the matter.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, so far as I know it is not the responsibility of the government to establish pulp mills.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Louis Deniset (St. Boniface):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would the minister care to comment on a statement made by the minister of health of Manitoba, which statement was reported in the press on November 1, 1957, that the national hospital insurance plan could have been started

Inquiries of the Ministry by July 1,	1958, if the government of
Manitoba had received a reply to its letter addressed to the Prime Minister dated August 1, 1957?


Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the press report or, if I have, I have forgotten about it. Actually the act is set up as of this moment to go into operation when six provinces have their schemes in force. Now Ontario have notified us that they cannot operate before January 1, 1959, so I have nothing further to say.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES INQUIRY AS TO FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR RESEARCH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fears expressed by Dr. G. N. Patterson, director of the institute of aerophysics, University of Toronto, and other Canadian scientists, as reported in a front page story in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen, that government appropriations for research in this field are to be cut, will the Prime Minister assure the house that any economies will be made through a reduction in conventional defence expenditures rather than in this vital field of rocket and satellite research?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is no intention to reduce the grants to universities for research purposes or to reduce the defence research expenditures in general in any way whatsoever.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I can ask the Prime Minister if there is any intention to increase the grants for scientific research and for education generally in line with the recommendations of the experts?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that question of course is a matter of government policy, but I would say this. The whole field of research and scientific expansion and development will receive primary consideration when the 15 nations in NATO meet in Paris in December. I hope as a result of that meeting there will be a general increase in scientific expenditure in order to meet the situation with which all of us are acquainted.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Is the minister in a position to make a statement at this time about the government's plans for the development of historic Signal hill in my constituency of St. John's East as a national park?


Hon. Alvin Hamilion (Minister of Norihern Affairs and National Resources):: I wish to thank the hon. member for having informed me of this question just as 1 entered the house. I should like to take it as notice so that I may look further into the matter.


Jean Lesage: Does the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources not know that Signal hill was established as a national historic park under the previous administration?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Everything was done under the previous administration.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: What the
Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources knows will soon become apparent.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Henry Joseph Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Public Works which is really supplementary to my question of yesterday. Will the minister inform the house if the report of Price, Waterhouse and Company, chartered accountants of Montreal, on the economic feasibility of the proposed causeway from Westmorland county, New Brunswick, to Prince Edward Island has been completed, and if so will the minister table the report?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, no such report has come to my attention as yet.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Labour a question. I wonder if the Minister of Labour has

reconsidered his previous attitude, indicated to the house on October 18, which was not to introduce amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, and if so will he advise the house whether such badly needed amendments will be introduced this session?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been given serious study and is under consideration by the government at the moment. As soon as a decision has been reached I shall be very glad to inform the house of our intentions.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twil-lingaie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, whom I should like to congratulate even though it is not strictly according to the rules, on his well-deserved recognition. I should like to ask the hon. gentleman if he is contemplating going abroad to encourage immigration, because I am sure all of us would agree that he would be a good advertisement for Canada.


Mr. John B. Hamilion (Parliamentary Assistant to the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I could have been asked a nicer question on my first day in this office, and I assure the hon. member that if I am going to have a trip abroad I will consult with him first in order to learn the best places to go.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. A. Best (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister comment on published reports that the Canadian assessment by the United Nations is being increased over that of 1957?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend was good enough to indicate to me his intention to ask this question concerning the Canadian assessment by the United Nations, which gives me an opportunity to draw attention to an error in certain published reports in this respect.
On October 28 a report emanated from New York and found its way into some Canadian newspapers to the effect that an increase in the Canadian assessment was being proposed
Inquiries of the Ministry in the report of the general assembly's committee in contributions from 3.09 per cent to 3.15 per cent. This report is erroneous. The fact is that Canada's percentage is being slightly reduced. The United Nations general assembly has set a ceiling of 33.3 per cent on the United States contribution, and has decided that no member should pay more per capita than the United States. Accordingly, when the United States assessment was reduced to 32.51 per cent it was necessary to reduce the Canadian assessment to 3.09 per cent to maintain the correct per capita relationship between Canadian and United States contributions. At these percentages, both Canada and the United States pay just under 10 cents for each man, woman and child in our respective populations.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the report confused the percentages. The fact is that the Canadian percentage is being reduced from 3.15 per cent for 1957 to 3.09 per cent.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. B. Huffman (Kent, Oni.):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, and in his absence to his parliamentary assistant. What is the unused portion of the $200 million fund established under the Agricultural Prices Support Act?


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Kent, Ontario, knows that the $200 million is a revolving fund, and anything outstanding would be the value of the material the board is holding. At the moment, of that $200 million about $30 million is outstanding.


Edward Blake Huffman: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I realize that possibly the parliamentary assistant cannot answer this question but would he take it as notice. Is it the intention of the government to place a floor under this year's crop of sugar beets, since there are sufficient funds in the vote to meet the request for a floor price of $14 a ton?


John Alpheus Charlton: The hon. member knows that is government policy, and it will be announced in due course by the minister.



STATEMENT ON PORTION OF INCREASE IN PRICE TO BE RETURNED TO PRODUCER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Alpheus Charlton: I should

Inquiries of the Ministry like to answer the following question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Meadow Lake:
How much, if any, of the 5 cents per pound increase that the government has allowed dealers holding butter to charge consumers will be returned to the farmers who produced the butter?
The government has no authority to control the price of butter by dealers, and it does not attempt to do so. This point was explained by the Minister of Agriculture in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Springfield, as reported in Hansard, page 30, October 16, 1957.
As explained at that time, butter prices had risen by from 1J cents to 2 cents per pound between August 3 and October 12, and prices paid to producers for butterfat had risen to the same extent. Since October 16 there has been little or no change in prices for butter and butterfat on the major Canadian markets.



RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he is aware of the slow-down of the projects in scientific research at the national research council, and whether it is part of the cutting down of expenses which it is rumoured has been ordered by the Minister of Finance?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I might remind the hon. member that this question was answered a day or two ago, and a question relating to the alleged reduction in appropriations for scientific research was answered today.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, I should like to restate my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and ask him whether he is aware of the slow-down of scientific projects at the national research council?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have every confidence in the national research council, and I am quite satisfied that they are continuing their studies without any slow-up at all.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Henry Joseph Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Will this government consider setting up a monetary region

in the Atlantic provinces distinct from the rest of Canada, where the tight money policy will not exist, as suggested on September 26, 1956, by Premier Flemming of New Brunswick?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I make no comment on the propriety of the question, but I do comment upon the inaccuracy of what purports to be the assertion of fact with which my friend closed his question. I may say to my hon. friend that so far as the tight money policy is concerned, that policy of the Bank of Canada, put into effect during the regime of the former government, is under constant study; and whenever there is occasion to make an announcement, that announcement will be made in the house. I think my hon. friend will appreciate that it is a matter of concern to all parts of Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: Arrogance at its best.


Henry Joseph Murphy: A supplementary question. In view of the minister's answer, will he tell the house whether the government is considering an investigation into the monetary system of Canada by royal commission or otherwise, as suggested by the same Premier Flemming?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I think my friend will understand that this whole matter is under consideration and under study at all times.


Henry Joseph Murphy: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-,


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think two supple-mentaries following a question ought to be enough to clarify an answer. I think the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount has a supplementary.


Henry Joseph Murphy: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: What is the question of privilege?


Henry Joseph Murphy: I have not asked two supplementary questions; I have asked only one on this matter, and I would like to be permitted to ask a second one.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, I do not want to do the hon. member an injustice. My arithmetic may be at fault, but I understood him to ask a question and to follow it up with two further questions.


Henry Joseph Murphy: One further question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that what the hon. member says? Then I will let him make it two, but I reserve the right to consider his question before it is answered.


Mr. Murphy (Weslmorland):: Then I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the Atlantic provinces shall continue to suffer under the castor oil policy enunciated by Premier Flemming?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member will now agree that I was right in not permitting him to ask the question.


Hon. George C. Marler (St. Anfoine-West-mount):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of the subject of tight money and the remarks of the Minister of Finance, would he not think it appropriate if he, on behalf of the government, were to tell us what measures his government has taken since taking office to reduce the tight money situation?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker I did that on a former occasion. Perhaps my hon. friend was not here to hear it, but he will find the reference to the subject in Hansard.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the promises that the South Saskatchewan river dam would be commenced within six months of the election of a Conservative government, can the Prime Minister indicate what steps are being taken to ensure a construction start by December 10; and would the right hon. gentleman also indicate when this government plans to accept the invitation of the province of Saskatchewan to discuss the proposal?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we are ready to discuss the proposal at any time. However, this does give me an opportunity to point out that the provincial treasurer of Saskatchewan recently made a statement to the effect that in the construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam and power project the federal government was now expected to pay everything. That does not represent anything like the basis upon which consideration is to be given to that project.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that I am now very pleased to have the statement that I have been making ever since 1947 corroborated by the leader of the government, that the provincial treasurer in Saskatchewan was
Inquiries of the Ministry not prepared to accept any condition other than that the federal government pay the whole cost.
Mr. M. J. Cold well (Roselown-Biggar): May
I ask the Prime Minister this supplementary question. Is it not a fact that the Saskatchewan government has been on record to the effect that it would bear the whole cost of the electrical installation and some other costs, but that since the government is to assist in the development of electricity in the maritimes Saskatchewan does not expect to be discriminated against by the government of Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I can see that there is still quite a bit of controversy between the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and the hon. member for Melville. As far as the provincial government of Saskatchewan is concerned, we are willing to meet with that government at any time. I understood that a basis of agreement was determined two years ago. However, within the last few weeks the provincial treasurer of Saskatchewan came out with a proposition apparently indicating a change of point' of view, that the former agreed division was not acceptable and that the federal government was to assume all the costs.
We are ready to meet with the government of Saskatchewan and its representatives at any time. Our point of view regarding the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project is unchanged. We will go ahead, but we do not want the provincial government of Saskatchewan to alter the rules between innings.


James Garfield Gardiner: Might I just repeat, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think hon. members will agree that this seems to be developing into a first-class debate on the South Saskatchewan dam, which to my mind is not appropriate at this time, and I would ask members to let it go at this for today.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is a matter of debate; it is a matter of the Prime Minister equivocating in his answer. He never answered one of the questions at all.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not one who asks for withdrawals. There is no equivocation and I do not ask for a withdrawal; but I do not want equivocation on the part of anyone else to this agreement and that is the reason I made the remarks I did.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just another broken
promise.

War Veterans' Allowance Act OIL



REPORTED DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND PREMIER OF ALBERTA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Prime Minister a question. I wonder whether he would now be prepared to comment on the recent meeting between himself and Premier Manning of Alberta?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had the pleasure of reading what the Toronto Star had to say regarding the meeting. It was simply a meeting convened for the purpose of hearing the general situation resulting from the regulations imposed by the United States on oil importations into that country, and also the effect of the reopening of the Suez canal on the demand for Alberta oil in those portions of the United States comprised within what I believe is called district No. 5, the California district.
In the course of the meeting the premier of Alberta placed before me the situation respecting the export of oil from Alberta, and I must say it was a very co-operative meeting, in which views were exchanged very fully. I hope to be hearing from the premier of Alberta further information regarding the problem, and after that has been received, what representations should be made to the United States will be considered.



WAR VETERANS' ALLOWANCE ACT


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 28, to amend the War Veterans' Allowance Act.
He said: As I indicated the other day when the house was in committee on the resolution, the bill which hon. members now have in their possession deals with seven sections of the War Veterans' Allowance Act, 1952, and in addition proposes amendments to the two schedules which set forth the rate of allowance and the maximum permissive income for several groups of recipients. Associated with the amendments to the schedules is an amendment to the rate set forth in section 5 of the act.
Before I go into the details of the amendments I think it would be appropriate to review, for the benefit of the new members of the house, the background of the War Veterans' Allowance Act. This measure was first enacted in 1930. At the outset it applied only to veterans who had service in a theatre of actual war in world war I or

were in receipt of a pension under the Pension Act, who had a low income or none at all, and who were either 60 years of age or permanently unemployable. The allowance must not be confused with a pension under the Pension Act. A pension is awarded for a disability connected with service, whereas war veterans allowance may be paid where there is no disability at all or where the disability causing permanent unemployability is not service connected. It may, and often does, happen that a war veterans allowance recipient is also receiving a small disability pension.
A pension under the Pension Act, as hon. members know, is paid to rich and poor alike. An allowance under the War Veterans' Allowance Act is subject to a means test because of the ceiling on permissible income. The maximum single rate was originally $240 and the married rate was $480; that was in 1930. The income ceilings were $365 a year for single persons and $730 for those qualified as married. Rates and allowances have been increased from time to time and are now, single, $720 a year, ceiling $960; the married rate is $1,440 a year and the ceiling $1,620 a year. In 1938 the benefits of the War Veterans' Allowance Act were extended to veterans of the South African war; in 1943, to widows whose eligibility flowed from the eligibility of their late husbands, and in 1944 to veterans of World War II and their widows. Other amendments were enacted in 1946, 1948, 1950, 1952 and 1955. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the amendments to the schedules of rates and income ceilings are felt by hon. members, and by the veteran body at large, to be of paramount importance.
As I mentioned briefly during the discussion on the resolution preceding this bill, certain changes were made in the schedules effective July 1 of this year by means of a vote in the supplementary estimates. At that time the married rate of allowance was increased from $108 to $120 per month, but no change was made in the single rate which remained at $60 per month. The government feels not only that this action discriminated against the single recipient, but also that the monthly rate of $60 is out of line with present day costs. It is now proposed to raise the single rate of $60 to $70, thus restoring the approximate percentage balance between the single and married rates. With respect to income ceilings, it is desirable to maintain sufficient difference between them and the allowance rate to enable a war veterans allowance recipient to benefit from some of the other income which he may

have. In addition, the increase in the cost of living has made it necessary to raise the level of ceilings.
Last July the difference between the single rate and ceiling was increased from $10 to $20 a month, and this differential is being maintained by the proposed increase in the ceiling from $80 to $90 a month. In respect to the married recipients, however, the differential was increased last July from $12 to $15 a month and the proposal now is to increase it to $25 by raising the income ceiling to $145 a month.
Most hon. members are aware, I believe, that the assistance fund can be used in cases of need to supplement the income of the war veterans allowance recipient up to the ceiling. For example, under the proposed amendments an eligible married veteran without other income will receive war veterans allowance of $120 a month. If his necessary living expenses show him to be still in need, payments from the assistance fund may be made up to a maximum of $25 per month which, added to the war veterans allowance, can equal the permissible income ceiling.
Furthermore, I wish to stress that casual earnings continue to be exempt income; that is to say, casual earnings are permitted over and above the ceiling of permissible income and do not have the effect of reducing that ceiling. It must, of course, be understood that a raise in the income ceiling makes eligible a new group of veterans whose income equalled or slightly exceeded the old ceiling.
Therefore a raise in the ceiling involves an additional cost by way of payment of the allowance to the new group.
The proposed amendments to section 5 of the act are exactly in line with those that I have been discussing. Section 5 permits the continuance to a widow of a war veterans allowance recipient of the married rate for one year after the veteran's death; it permits a continuance to the veteran of his married rate for one year after the death of his wife. This special award is made to enable the bereaved person to meet the period of adjustment following the death of the spouse. The rates in section 5 are increased to conform to the normal married rate and ceiling.
The act provides that a veteran of the Canadian forces qualifies from a service point of view for war veterans allowance by having served in a theatre of actual war. A veteran of Her Majesty's forces other than Canadian or of the forces of our allies qualifies in the same way provided that he was domiciled in Canada at the time of his enlistment. If such a man who served in world war I was not so
War Veterans' Allowance Act domiciled in Canada he is required to have resided in Canada for at least 20 years. This required period of residence is reduced to 10 years by the proposed amendment, subsection 4 of section 30 of the act.
The bill proposes the same reduction in residence for a person who seeks to qualify under subsection 6 of section 30 of the act. These veterans have not served in a theatre of actual war in either world war I or world war II but they did serve in both wars. That is to say they are what is known as dual war veterans. In world war II they served with Canadian forces and in world war I they served with other commonwealth forces or an allied force but because they were not domiciled in Canada before their enlistment they are at present required to have 20 years residence in Canada as a condition of eligibility under the act. This period is also reduced 10 years.
The widow of a veteran who is qualified by any of the above methods which I have just described would also be eligible in her own right upon his death.
As many hon. members are aware there has been much dissatisfaction throughout the country in recent years because the widow of a veteran whose eligibility depends upon 20 years' residence in Canada could not become eligible unless he had lived here for that period of 20 years no matter how long she herself had resided in this country. I could mention various distressing types of cases such as that, where the veteran died 19J years after coming to Canada or, again, where the veteran died with less than 20 years residence here but he and his wife had brought up a family of boys who served and perhaps lost their lives in world war II.
The proposed amendment remedies this situation and changes the 20 year requirement to 10 years to conform with the changes proposed in section 30. Under the amendment the widow will become eligible from a residence point of view from the earliest date upon which she has been resident in Canada for 10 years and upon which her husband, had he lived, would also have had 10 years residence. It will be observed that by requiring that the husband, had he lived, would have had 10 years' residence the proposal conforms with the basic principle that the eligibility of the widow shall flow from her husband's eligibility.
The present act provides that where a member of the Canadian forces on active service assigns pay to a recipient of war veterans allowance and where no dependent's allowance is paid to the recipient or to the recipient's spouse, the assigned pay is to be

War Veterans' Allowance Act regarded as exempt income. This provision was enacted when active service meant in effect service in wartime. Since then the entire Canadian regular forces have been placed on active service and the original intent of the exemption has been lost. It was never intended that the father of a man or woman pursuing a military career should have an advantage of this kind over one whose children are pursuing a career in civil life and therefore the bill proposes that the provision be revoked.
In determining the income of a war veterans allowance recipient from any interest in real property, an exemption is permitted in respect of the value of the house in which he resides. This exemption was fixed at $6,000 in 1952 and it is agreed that since then the value of real estate has gone up. Canadian housing statistics show that the estimated average cost of a single family dwelling in Canada has been increased by 32 per cent from 1952 up to the second quarter of 1957. This percentage takes into consideration the cost of land, labour and material. The proposed amendment would increase the exemption from $6,000 to $8,000, being 33J per cent. It should be noted that the exemption is not the market value of the property but the interest which the recipient has in the property. This interest is either assessed value established by the municipality or the equity of the recipient in the property, whichever is the greater.
The bill repeals section 8 of the act which reads:
No allowance shall be paid in respect of any orphan who is in receipt of a pension under the Pension Act.
Heretofore, when the father's death was attributable to military service the maximum monthly payment under the Pension Act to or on behalf of one orphan is $40. Where the father's death is not attributable to service, the maximum monthly payment that may be made to or on behalf of one orphan under the War Veterans' Allowance Act together with a payment from the assistance fund would be $60.
It is true that there is a means test for the latter group whereas a pension is paid regardless of other income. However, the cases in which the orphan has private income are comparatively few and generally speaking the child whose father's death is not related to service receives more money from public funds than the child whose father died on the battle field. This is undesirable and the amendment provides that the pensioned orphan whose entire income is less than the war veterans allowance ceiling for orphans will be eligible for an award of war veterans allowance.

Subsection 1 of section 14 of the present act permits a recipient of war veterans allowance to be absent from Canada without loss of allowance for a period of three months in any calendar year, provided he returns to Canada within six months from the time he left this country. The bill makes two changes: it would permit the recipient to be absent from Canada for six months from the last day of the first month in which he absented himself, and it would also permit payment upon his return for a total of six, instead of three months in any calendar year.
In respect to the salaries of the chairman and other members of the war veterans allowance board, I remarked at the resolution stage that the government felt these were overdue for revision in line with salaries of senior civil servants and I believe there must be general agreement on that score. These salaries were last revised in 1955 and since then there have been two general salary revisions for civil servants. As a result the relativity which existed between members of the board and other senior officials has not been maintained. Civil servants whose salaries were in the same bracket as members of the board in 1955 have now had their salaries set at a level much higher than the rates now shown in the act and it is felt that members of the board should benefit from a comparable adjustment. The latest revision shows the senior officers grade I whose salaries ranged from $9,000 to $10,000 in 1955 are now paid from $11,500 to $12,500. The revisions proposed in the bill are well within the amounts granted to senior civil servants with comparable responsibilities, and I believe they will be acceptable to hon. members. The effective date corresponds with increases to the civil servants.
Finally, the bill offers a solution to a problem which has been the subject of strong representations by veterans organizations for some years. During world war II the United Kingdom was deemed to be a theatre of actual war whereas during world war I the United Kingdom was not so regarded.
A considerable number of men reached England during world war I and were retained in that country in the interests of the service. Senior officers will readily agree that the individual man in the ranks, and even the junior officer, had little to say as to the nature of the service that he would be called upon to give. Experienced instructional staff, men with peculiar administrative ability, men skilled in various occupations; many of these were retained in the United Kingdom against their wishes. My colleague the Minister of National Defence has from time to time drawn attention to the rigours

of the training camps on Salisbury Plain, conditions that were not encountered in the well-housed training areas of world war II.
The bill extends eligibility for war veterans allowance from a service point of view to those who served in the United Kingdom during world war I for at least 365 days prior to the date following the armistice. This minimum period of 365 days conforms with the more recent recommendations of the Canadian Legion, and is considered by the government to be a fair basis upon which to establish eligibility.
The entire bill, except the portion dealing with salaries, is intended to come into effect on the first day of November, 1957. It will be noted that this date is also the effective date of the bill which amends the Old Age Security Act.
The main reason for selecting November 1 as the effective date of the war veterans allowance measure is to bring into effect, as soon as possible, the higher income ceilings and the other improvements that the bill covers. Another important reason for choosing the same effective date as that fixed for the old age security increase is to ensure that the higher income ceilings permit the war veterans allowance recipient who has reached the age of 70 to obtain maximum benefit from the increase of old age security pension.
I think I should take this opportunity to mention that some delay in processing all the accounts at the new war veterans allowance rate and ceiling will inevitably occur. Old age security pensions require no complicated computation such as results from the income ceiling of the war veterans allowance. The cheques for old age assistance benefits can therefore be written at short notice, whereas the war veterans allowance accounts must be scrutinized individually.
As some hon. members are aware, the income ceiling is attached to a continuous period of twelve months, known in my department as the VA year. This VA year commences to run from the date of the award of war veterans allowance or from the date of reinstatement of war veterans allowance following a period of cancellation. The VA year may therefore commence from any date in the calendar year, and hon. members will appreciate how complicated the computation of adjustments can be. The process is necessarily time-consuming, and to avoid anxiety among recipients who might think that they have been overlooked, I should like to make it as widely known as possible that every case will not be adjusted to the new rate during the month of November. However, the officials of my department
War Veterans' Allowance Act are giving priority to the task of reviewing these files, and we hope that all adjustments will have been made within the next month or so.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that these remarks will have been of assistance to hon. members in clarifying the intent of this measure. I may say I shall be prepared to give further detailed information when we come to discuss the different clauses in the bill.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker,
I should like first of all to commend the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks) on the very clear statement he has just given regarding the intention of the bill which is now before us.
I think I should observe at the outset that most hon. members who have had anything to do with veterans legislation will realize that this bill is of the same nature as those which have constantly been coming before parliament with regard to veterans affairs. As each step forward has been taken it has been found that further steps need to be taken in order to meet difficulties which arise or to iron out inconsistencies or inequities. Then, again, as the cost of living has risen it has been necessary to increase the amounts payable under this legislation. There has also been a feeling on the part of the people of Canada that assistance given to ex-service men should at the very least not lag behind that granted under the ordinary social welfare measures.
It was naturally to be expected that further steps would be taken with regard to war veterans allowances and pensions legislation in the light of the measures adopted by parliament in regard to old age security, old age assistance and the other matters with which we have already dealt.
I should say in this regard that many people think-I am inclined to agree with them-that where men have given service to their country at risk to themselves, as is the case with ex-service men, they should receive some extra consideration from the federal government, especially if they suffered in any way as a result of that service in respect of their ability to work or with respect to their position in life. This view was, of course, taken by the minister and by those associated with him when he was in opposition.
It is in the light of that attitude that I now propose to go over the bill which he has introduced today and make a few remarks in regard to it. As a member of the party whose government brought the veterans charter into existence and improved it on a number of occasions I naturally welcome this further improvement and I think all members
860	HOUSE OF
War Veterans' Allowance Act of our party will welcome the improvements which have been mentioned by the minister.
The first improvement is in regard to increasing the monthly rate payable to single veterans from $60 to $70 a month. That, perhaps, is not going to make so great a difference as some may think, because, as the minister pointed out, a person who had no other means of livelihood was able to obtain assistance from the assistance fund, and augment that $60 a month. Nothing is proposed with regard to increasing the amount to be paid as a basic rate to married veterans, and the minister sought to excuse this omission by referring to the assistance fund and to the fact that the ceiling on income had been raised. I intend to deal with this matter briefly later on.
With regard to the proposal that veterans of the first world war who served only in the United Kingdom should receive the benefit of the act if they served at least 365 days in that country, I think most of us realizing that those who served in the second world war have always had this particular benefit have felt the time had arrived when it should be extended to those earlier veterans even though they did not get any further than the United Kingdom, and that the time had come to improve the position of the veteran of the first world war who was kept in England by order of his superiors and often against his own will.
I realize that the Canadian Legion has recently recommended that this be extended only to those who served one year in the United Kingdom and the bill follows that recommendation.
Naturally I am personally glad to see the government going that far in recognizing the position of these old veterans most of whom are now over 60 years of age and in need of more assistance than heretofore. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the same reasoning under which it is to be granted to those who served in the United Kingdom for one year should be applied to those who had any service whatever in the United Kingdom. There is no similar restriction of a year's service in relation to those who served in world war II as to receiving the benefit of the allowance and I think the same reasoning should apply in removing the restriction regarding those who served in world war I in the United Kingdom.
Because the Canadian Legion has gone only this far in its recommendation doubtless the minister feels he has gone far enough in recognizing the position of these ex-servicemen, but I presume he had another reason for


so doing beyond that of recognizing the Legion's request and I hope he will reveal it to the house.
The next matter referred to in the legislation is the position of a widow whose veteran husband lived in Canada slightly less than 20 years. It did not matter how long she might have lived in Canada, she could not get the benefit of the War Veterans' Allowance Act after her husband's death if he had not resided here for 20 years or more before death.
The reduction in the residence qualification to 10 years is one which I think everyone will welcome but I would point out to the minister that in reducing the residence qualification to 10 years in this legislation he did only what was done this session already in the case of the other social welfare legislation affecting the recipients of old age assistance, blind pensions and old age security. As hon. members know people can receive old age security even though they may not be British subjects and may not have given the service to this country which our exservicemen may have given.
In reducing the residence qualification in this legislation to 10 years as has been the case in the other social welfare legislation what he is really doing is putting war veterans on the same basis of qualification as the recipients of social welfare who have no special claim as veterans have. In view of the attitude the minister adopted in the past when in opposition I am certain he will want to give some extra consideration to the veterans who served their country and to the dependents of veterans and putting them on exactly the same basis with those in receipt of social welfare could not have seemed to him generous, to say the least.
The next subject dealt with is the amount to be charged as income against a veteran in respect of a residence which he may own. The Canadian Legion has recommended that the value of the residence not to be so charged be placed at $9,000 so that no interest on this sum should be counted as income. The bill before us proposes raising this amount to $8,000. In view of the fact there has been a rise of approximately 187 per cent in the value of homes since the original amount was set at $4,000 I feel that an increase to $10,000 or $11,000 might have been justified. I think the Legion was extremely reasonable in suggesting $9,000 and I feel the minister should have gone at least that far. However, setting the value at $8,000 will mean an increase of $2,000 over the present amount and this will be helpful and, I am sure, appreciated.

I come now to the question of absence from Canada in regard to affecting receipt of war veterans allowance. Although I will deal with this question more fully at the conclusion of these remarks I want at this time to observe that here again the minister simply followed what has been done with regard to the other social welfare legislation. In going only this far the minister has not gone nearly as far as he and his colleagues insisted should be done when they were in opposition as I will draw to his attention in a minute or so.
I have already mentioned the fact that the minister offered as an explanation for not referring this bill to a committee the desirability of getting these cheques out as soon as possible. I appreciate what he said in regard to war veterans allowance cheques not being issued more or less automatically as old age security cheques are because I realize that any change in the law as to the basic allowance or ceilings entails a great deal of work in calculating the amount to be paid to each veteran. But I also have no doubt that the officials of his department are already lining things up on the basis of the proposed amendments and I suggest that referring this legislation to a committee would not delay getting the cheques into the hands of the veteran very much if at all.
I received in the mail last night a copy of the submission to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the cabinet prepared by the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League. This is a most carefully prepared submission and if a committee had been set up I am sure representatives of the Legion would have been glad to appear before it to adduce reasons for the position they have taken with regard to the various matters affected by the legislation. Looking at the situation as sympathetically as I can from the minister's viewpoint I fail to see why he did not agree to refer this bill to a committee where the positions taken by the various veterans organizations could have been presented to it. This could have been done without delaying the other business of the house. Dealing with the bill in the house with no reference to a committee means that it cannot receive the careful attention we all feel it deserves unless we are going to hold up other business.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not want to interrupt
the hon. member except to say that the president of the Canadian Legion told me only yesterday that they did not desire to have a veterans affairs committee this session; they did not think that it was necessary.
War Veterans' Allowance Act


Walter Adam Tucker: I can understand the minister feeling that he should pay some attention to that, but in view of the fact that so many of their representations are not being carried out,-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Not too many.


Walter Adam Tucker: -their requests are not being carried out, and in view of the fact that there is certainly a very real possibility of an election-I do not say it is justified by the situation, but judging by the remarks of the Prime Minister that an election may come at any time and the remarks of the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) in Toronto recently that we are in the midst of a campaign-I am rather surprised at the Canadian Legion not wanting to press for the things they ask for in their brief if they knew what a short distance in some respects the government was going in carrying out some of their requests.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They are not as susceptible
to rumours as members of the opposition.


Walter Adam Tucker: I hope my hon. friend is
right because I think-the Gallup poll indicates it-that the vast majority of the people of this country expect the government to carry out some of their promises in regard to veterans, in regard to the position of the farmers-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Hear, hear.


Walter Adam Tucker: -and in regard to these matters on which they made very specific promises to the people of Canada. I think they expect the present government, if in carrying out those promises they get the support of a majority in the house, to stay right here and do that job and not be looking-


Mr. Cardiff:: We are doing that.


Walter Adam Tucker: -for a dissolution before they have done it. I am sure that is what the people of Canada want and it is perhaps what the Canadian Legion expects.


John Alpheus Charlton: They wanted it before.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am just wondering whether
we should not pay some attention to what the Prime Minister said. He has stated on more than one occasion that an election may come at very short notice. What is going to happen in regard to the veterans if this happens? The things they have asked the government for could not then possibly be brought into effect until after the election was held and a session called after the election. I really wonder whether they realize what seems to be the thinking of some of the hon. gentlemen opposite. I hope that

War Veterans' Allowance Act that thinking does not prevail, because I do not think it is in accordance with the wishes of the people of Canada. They have elected the hon. members and while they are in office and carrying out their promises -in the light of the statement on the throne speech debate made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) I agree with the hon. member there would be no excuse in the world for calling an election before some of these things are done-I take it from what he said-


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Don't worry about it.


Walter Adam Tucker: I need to worry about it
because I am here speaking on behalf of the veterans and I must take seriously the statement of your own leader.


Mr. Maloney:: He is a veteran.


Walter Adam Tucker: My hon. friend is suggesting
that I should pay no attention to the statement of the Prime Minister?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I did not say that; I said
not to worry about it.


Walter Adam Tucker: He said I should not worry
about it.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: You are not worrying about
that; you are worrying about the calling of an election.


Walter Adam Tucker: My hon. friend is suggesting I do not worry. I think my work in this house on behalf of the veterans will bear examination. I have done my best, Mr. Speaker. What I am saying is this. I have every faith in what the Minister of Veterans Affairs said. I believe he has hopes of bringing in a bill dealing with all these veterans matters and referring it to a veterans committee at the next session which I presume will be held after Christmas. At that time all of these things could be gone into. If one were absolutely sure that that is going to happen, the situation would be different. I am not suggesting that the minister does not expect it to happen but I must say that when the minister said what he did-and I hope he will forgive me for saying this-there is more reason for the veterans and the country now to expect that there will be no dissolution unless it is forced on the government, until the Prime Minister's promises are carried out.
The next question that I said I would come back to-I do not want to take too long on it-is the question of the over-all maximum annual income which is allowed to the single veteran. As was pointed out by the minister, that maximum over-all annual income allowed to an unmarried veteran, without a child, or not residing with a child, has been raised from $960 to $1,080. The bill proposes

to raise it that much. What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? It means this. We will take a veteran who is over 70 and whose wife is over 70. Many of them are in that position. They will draw between them in old age security the amount of $1,320.
I started speaking about the single veteran and will deal with his position first. The single veteran will draw old age security in the sum of $660 and under this legislation he is entitled to draw $70 a month, which makes $840. Now that would give him an income of $1,500; but the difficulty is that the over-all limit placed in this bill is only $1,080. In other words, by putting this over-all limit in the bill at $1,080, it means that the recipient over 70 on old age security cannot draw in war veterans allowance a matter of $420 of the amount provided by this parliament. That has been criticized by the members opposite from time to time. For example, I would refer to the remarks of the Prime Minister, when he was in opposition, about the right of a person in receipt of old age security to get that and the war veterans allowance in full.
The Prime Minister, when he was in the opposition, spoke about this in this house on July 12, 1956, and I find it hard to understand how a government newly elected should ignore the words spoken in this house by their own Prime Minister before the election. Here is what he said; as reported at page 5897 of Hansard:
I should now like to say a word or two with reference to a matter that has been discussed on previous occasions, namely, war veterans allowances. As the situation is at the present time, the ceiling on income for single veterans is $840 and for married veterans $1,440.
This is the present Prime Minister, then one of the spokesmen for the opposition, speaking:
I find it hard to understand why the amount should not be increased to the level of that amount which, under the Income Tax Act, becomes exempt from income taxation. This question has been asked the minister before: where is the sense of fairness in this situation? Everyone is entitled to the old age pension, whether it is the Prime Minister who receives it or somebody else. Every citizen in our country is entitled to it at 70 years of age. Why should those in receipt of war veterans allowance find the amount of their old age pensions in effect reduced on the achievement of the age of 70 years? That is something that one hears universally complained about. It is something that is unjust for, by reason of the present ceilings, it places those who served and their dependents in a second-class position with respect to others who did not serve. It brings about a state of affairs that is unfair and unjust and it constitutes a discrimination that cannot be justified.
He went on to say:
I ask the minister once more-as he has been asked on previous occasions-this question: why should such a state of affairs be permitted to continue?

In the words of the leader of the present government, in the words of their own leader, I ask why this situation should be permitted to continue which he states is unjust? The government has the power to bring in a bill to remedy this injustice about which their leader spoke with such eloquence in the house. Why have they not done so? Did they not mean what they said at that time? What is stopping them from doing it now? Nobody in the house has told them that they would not support them in that view. Certainly we expected it because it was put plainly not only by the present Prime Minister but by other members. For example, the present house leader, speaking on April 12, had this to say, as found at page 3477 of Hansard, just last spring. At that time the present Minister of Public Works, (Mr. Green), then in the opposition, said:
So far as war veterans allowances are concerned, some Increases have been made of which we all approve, but the needs have not been faced as they should have been. The ceilings on permissive income have been increased somewhat, but when the new parliament meets they will have to be raised to such an extent that when a recipient reaches 70 years of age he will get his full old age security payment without any reduction in his war veterans allowance.
This is the pledge of one of my hon. friend's colleagues. The minister will not say that promise has been carried out. He cannot. He did not pretend it was being carried out. What I do not understand is why, now that they have the chance to do so, they should not carry out the promise which they held out and on the basis of which they now occupy the position they do.
I have known the present Prime Minister for a very long time, and in effect in the campaign he said, "I am not making these promises in any irresponsible way; I am making promises that we intend to carry out." Now, are you carrying them out in this bill? Here is where the minister was speaking.


An hon. Member:: What did you do in the
last 22 years?


Mr, Tucker:: We are not talking about what the Liberals did, we are talking about what you are doing after being elected to office.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I told you not to worry about it.


Walter Adam Tucker: My hon. friend says not to worry about it. Is it any wonder that I worry when we meet right after the election and the promises made by the present Prime Minister are not being carried out?


An hon. Member:: You did not seem to worry too much about these matters.
War Veterans' Allowance Act


Mr. Fraser:: After the 1953 election you did not keep your promises.


Walter Adam Tucker: My hon. friends asked for support on the basis that the Liberals should have done this but now when they are in a position to act they are not doing it. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is it not much worse for people who get elected on the basis of certain promises to ignore them?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Oh, oh!


Walter Adam Tucker: You can laugh all you want to but I am sure that the hon. member who has laughed-I will not name him-was one of those who was most loud in his denunciation of the unfairness of this thing.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Certainly 1 was.


Walter Adam Tucker: Why do you not get up now and say that you are not carrying out the promises you made?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: We have not been in office six months.


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes, but this is the first step you are taking now in regard to veterans legislation.


An hon. Member:: Emergency legislation.


Walter Adam Tucker: You could have put this in the bill just as well as what you have. Is my hon. friend suggesting that it would take any longer to write into the bill a figure of $1,500 than $1,080? Does he require more than six months to make that change?


An hon. Member:: You didn't do it in 22 years.


Walter Adam Tucker: As a matter of fact, hon. gentlemen opposite should not think that they are going to get away with not keeping the promises they made to the people by talking about what we did or did not do. They are in office now. They are the ones to whom the people are looking, and I tell them that if they proceed so flagrantly and defiantly to break their promises with regard to this matter the people will not think very much of them.


An hon. Member:: Are you voting against the legislation?


Walter Adam Tucker: I must not let my good friend, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, get off scot free. I must admit that he was more cautious than some of the others over there. Here is what he said when speaking on July 6, 1956, as found at page 5751 of Hansard'.
I want to emphasize this afternoon that one of the first things to which the Department of Veterans Affairs should give attention is this matter of increasing the ceiling on the war veterans allowance. For instance, take the veteran who has reached the age of 70 years. If he has no other income but his war veterans allowance, owing to

War Veterans' Allowance Act the ceiling he can obtain only part of his war veterans allowance because he is also a recipient of the old age pension.
Let me repeat what the Minister said:
I want to emphasize this afternoon that one of the first things to which the Department of Veterans Affairs should give attention is this matter of increasing the ceiling on the war veterans allowance. For instance, take the veteran who has reached the age of 70 years. If he has no other income but his war veterans allowance, owing to the ceiling he can obtain only part of his war veterans allowance because he is also a recipient of the old age pension. If he is single he can receive a total of only $820 a year.
He goes on to say:
Then there is the disability pensioner. These things are not new. I know hon. members have heard them discussed in the veterans committee. We brought in amendments and pressed for these considerations in 1952 and 1955.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What is wrong with that?


Walter Adam Tucker: Well, the minister said there that the person should not receive a smaller amount of old age security on account of being able to draw the war veterans allowance.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I said we should increase the ceiling, which we have done.


Walter Adam Tucker: What my hon. friend pressed for, and he will not deny it, was that these people should be able to get both in full. This is what they committed themselves to. I must say I think hon. members opposite should be so anxious. I can say things about their government that they cannot say, and I think they should be anxious that all possible is said to see that their government carries out the promises which they held out to the people in the election campaign. Instead of some of the backbenchers looking at me frowningly and finding fault, they should be saying, "Well, after all, this should be said to our government". We would like to have the government carry out its promises.
What is the position with regard to married veterans in this regard? This is one of the main things brought out by hon. members opposite when they were in the opposition. Take the ceiling for a married veteran. It is set at $1,740. If he is an old age security recipient he can get a total of $1,760. I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that when all they had to do was raise it another $20 to carry out their promises to the old married veteran they would not have actually appeared to break their promise for the sake of that amount. But they have not even gone that length with respect to the old veteran.
I am glad that they went as far as they did because I think there is a great deal to be said for what the Prime Minister, then in the opposition, and the present Minister


of Public Works and others said about it. They said that old age security was paid to everybody as a matter of right, that the war veterans contributed to it and receiving it should not cut down what they would get by way of war veterans allowance.
But the thing that I find difficult to understand is what prevented the minister and the government from carrying out these promises. This is the question. They used to say, "Why does the government not do these things?" They used to hint there was perhaps some hidden hand. Surely any such alleged influence has not begun to operate already on the government which is so brand new in office. The brand has practically not worn off yet, and here they are not carrying out this fundamental promise.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The hon. member is trying to belittle something he knows is good.


Walter Adam Tucker: I said this was the sort of bill that has been brought into parliament over and over again. We made this difference. Invariably, except in the session this spring, when we brought proposals into parliament we referred them to the veterans affairs committee.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Not always.


Walter Adam Tucker: Almost invariably, I will say. Admittedly, I think there was some reason for not doing it in this spring's session before the election. However, I do not recall any time prior to that when this course was not followed. I do not insist that is so, but I say almost invariably this sort of legislation was referred to a veterans affairs committee. Almost all parties thought this procedure was good. I know the minister was one of those who thought it was a splendid thing because you could get representations from organizations of ex-service men; you could get representations from those in touch with the veterans through welfare organizations who know how hard it is to live on the amount granted by this legislation; you could get representations from those officials who are responsible for raising the money, and so on. Then, the veterans affairs committee, having given far more time to the study of this measure than we can possibly give in this house and do the other necessary business, could then make representations to the government.
As the hon. member knows, time and again the previous government acceded to those representations at times in a very great way. The other day I referred to an occasion I believe in 1948 when the government brought in a bill providing a 10 per cent increase in pension. As a result partly of representations

before the veterans affairs committee the increase was raised to 25 per cent. I feel the minister, being the person who has championed that way of doing business, should not refuse to do the same thing and thus be the first one to break that great tradition. He was one of those who insisted on that course.
I do not believe he really considers that if this had been sent to the veterans affairs committee the measure would have been delayed more than one week. This would not have delayed the payment because the measure is effective from November 1. It would not have changed the total amount the veteran would receive. I do agree these men should get these cheques before Christmas. If I thought there was a chance any substantial number would not get their cheques before Christmas I would feel differently. However, I have such great confidence in the department over which the minister presides, their efficiency and their ability to do a great job under pressure, that I am satisfied if the measure had been referred to the committee the cheques would have been delayed only a matter of three or four days at the most. They would have been out in plenty of time for Christmas.
I should like to refer to the question of permitting absence from Canada for only six months. As has been stated already, this only goes as far as the social welfare legislation we have already passed. I do not believe the minister would have wanted to limit himself in that regard, and I do not know why he did limit it to that. I shall not take the time to give citations, but the minister knows that the members of his own party took the attitude that it was not treating the Canadian veteran fairly to cut off his allowance when he had to go outside Canada to preserve his health. When this government introduces a measure and does not go any farther than they have just gone in respect of old age pensions, old age assistance, then they are going back on the representations they made in veterans affairs committees and on the floor of this house that where health reasons took a person out of this country he should not have his allowance cut off.
Had the minister referred this measure to the veterans affairs committee it might have been possible for this government to do as previous governments did, reconsider these provisions and do a better job for the veteran. I regret very much, Mr. Speaker, that my good old friend and colleague, after all the work he has done for veterans, should have been the first one to bring in a bill which does not carry out some of these important matters. I hope that during such time as he 96698-55
War Veterans' Allowance Act may occupy the bench he occupies now he will not be put in that position again.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, the members of this group will continue their non-partisan approach to veterans affairs matters, and will approach them in a spirit of co-operation. I must say I was very interested in the review of the legislation made by the minister. I agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker). We support this bill on the principle that three-quarters of a loaf is better than none. We are very glad that the amendments contained in the bill will benefit the veteran.
I must say, however, before proceeding that I thought the preceding speaker indicated a quite unnecessary measure or superfluity of righteous indignation.


Walter Adam Tucker: Only the members of the C.C.F. are virtuous; we all recognize that.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I can quite truthfully say that the two small groups at this end of the house are the only ones who have fully kept their promises to the veterans of this country. I listened with interest to the hon. member because I have been on veterans affairs committees over a period of twelve years-I would advise anyone who wants to get the history of this question to read some of the remarks of the hon. member and his colleagues in the house and in the veterans affairs committee-and I remember when other members of this house were trying to get amendments to the legislation in the direction in which these amendments go. It does make a great deal of difference what the circumstances are and on which side of the house you sit. One could easily understand, Mr. Speaker, in view of the situation as it exists today, that we in this group have a very virtuous feeling because we have never broken our word.
I am not going to deal with the sections that bring some benefit to the veterans and their dependents in this country, because I am going to be reasonably brief. I can deal with those when we are dealing with the bill in committee. But I do want to say a few words about several matters in which the Legion is interested. In the Legion brief which arrived in our mail boxes yesterday evening there is the suggestion of $140 per month for married persons, and that is a good objective for us all. In so far as the ceilings are concerned, which is a matter in which I have been interested for quite a number of years, I am sorry that the government has not seen fit to accept the representations of its former colleagues in the house and in the

War Veterans' Allowance Act veterans affairs committee and raise the single veteran's ceiling to $1,200 and the married to $2,000. However, we are happy to see the ceiling raised to the extent it is.
I was particularly glad to note when the minister gave his explanation that he indicated that, as was the practice in the past, casual earnings would not be included in finding the total ceiling. The Legion has asked for that, and has requested an exemption of $9,000 for the veteran's equity in his house. The bill provides for $8,000. I do think the government could have gone that extra $1,000. I do not know why they stopped at $8,000 and did not provide for a $9,000 equity in a house. However there again I was very glad to hear the explanation from the minister that the $8,000 is not necessarily the real value of the house but that it represents either the veteran's equity in the house or the assessed value and I think it will be of great benefit to many veterans in this country.
There is one group in Canada to which I was sorry thought had not been given when these amendments were being considered and that is our merchant seamen. In that respect I want to read briefly from a most recent brief because I think it puts the case very well indeed for the merchant seamen. Consideration of this group has come up before the veterans affairs committee on a number of occasions in past years and there are many people in this country who fail to realize the service that many of these men rendered to Canada during the war. However, because they served in the merchant service, with the exception of certain rehabilitation and education credits and things of that sort, they did not receive the general benefits of the veterans charter. I am one who still believes that consideration should be given to their case and I think it is particularly appropriate that consideration be given in the first instance to an amendment to this act. On that account I will read from page 28 of the brief presented to the Prime Minister of Canada and the cabinet by the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League in November 1957 as follows:
Earlier representations for veterans' benefits for merchant seamen have always been primarily concerned with rehabilitation benefits such as reestablishment credits, educational training, etc., rather than with war veterans allowance. We believe, bearing in mind the desperate situation of some of these men who had excellent war service both on the high seas and, in some instances, on the landing beaches, that at this time the arguments advanced against providing any benefits, namely, that they receive more pay than members of the armed forces, might be considered balanced out against the rehabilitation benefits that the other veterans receive. We believe that these veterans should be granted war veterans allowance so that the country for whom they ran

great risks in time of war might not leave them and their families in dire poverty when they are no longer able to provide for themselves.
I heartily agree with the representations of the Canadian Legion in this respect. The brief goes on to say:
The Canadian Legion therefore recommends that the War Veterans' Allowance Act be amended to include these veterans of the merchant navy and the T. 124 service.
I do urge the minister and the government to give further consideration to these representations of the Legion on behalf of the merchant seamen because I know personally, although their numbers are not large, there are some of these men who would benefit materially from assistance under this act.
Now I would like to say a word or two on a matter which I raised previously. I think everyone will appreciate the amendment in the bill providing for six months absence from Canada annually for the veteran in receipt of war veterans allowance. This puts him on the same basis as a person in receipt of old age security. I do however, feel that consideration should particularly be given to those veterans who find it necessary to leave Canada on account of their health. I mentioned one such case the other day but I will mention it again. I am speaking of a man who was advised by the doctor who was in charge of his case to go to Mexico because of a serious lung condition so that he might alleviate the suffering which he would have to experience for the rest of his days. This veteran had to go to Mexico and did go to Mexico and later died in Mexico, but of course was unable to receive the war veterans allowance.
I do think that if the government does not see fit to make the allowance payable to veterans who wish to go out of Canada generally it should give further consideration to the payment of an allowance to the veteran who has to leave this country on account of his health when he has a medical certificate from the medical officer of the department to this effect. I am urging this further consideration because of the tragic circumstances in cases such as the one I have mentioned and from time to time there must be quite a few such cases across the country.
I would like to bring a further matter to the attention of the minister or his parliamentary assistant, who I most sincerely congratulate. You know it is very hard to get used to looking at a person full-face when you have been looking at his profile for so many years but I am very glad he has received the appointment and I know he will do a good job. Now I want to get my amendment in.

The case I wish to bring to the attention of the parliamentary assistant to the minister is the case of a veteran who is married but owing to very unusual circumstances which I do not wish to mention here has had to live away from his wife. He has maintained her throughout the years but under the act, as it now stands, because he is not living with his spouse he will be paid war veterans allowance as a single veteran. Now I am just going to quote his letter:
Many thanks for sending along the war veterans allowance forms. I promptly filled them out, witnessed by a J.P. and sent them off to Vancouver. They acknowledged receipt of them and a few weeks later their representative called in to see me to get a little more information. More than anything he wanted me to clarify my marital state, as I had stated on the form that X was married, but my wife had not signed the form, nor was any statement of her financial status. I explained to him that on my side of the form I had stated that I was not and had not been living with my wife for years, though I had and still am supporting her. He told me then, that that statement definitely put me into the single class, because the act clearly states that a married man must be living with his wife.
And then he goes on to say he cannot understand this discrimination and asks that something should be done about it. I mention this case as only one of several of a similar nature with which I have met during my experience as a member of the house. Here is another rather unfortunate case. As far as this man is concerned he is maintaining his wife under very unusual circumstances. He is a very fine type of old soldier, a pioneer settler who came from the old country in the early days of this century, went over in the first world war and had an exceptional military record. Just because of the present wording of the act he is not allowed to receive war veterans allowance as a married man.
I do urge the minister to give consideration to an amendment to the act whereby a veteran who has separated from his wife because of unusual circumstances, but who is still maintaining her, be allowed to receive war veterans allowance as a married person.
Now I have very little more to say at this time. I do not wish to detain the house too long since I know there are other members who have a few words to say on this very important legislation. I must say, however, that I am heartily in agreement with the increase suggested in order to bring the salaries of these officials in line with other officials of similar status and I am very pleased to see that provision included in the bill.
I also wish to draw to the attention of the parliamentary assistant that I realize that it is going to create an immense amount of work for the staff of the Department of
867
War Veterans' Allowance Act Veterans Affairs and that a good many of them will be working overtime in order to see that the veterans and dependents concerned receive the benefits of this legislation as soon as possible. I do suggest to the minister that these good people who put in these extra hours of labour to bring these benefits to their comrades should receive every consideration around Christmas time and have their holiday extended.
One more suggestion: we are so constantly amending veterans legislation that it is almost impossible to be fully informed on the facts unless one has a consolidated copy of the act. Would the minister be able to have a consolidated edition of the War Veterans' Allowance Act published by the Queen's Printer at the first opportunity? I ask this because this is one of the acts that a member always needs to be able to pull out of his brief case and consult, together with the Pension Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act and so on. One has to carry these things about because one is so frequently asked questions regarding them, and I do want to suggest to the minister that he should make it possible for us to have a consolidated copy of the act at the first opportunity.
While this legislation only goes part of the way-I think I should be safe in saying it goes about three-quarters of the way in the direction the Legion would like to go-we are very pleased to see it placed before us at this time. The measure has our most hearty support. It will improve the living conditions of a good many of our comrades and provide benefits for a good many others who are being overlooked today, and I am sure, in general, it brings a further measure of justice to the veterans and their dependents who have served this country in the days gone by.


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, we in this group also, support the principle of the bill. We recognize it is a definite step forward and that it will prove of considerable assistance to veterans as a whole. While we recognize that it does not go quite as far as we would wish, we are also aware that we cannot expect Conservative legislation to be perfect no matter how good the intention might be.
We do recognize, though, that this is a step in the right direction. The minister and his parliamentary assistant have long been members of the committee on veterans affairs and have from time to time been outspoken on matters dealt with by this particular legislation. They have said a great deal in the past and many of their utterances have been

War Veterans' Allowance Act quoted to them already; for that reason it is not my intention to dwell too much on that aspect of the debate.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I was somewhat disappointed in the opening remarks made by the minister, for I felt he might have taken the opportunity to give us a great deal more information than he did, information which might have proven very useful in our debate today. Certainly, if it had done nothing else, it might have shortened the amount of discussion on second reading, because so many hon. members who spoke yesterday were in complete darkness as to exactly what the bill contained, with the result that what they had to say yesterday, or part of it at least, will probably be repeated today. This absence of information with regard to the exact changes brought about in the bill is going to cause some hon. members to spend considerable time repeating some of the things which have been said before.
It is unfortunate that there is no standing committee on veterans affairs. I listened carefully to what the minister said last evening regarding his continued interest in the establishment of such a standing committee -I see his parliamentary assistant nodding assent, which means, of course, that he, too, is interested in it-I also recall the minister saying that we were dealing this session with unfinished business and that there was therefore no time to go ahead and set up this particular committee. Well, that may be true.
The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) speaking a few moments ago said that when his party was in power they invariably referred legislation of this kind to such a committee. Then, of course, he had to qualify that in the usual Liberal fashion by adding that there was no time to follow this practice before the last election. I can appreciate both points of view but if there were a standing committee on veterans affairs, as members of all parties have urged from time to time, we should not be facing this particular problem at the present time and the bill would be sent forward to receive more careful consideration than it will be given in present circumstances.
I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) make the remarks he did, and I was glad that his party will continue to be a non-partisan group with regard to such questions as this. My experience has been-and I am sure it has also been the experience of other hon. members-that this committee on veterans affairs has never been partisan in a political sense. We have tried to keep politics out of our discussions and secure for the veteran the type


of legislation we thought was best for him. I am looking forward to an early spring session in which one of the first pieces of legislation to be brought forward will concern the setting up of a standing committee on veterans affairs for which all of us have clamoured for so many years.
In respect to the increases in the allowances, the fact that the government has seen fit to introduce legislation which would increase a single veterans allowance to $70 as requested in the Legion's brief is commendable. However, I note that the bill does not comply with the request that the married allowance should be increased to $140 despite the fact that the Legion, in presenting its case in writing-it could not, of course, be heard- showed us that the wages level had increased since 1955 from 141.7, and 149.4 in 1956, to 156.9 in 1957, a total rise of some 15.2 points in the wage index. This, in my view, indicates that if a wage earner in this country requires an increase relative to the wage received in 1955 amounting to such a figure, then certainly the war veterans might have expected that in all instances the increase awarded to them would be comparable.
As the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) pointed out yesterday when speaking on the resolution, the question of the permissive ceiling as between the disability pensioner and the war veteran who is able to work is causing us some concern. There is considerable discrimination in the provisions made in the two cases. However, considerable attention has been drawn to the fact that certain cabinet ministers have from time to time indicated their desire to bring the permissive ceiling on allowable earnings to $1,200 and $2,000, and there were many instances during the debate in which members referred to the record.
In this particular case may I refer the minister to page 5867 of Hansard for July 12 of last year, in which the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), now Minister of Public Works had this to say:
The Department of Finance in its wisdom has decided that $2,000 income should he 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.
It is my recollection, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure it is the recollection of every member of that committee, that it was not just the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green), or the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) or the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks) who have from time to time

urged this upon the government, but it was the case and it is the case today that the Canadian Legion in its briefs is continuing to urge this very same stand.
It is also true that a number of hon. members who are today backbenchers on the government side called for action in this regard. The hon. member for Rosthern referred to the utterances of the Prime Minister made on July 12, 1956.


Mr. Mclvor:: It is a good day.


Frederick George Hahn: As recorded at page 5897 of Hansard of that date the Prime Minister called for this very same thing and, being the type of spokesman he is, he did it in no uncertain terms. We all recognize his straightforward method of speaking. He did not just say, "These are half-way measures and there is a possibility that these things should be done," but rather he called upon the government in unequivocal terms to take action in this regard. It was a demand made on the government of that day that the ceiling should be raised to $1,200 in the case of a single veteran and $2,000 in the case of a married veteran. I, too, am one of those who have spoken from time to time on this same subject as did members of the C.C.F. and other members in the Conservative group. I see no reason for the slight increase which is indicated in the schedule attached to the bill.
However, of even greater concern to me than the limit of $1,200 and $2,000 set on this matter is the discrimination we impose upon the veteran who is disabled and unable to find work because of his condition as compared with the receipts of the veteran who is able to work. Yesterday the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) drew to the attention of the house the fact that there was a difference in the amount. We did not know what the new changes would be until we heard what the minister had to say in introducing the bill but they do not do anything toward correcting this inequitable state of affairs.
I have prepared a comparative chart to indicate what the situation actually is and with your permission I would like to refer to it. A single veteran will receive a monthly rate of $840 under the new scale and will be permitted casual earnings of $600-that is if he can find a job that will pay him at the rate of $50 a month

and he has allowable earnings of up to $240 which would give him a total of $1,680. A single disability pensioner, on the other hand, if we were to assume his disability would be one based on the same rate as casual earnings of, let us say $50 a month, would be in
War Veterans' Allowance Act receipt of $600. Under the terms of the bill before us he would be in receipt of a war veterans allowance of $480 which would give him a maximum total annual income of $1,080. In other words, we have a situation where a disabled veteran who probably requires additional money because he has to take taxis, hire assistance in doing his chores, pay for medicine and so on is allowed a maximum annual income of only $1,080 while the veteran who is capable of working is permitted to receive the full amount of the monthly rate for casual earnings as well as his allowance which would give him an income of $1,680, or a difference of $600, the amount of the casual earnings.
In the case of a married veteran the monthly rate is $120 which on the basis of 12 months would give him $1,440 a year. He is permitted casual earnings of $600 and with allowable earnings of $25 on the basis of 12 months he would have $300, or a total annual income of $2,340. In the case of the married disability pensioner in receipt of a pension equal to casual earnings he would receive $600 and with the war veterans allowance of $95 per month he would receive $1,140 or a total annual income of $1,740. He is in an equally unfortunate position as a single disability pensioner in that he will receive $600 less than an individual who is capable of working.
I am fully aware that the $600 represents the actual earnings of the individual who is able to work but I do not see why we should penalize the disabled veteran who through no fault of his own cannot take an occupation. He has probably put in the same length of service as his more fortunate fellow veteran but we have permitted the other chap who is capable of accepting employment an additional $600 a year. If the disability pensioner has an annuity it is charged against his war veterans allowance. The annuitant on a disability pension and the one eligible for war veterans allowance both are penalized in the same way.
The disability pensioner needs extras and requires the $600 the casual earner is permitted to earn. I would suggest that the act be changed and I would hope that the government will look forward to changing it in another year to make it possible for a disability pensioner in receipt of war veterans allowance to receive the equivalent of $50 per month as additional assistance to help him for he is very much in need.
The extension of the act to include veterans who had service in the United Kingdom only and who were not overseas is a welcome change. We in this group accept it as a forward step, one that has been called for over
870	HOUSE OF
War Veterans' Allowance Act a period of years by the veterans and we are quite prepared to support it.
The question of the extension of the benefits of the act to widows whose husbands died before completing 20 years' residence is one that has interested many of us a great deal in years gone by and we have proposed that there should be a change to bring more of these women into the group that would be eligible for receipt of the allowance. We are particularly pleased to see this change.
Early this year I made an inquiry of the ministry which appeared as question 2 on the order paper in which I asked how many widows of imperial war veterans had been residents in Canada for more than ten years but whose husbands predeceased them before they became eligible for the war veterans allowance as provided for under the War Veterans' Allowance Act. I was advised that an estimated 8,600 widows were in this position. I take it that at least those 8,600 widows will be in receipt of this addition. Before the wives of imperial war veterans organization were represented by the Canadian Legion they presented briefs on this question from time to time pointing out the desirability of making a change in the act.
The deletion of clause 8 will prove advantageous and desirable in so far as assistance to orphans is concerned.
Then there is the matter of the increase in the equity in the home from $6,000 to $8,000 at today's assessed values. It is true the legion asked first for $9,000. Probably this is one of the points on which the government has not gone quite so far as we should like to see them go.
I listened to the hon. member for Kootenay West very closely when he spoke on widows allowances being extended. I certainly agree that there are instances such as he mentioned, which are unfortunate ones. I am pleased to see that a change has been made in the legislation in that respect.
There is the question that was dealt with by one of the Newfoundland members, namely the merchant navy, which gives me some concern. As I said earlier, I have been a member of special committees on veterans affairs for some years past but never during the time that I was a member did we ever have representations from the merchant navy in respect of this particular problem. If there is no other reason, that is reason enough to warrant the setting up of this committee and making it permanent so that we can call in witnesses, as the minister has told us would have to be done, in order to get their point of view to enable us to familiarize ourselves more particularly with the problems involved. I am told that the


merchant navy did make direct representation some years ago but no action was taken at that time and since then we have heard nothing from them. However, the fact that the question is raised in the Legion brief indicates that it is causing the Legion members some concern. I would say it is a problem that requires some consideration. The only way in which we can give it proper consideration is to go ahead with the job, set up the committee and give it the attention that it should have at that time. We can determine then what should be done to assist those people, if anything.
I have nothing further to say, Mr. Speaker, other than to repeat, as I indicated earlier, that we are very happy to see these progressive and forward steps being taken and I trust we shall continue to see the progression that will finally give the Legion members the type of legislation that they have the right to expect from this government.
(Translation):


Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I have no wish to delay consideration of this bill unduly, but, having had the privilege of sitting on the standing committee on veterans affairs, I believe I should congratulate the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks) and his parliamentary assistant (Mr. Dinsdale) on their accession to the exalted position they now hold.
No one who heard the minister at the time he sat on the committee and who takes into account his statement in the house can deny that he has been giving close attention to veterans' problems. He was familiar with all details of the legislation applying to them and made a great many suggestions to the government of the day to improve the lot of veterans. We can therefore rightfully expect that the minister, now that he happens to be sitting on the opposite side of the house, will very shortly put into practice all the suggestions he put forward in the committee as well as in the house.
All veterans, those in my constituency, or elsewhere in the province of Quebec, or anywhere in Canada, will certainly be glad of the financial assistance provided by this bill. I must say, speaking as a veteran myself, that I will gladly vote for this legislation. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that the proposal now under review is, after all, only an amendment to existing legislation and that even before we were called upon to consider this particular bill, our veterans' legislation was considered to be among the most complete and adequate provisions of this

type since it was such as to satisfy a great many of the needs of our veterans. I am not prepared to claim that it was perfect. No legislation can be that. I will even go so far as to say that there is still a great deal to be done to improve the lot of our veterans. But on the other hand we have every right to expect that the minister and his parliamentary assistant will very shortly see to it that a good many of their past suggestions are now to be put into effect.
I was happy to hear the member from Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) put before the house the views expressed by the Legion, both orally and in writing.
They show that while veterans accept the proposed legislation and the promises made by this government, they saw fit to express their appreciation and gratitude to the former government. The majority of our people will not be lulled nor blinded by details, and we know that they will not forget all that was done in the past with regard to this legislation. However, there is always room for improvement.
We should not overlook the fact that, if the government is now in a position to increase the allowances, it is because of the former government's unremitting endeavours, over the years, to improve this act and provide a maximum of security for our veterans.
In my opinion, it must not be forgotten that this legislation rests on foundations of which we Liberals have reason to be proud.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would call the attention of the house to the fact that one of the most controversial questions in the past has been that of the setting up of a standing committee of veterans affairs and that the hon. minister himself was among the most ardent supporters of that proposition. Well, Mr. Speaker, you cannot have it both ways. What was good before June 10 remains so and I contend that the hon. minister, to be consistent, should at the very first opportunity set up that standing committee so that all who are interested in discussing veterans problems may do so. I am sure that if we had had the opportunity to hear the representatives of veterans organizations, this bill would certainly be much better. I therefore hope that in the near future the hon. minister will set up that standing committee on veterans affairs.
(Text):


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment to the War Veterans' Allowance Act will I am sure be
War Veterans' Allowance Act well received by all veterans organizations, all veterans and the public generally. I do not wish to delay second reading of the bill by going into the provisions or by any lengthy discussion. The purpose of the bill was concisely and clearly stated by the minister when speaking on the motion for second reading. I felt rather sorry that all members were not seated in the house at the time because I know that all members are interested in this subject. I know the minister's words will be read in Hansard fully and completely by hon. members.
I should like to say something in passing about the Canadian Legion. I realize that there are other veterans organizations representing the interests of veterans, but since its beginning the Legion has represented to the government of the day the feelings of veterans generally as to what legislation was required in order to deal fairly with everybody. Injustices and difficulties do come up from time to time, and as long as the department and the government receive the Legion briefs I am sure the Legion will continue to present them.
A brief was presented in November, 1956, and I believe this bill brings into effect many of the recommendations then made. As one hon. member has just stated, a brief was also received in the mail today by members which brings up to date many of the problems. In its latest brief the Legion has even discussed the problems raised by the launching into outer space of the Russian satellites.
In commending the minister on bringing forward this legislation, which has the effect of complying with the promises made, I want to say that I know that the present amendments will fill the immediate and pressing need. However, I urge the minister to continue to give consideration to all inequalities and difficulties that now exist and that will be coming up from time to time in connection with the war veterans allowance.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to warn the house that I am representing the minister and that if I speak now-


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any other members who wish to speak?


Mr. C. F. Kennedy (Colchesler-Hanls):: Mr. Speaker, on this, the first occasion that I have risen in the house, I assure you that I shall be very brief for two good reasons. The first is that the speakers who have preceded me have in no way indicated that any of them will do anything other than support the bill. Second, I would not want

War Veterans' Allowance Act it said of me that I had held up the progress of the bill through the house, because I am extremely anxious that its benefits reach the veterans concerned.
It is most appropriate at this time that we should be considering this type of legislation on the very eve of the 39th anniversary of the day on which these old veterans, then young men, brought to a successful conclusion the first world war. In so far as the bill is concerned, I am not going to comment on it except to note that in most respects it implements a great deal-



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 provide for advance payments for prairie grain prior to delivery thereof.
An act to amend the Old Age Security Act.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Brooks for the second reading of Bill No. 28, to amend the War Veterans' Allowance Act.
Cyril Frost Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, this bill serves two purposes, firstly it closes a great many of the gaps in the war veterans legislation, and secondly it extends in at least one way-in regard to the war veterans who served in England-the number of veterans who will receive some of these benefits. It is a recognized fact that the veterans of the first world war aged rather prematurely; one has only to refer to the "last post column" in the magazine known as The Legionary where by descriptions, numbers, etc. one can see designated the first world war veterans who have passed on. In many cases their ages are listed.

It would seem that the maximum allotted life span for veterans of the first world war is three score years. We must recognize that even the youngest veteran of the first world war is approaching that age and therefore we must suppose that these veterans will be a fast diminishing group.
This legislation provides for additional aid to those who spent years in England. I cannot speak for the conditions in that country during the first war as I was not there, but in the second war it appeared to me-I am now speaking for the soldiers-that the strain was perhaps as great as it was in many areas of action. It was not uncommon in England to look around to find your circle of close friends greying very rapidly, even in a matter of a few months. I suggest even under the strain in our House of Commons there are some who have not become grey haired yet. These troops to arrive in England, which was really the goal set for those who joined the army-to get overseas as they called it-first of all had to undergo certain hazards. Those hazards were about the same in both wars; submarine infested waters to cross and so on. In most periods of the last war it was not much less hazardous than during the great war. When they joined and went overseas some of them were married and left families behind, but all of them left loved ones behind and perhaps most of them their business interests. There was naturally a certain amount of strain upon them as they put in the months or years during which they were detached from the life to which they were accustomed.
There is another aspect of this matter. When these men returned, having been torn loose from familiar things, they found themselves in their later years, having been subject to many perils, in many cases more or less broken in health, because in the first war medical science was not advanced to the state it has reached in the last 10 or 15 years. It was not until their later years that they could settle down to their own family life. Then we find the veteran, late in life with his family at the stage where they needed a higher education. This same veteran had long been taught that the next generation must be well educated and here he was in perhaps the poorest financial shape of his whole lifetime and having to deal with this problem. He was therefore in very bad shape to attend to providing for his old age.
I do not intend to say any more on this subject but I do want us all to remember that in this generation we have come into a great inheritance in this country. This inheritance came to us fairly easily but those

who preceded us have not found things so easy. I think this thought was best expressed in the words of that great statesman when he said that certain things were attained through blood, sweat and tears. Now in my opinion we have gained our inheritance through the blood of our warriors, the sweat of our pioneers and the tears of those who have had to undergo unnecessary hardships.
In listening to the debate yesterday I caught the phrase, "so long as we have veterans we will have problems." I think this is a significant phrase and I would put it this way:	Many of us have no problems
compared to the problems of these older veterans. Furthermore, if we did not have these veterans we would have many problems without the power to resolve them. We must also remember that the men in the first war brought this country to a state of nationhood. Many members will recall that years ago the prime minister of the day in attendance at The Hague was asked "Whom do you represent?" He answered "I represent 60,000 dead men." That was the beginning of Canada's nationhood.
In conclusion we should remember that all these veterans gave years of their lives willingly and those who took part in these wars knew not where they were going. No matter in what small way they served, to them it was their greatest hour.
While I am on my feet I should like to refer to a matter that has recently appeared in the press. I am pleased to say that a dear lady named Mrs. MacFarlane who comes from my home town of Truro has been named to lay a wreath as the representative of the Silver Cross mothers of Canada.
There is no person I know who is better qualified to do this. Mrs. MacFarlane lost her husband and three sons in two world wars, and I hope as people pause to remember our glorious dead they will also find a place in their hearts to keep in mind the living.


Mr. T. J. Irwin (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that the minister is trying to live up to all the nice things that have been said about him. Since I came to this house I have not had the pleasure of making his acquaintance, but I have heard much of him in the past 10 years or so, and I realize that we have in this minister a man well versed in veterans affairs and, moreover, a man who is entirely sympathetic to the veterans cause.
I will repeat what I said the other day, that I would rather dream of the future than dwell on the history of the past. Thus it is that I am more interested in the minister's proposals and their implications than 96698-56
War Veterans' Allowance Act in whatever he is alleged to have said in the past. After all, Mr. Speaker, we are told that by their fruits ye shall know them, and as time passes we shall find out whether the present minister is going to live up to all the nice things that have been said about him, and we sincerely hope that he shall continue to have the confidence of this house in so far as the cause of the veterans is concerned.
We have Bill No. 28 before us now, and it is a step in the right direction. I say this because it represents an injection of purchasing power, however small, into the hands of consumers, and Canada will benefit as a result. But Canada would have benefited to a much greater extent had the steps taken under this bill been longer and more generous.
I am still unable to comprehend why old age security should not be available to veterans in addition to war veterans allowance. Old age security is given by Canada to all of her citizens who have reached the age of 70, and is a recognition of their service to Canada based merely on the fact that they have lived in Canada for at least 10 years. Ex-servicemen and women have rendered a service to their country which is beyond normal. Their need has been recognized under this act now before us. This is an income predicated on an extraordinary service and in consequence it should not be utilized as a means to debar its recipients from receiving a dividend payable for a normal contribution to the welfare of our country.
I would point out to the minister that many persons eligible under this amendment to the act are already in receipt of old age assistance or old age security benefits. This passes responsibility to those provinces which are paying supplementary bonuses. This is a point arising in connection with this bill which has not heretofore been commented on. I am surprised that this should be the case because when this amendment comes into force those provinces which are paying supplementary pensions in respect of old age assistance and security are going to find that the dominion government is passing the buck in respect to those for whom the dominion government should be solely responsible.
The provinces of B.C. and Alberta, in particular, pay fairly high supplements. A war veteran now eligible will receive $840 under this act at the present time. If he cannot earn any additional income, that is all a single veteran will get. That is it, period-$840. Under the Old Age Assistance Act he will be eligible for $660 plus the provincial bonus, which in the case of British Columbia would raise his income to $900,

War Veterans' Allowance Act and in the case of Alberta to $840. But if the dominion government does not agree to transfer, those provinces are carrying a load which is rightly that of the dominion government.
I think the house will agree that the provinces at the present time are carrying all the load with respect to welfare that they can bear. British Columbia will be paying in old age assistance, $40 a month and Alberta $40 a month, because the provincial governments pay one-half of the old age assistance, which is $27.50, and they also pay a $20 bonus, which is, $47.50 out of the $55 which the old age assistance pensioner is getting. It would mean an income for a person who is eligible for an allowance under the war veterans allowance act of $900 as against $840 he would get under this act. The same applies in the case of Alberta except for the fact that it is $5 less.
Earlier this year, speaking in this chamber, I quoted the case of an elderly man- he is, indeed, elderly, being 92 years of age- who served in the first world war. He is in receipt of old age security benefit amounting to $55 plus an Alberta bonus of $15, making a total of $840. So the Alberta government is paying $180 a year in respect of a man of this character. The federal government says: "you will have to survive on $660 old age assistance for a year". Well, the Alberta and British Columbia governments say: "we know quite well you cannot do it, so we will supplement your income".
I am glad that the permissive income has been raised, although I see no valid reason why it should not have been set at the $1,200 and $2,000 limits suggested by the Canadian Legion. Canada has nothing to lose and everything to gain by giving the veterans the right to an income of that kind. I draw the attention of the house to the fact that after these old people who have given their services to the country have reached a certain age, if they have something they can do they would rather go ahead and do it than sit idly doing nothing; they are much happier when they are occupied, irrespective of whatever added income they may derive. I would suggest that here again the minister take this matter under careful consideration and when the next revision of this act takes place be sure that the permissive income is raised to at least $1,200 for the single veteran and $2,400 for the married veteran.
The raises granted represent an improvement for the recipient of war veterans allowance who still has earning capacity, but what about those whose earning capacity has deteriorated to the point where they are unable to accept employment? The war of 1914-18

has been over for 40 years. Thousands of men and women who participated in that battle and who have either partial pensions, which are deductible as income, or no pensions at all are in dire straits because of past neglect of their need and the failure of the government to introduce corrective amendments. While the present amendments represent a step in the right direction they cannot rectify that situation nor give the recipients a reasonable chance to enjoy the country for which they offered their lives. The unfortunate factor is that those who have a small pension, whether service or civil, will not benefit to the extent of those without pension.
One notable feature of these amendments is that regarding those who never left Great Britain during world war I. This was an injustice that should never have been perpetrated and the present government is to be congratulated for at least partially removing it. I could never understand why a veteran was required to have had one year's service in Great Britain. The basic fact must be remembered that these men and women offered their services and put no strings on their offer in terms of stating where they were going. There were no reservations attached to their offer of service.


Mr. MacRae:: What about conscripts?


Thomas James Irwin: I am not talking about conscripts but even in their case they had no alternative; they had to go where they were sent. If they were taken to England and then sent back then by reason of this they should be much more in line for receiving the war veterans allowance than the men who went as volunteers because the conscripts had no option at all. The service of the veterans was given without reservation and because Canada accepted it there should be no reservations in providing these men with an adequate standard of living in their home country.
I do not see any reference in the present amendments to widows whose husbands could have been eligible for war veterans allowance had they applied for it but preferred to go it alone. These women are now in serious plight and the Legion's suggestion as outlined in its latest brief should be accepted. I am referring now to those veterans who could have been eligible for the allowance had they applied for it but who chose not to do so, preferring to go their own way. The trouble has been that after their death their wives have not been able to make any claim under the act. The Legion has asked that the widows of allied ex-servicemen be granted the allowance in cases where the husband died before completing 20 years' residence in Canada. It also recommends that where all other requirements are met the war

veterans allowance board be empowered to consider as eligible widows who would be qualified had the veteran made application during his lifetime. I do not think this house will regard that as being an unreasonable request.
The deletion of section 8 of the War Veteran's Allowance Act has been long overdue and is more than welcome as is the raising of the equity in a home from $6,000 to $8,000. I sincerely hope that in cases where a veteran actually owns his home and does not merely have an equity in it the assessed value will be taken and not the market value.


An hon. Member:: That is what it is.


Thomas James Irwin: I believe that former merchant seamen and T-124 agreement veterans should come under the provision of this act. They are in the same category as the men who never got out of Britain. They offered their services with no strings attached and I fail to see why they should suffer now.
Mr. Speaker, I would remind hon. members of this house of the immortal words of Laurence Binyon:
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condem.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.
At this time, on the eve of Remembrance Day, let us remember them by adequately looking after those who fought and served in that noble company.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: War Veterans' Allowance Act
The merchant seaman did not get any reestablishment grants or any gratuities. In many instances he served under naval officers. He took the same chances as the men in the regular services and I sincerely hope, sir, that when the standing committee is set up the consideration of the status of merchant seamen will be one of the first items that the committee will tackle.


Henry Joseph Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I want to take part very briefly in this debate to express my endorsation of this legislation at this time.
Firstly, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks) on his elevation to that post. Since he is a New Brunswicker we naturally expect him to turn in an excellent job as minister of that department. I say this to the minister because it was not always thus between the member for Westmorland and the member for Royal. A short time ago I read the life of Sir Leonard Tilley and I found that the last duel fought in the province of New Brunswick was fought between the member for Westmorland and the member for Queens, which is now Royal. We have come a long way since that time.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Who won?


Henry Joseph Murphy: Since Sir Leonard Tilley was involved I will not give the end of the duel.
I have always been interested in this legislation and especially in the war veterans allowance. When I practised law in Moncton after the war, I was interviewed by a field man of the Department of Veterans Affairs and asked to take on the administration of four or five cheques for war veterans receiving war veterans allowance who needed some assistance in handling their cheques so that they would receive the necessities of life.
Although I am not a recipient of war veterans allowance, of course, I know how these men feel and I know how it is to live on the pension paid. As I said, it was my duty to see that they received the necessities of life. At that time the department allowed $120 a year for clothing and I can tell you that it was difficult for me to see that they were well-clothed for that amount.
This is a step iri the right direction. I know that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has always taken an interest in this matter. I served with him on the veterans affairs committee during the last parliament. On that committee, in our discussions here on these matters as well as outside the house, I was happy to observe that at all times these matters remained above politics and regardless of our party affiliations the life of the veteran


came first. As I said at the beginning, I only wish to add my voice in behalf of this measure.


Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkion):: Mr. Speaker, my words will be very few. I just wish to state that I think this legislation will be welcomed at least as a partial remedy for some of the serious injustices which have marked the administration of veterans affairs in Canada for a number of years. Every branch of the Legion certainly in my constituency has several cases of real injustice, some cases of hardship and actual need. These cases have been growing because of the increased cost of living. The pension which the soldier received seemed adequate at the time he received it but it constantly buys less and less as inflation mounts. This is part of the series of legislation which is very badly needed, legislation which has been neglected, and I am sure that everybody will welcome, every branch of the Legion will welcome the minister's statement that it is his intention to set up a standing committee of this house in which all matters pertaining to veterans affairs can be dealt with, with representation from all parts of the house. I hope that as a result of the recommendations of that committee action will be obtained.
I am sure it is true that veterans, legionnaires and legion groups in the past have constantly passed resolutions; the provincial commands in convention and the dominion command in convention have passed resolutions and have often wondered why it was that so many of the actual needs of the veterans were neglected, passed over and glossed over. They would repeat and repeat year after year their requests that something be done with regard to this branch of war veterans allowances, this branch of the pension, this regulation against the granting of pensions to soldiers who are outside of the dominion, the matter of time which the person concerned was living in the country to qualify for a pension, and so on, and now we find that before this parliament is one month old many of the things which the Legion has asked for for years are going through; they are getting them.
If you make a study of the history of such legislation and the rapidity with which it is passed through this house you will find that this kind of thing has happened on only very few occasions in Canadian history and on every one of the occasions it was when the government was anxious to do something for the people; they were going to make a call on the people in a short time to ask for an endorsation.
I think there is a lesson to be learned here. I think this government should be

given credit for what it has done. I think the veterans should be thankful for what they are receiving, as I am sure they will be. I also think they should remember that far too often, in the administration of government in Canada, these people are forgotten and neglected when the government sits in the house with a large majority. I well remember the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) back in the 1940's when we were fighting battles to get some justice for men under the soldiers settlement board, and the difficulty with which we were confronted in getting anything done. What a change we have today. What an improvement it is. There are many veterans in Canada today who served with the Canadian forces in the first war and who do not qualify for a pension but who are today feeling the effects of their service. The opportunity to take care of their needs will not last for too many years more. I trust that the voice of their representatives will be heard in this house and that action will be taken. We are going to support this legislation. We hope it gets through as quickly as possible.


Mr. W. G. Beech (York South):: Mr. Speaker, the introduction of the bill covering improvements in the veterans legislation indicates to me at least that the opinions expressed by the members of the government whilst in opposition have not changed now that they form the government. It is true that the bills do not go as far as we should have liked to see them go. However, in the bills there is nothing which indicates that this is the last thinking on the part of the government. This is an emergency session called to get these extra increases as soon as possible into the hands of the recipients who need them so badly. I am convinced that the government has been as generous as possible, in the absence of a budget, and that all the legislation introduced this session will be reviewed at the next session. We have been assured by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks) that at that time a standing committee will be set up with, we hope, full powers to delve into all phases of the Pension Act, the War Veterans' Allowance Act and all other matters pertaining to the veterans charter.
We have in Canada the finest veterans legislation in the world but I do not think it was the intention of parliament, whilst setting aside this legislation, to build a fence around that act so that the Canadian Legion must spend $200,000 a year, to say nothing of what is spent by other organizations, in
War Veterans' Allowance Act helping veterans to get those things that parliament has set aside as a matter of right.
The success of the service bureau offices of the Canadian Legion in getting pensions for hundreds of veterans whose applications had been refused by the pension board indicates the need for a more liberal interpretation in the consideration of these applications. The benefit of the doubt clause was inserted in the Pension Act in order to permit some latitude to the pension commission, but it has been a source of constant complaint on behalf of veterans organizations that that clause is being in large measure ignored. This and many other matters will be discussed, I am sure, before the standing committee which will be set up at the next session.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I have one other observation to make and it is this. We have upon the statute books of this country an act setting aside November 11 as Remembrance Day for the honouring and remembering of thousands of veterans who died for those things which we as Canadians hold dear and cherish. I am informed that it is the practice of this house to sit on Remembrance Day. I am wondering whether this practice of "business as usual" is giving the right encouragement to the proper observance by the citizens of Canada of this most sacred and important day in the history of Canada.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I must inform the house that if the minister were to speak now, as he was the mover of this motion, he would close the debate. I understand that the parliamentary assistant in the department is speaking in the minister's place with his authority. The rules do not appear to prescribe what consequence that has or whether it is permissible. However, I understand that the house previously has accepted the parliamentary assistant in similar circumstances and of course it is the privilege of the house to accept that position tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the parliamentary assistant speaking now but I do not believe we should let it be a precedent for establishing a rule that a parliamentary assistant can close a debate when he speaks. If he wishes to speak and if he is the last speaker, then that is all right, but I do not believe that the

War Veterans' Allowance Act rules would permit a parliamentary assistant to close the debate by virtue of the fact that he is speaking for the minister. I think you, Mr. Speaker, perhaps had your book open at the relevant page. In the Standing Orders of the House of Commons that we have here, at page 25 it is specifically stated as follows:
(2)	A reply shall be allowed to a member who has moved a substantive motion, but not to the mover of an amendment, the previous question or an instruction to a committee.
(3)	In all cases Mr. Speaker shall inform the house that the reply of the mover of the original motion closes the debate.
I have no objection to the parliamentary assistant speaking now and I have no objection that he be the last speaker. However, I would object to the rule being interpreted from now on that a parliamentary assistant, by virtue of the fact that he is taking the minister's place, automatically closes the debate.


George Hugh Castleden: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would agree with the hon. member that the rule should not be changed and I do not think this should be taken as a precedent for establishing a rule. But I believe it is well known in the house that the house has power to conduct its own affairs; and if by unanimous consent the house allows such a thing, such a thing could happen at such time.


Ernest George Hansell: That is different.


Mr. Speaker:: I raised the issue which has subsequently been spoken to by the two hon. members because I did not want to create a precedent which would necessarily be binding in the future. The house has accepted this practice in the past. There is one instance of it in the debates, at page 2918 of Hansard of April 18, 1955, where the parliamentary assistant rose on behalf of the minister and the Speaker informed the house that he would close the debate. I think it is preferable, as suggested by the hon. member for Macleod and the hon. member for York-ton, that the house understand that the rule does not cover the matter exactly and that we proceed by leave of the house at this time and not by way of precedent.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your generosity and the generosity of the house in making it possible for me to speak at the present time. I am fully aware, I assure you, that no precedent is being established here tonight. The reason I think that the minister has given me this opportunity is because of his desire to facilitate the passage of this important piece of legislation through the house

with a minimum of delay. When I expressed a desire to say a few words he suggested that might be done most opportunely in winding up the debate here this evening.
After listening to the various speakers who have made their presentations on this second reading, it is hardly necessary for me to speak at any considerable length. I am rather of the opinion expressed by my worthy friend, the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce), who said yesterday, in a very short and terse statement typically Scottish, that it is good legislation; let us get on and get it passed. I agree with him wholeheartedly on that point. Others have since echoed the same sentiment as the hon. member for Selkirk.
Everyone has said that Canada has excellent veterans' legislation. The veterans' charter is second to none, I suppose, amongst all the countries of the world which make provision for those who have served in a special way in the various wars of this century. The reason for that, as has been stated, is that throughout the years, and particularly during the days of world war II, the veterans charter which we have and which we are amending by this legislation was designed by the veteran members of this house who had only one purpose in mind and that was to provide the best welfare program possible for their comrades.
We have had the advice, as has been mentioned, of the veterans organizations. We always acknowledge the contributions that they have made in formulating the charter. This is the first time I have spoken on these matters from this side of the house. I have spoken on these matters from the other side of the house during the past few years. I was glad that no one quoted the words I had uttered on former occasions.


Walter Adam Tucker: I could not quote them all.


Leonard T. Stick: They are not as important as all that.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I do not know to what reason I should attribute that, but I have certainly not had my words thrown back at me on this occasion. However, I want to say this. Even during the five years I was a member of the opposition I always had the highest respect for those who had the responsibility for the day-to-day administration of this legislation. I refer to the officials of the department. I think again the reason the administration has been maintained on a high level is because they without exception, are veterans in their own right.
As I listened carefully to the views expressed I noted general unanimity, and even

the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) during the course of the resolution debate stated that this War Veterans' Allowance Act was a good act. It does the job, in most respects, that it was intended to do. I was, therefore, a little surprised this afternoon when the hon. member unlimbered a rather withering attack across the barrier with regard to the amendments that are being proposed. Others have answered the arguments for me, but I think that I should just repeat the points that have been made. I should say to the hon. member for Rosthern that it is quite impossible, as I think he will see, to rectify all the mistakes and the shortcomings of the previous administration in one short month. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we have not been sitting here one month, and we have realized that there were shortcomings in the act. There are minor points of irritation, and I have made reference to them before.
I believe the purpose of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks) at this time is to deal in a most rapid and effective way with the shortcomings and with these oversights that have existed hitherto in the act. I should like to say that I agree 100 per cent with the sentiments that have been expressed concerning the capacity and ability of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. He has served in this house for 22 years. He has established a reputation as one who has a kindly disposition towards the problems of veterans in this country. It is not only a kindly disposition, but it is a disposition that is backed by an abundant knowledge of their personal needs. I assure the hon. member for Rosthern that in due course there will be the opportunity, for example, that he and others have expressed to have a more comprehensive review of the veterans charter as it exists at the present time.


Walter Adam Tucker: We are listening carefully to these promises, too.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes. I imagine, knowing the Minister of Veterans Affairs and knowing his wide background of experience, one of the reasons why he hesitated in going too far into controversial matters at this time was that he would not quite know what tactics the members of the official opposition would take. I know from my experience in these committees that we have tried to deal with the topics that have been mentioned by the hon. member for Rosthern as having been neglected by the government, but he has taken a diametrically opposite viewpoint to that which he took here this afternoon. It is not necessary to labour this point. As I have said, I am glad to see that the majority
War Veterans' Allowance Act of members have agreed that the minister in bringing forward these proposals is taking a long step forward in meeting the changing needs of the veterans who are served by the War Veterans' Allowance Act.
There are just one or two specific matters with which perhaps I should deal at this time. Several members referred to the discrepancy of the provision in the act concerning allowable property holdings. The bill is raising the allowable holdings from $6,000 to $8,000. Some reference has been made to the fact that this is less than the $9,000 recommended by the Canadian Legion. I believe that recommendation was put forward in their presentation of 1955. I understand that the $9,000 was based on a formula derived from the fair market value. I might point out to the members who raised this particular point that the present figure has been derived from a different formula, not the fair market value but rather the assessed value or the equity holding of the veteran in the property. Actually, under those terms, the $8,000 figure is even more generous than the one requested by the Legion in 1955.
Reference has been made to the restrictive nature of the ceiling. One of the fundamental purposes of the amendment is to try to meet the changing circumstances that have resulted from the rising cost of living and I think actually, under the existing situation and in the light of the representations of the veterans organizations, the increase in the ceilings will go a long way towards resolving the problem faced by veterans in this regard.
I would like to point out further that to raise the present ceiling still higher would not, generally speaking, benefit those who have no other income and cannot supplement their allowance from casual earnings. The recipients who are in receipt of a small pension or superannuation would benefit to a certain extent but in the main an additional raising of the ceiling would only result in an additional increment to those who are able to supplement their allowance and who do represent the great majority. To use this method to try to help those who cannot supplement their allowance would also be very costly and the great bulk of the moneys thus spent would really assist the less needy recipients.
I believe the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Irwin) made the point that the maximum allowance for a single veteran would be $840-I think I am right in saying that. Now there is an assistance fund allowed under the act which makes provision for an allowance up to the maximum of the ceiling, that is to say $1,080, to indigent veterans who have no other source of income. Furthermore the same hon. gentleman referred to

War Veterans' Allowance Act widows whose husbands had not established their claim prior to death being discriminated against. I think he will find that such widows whose husbands did not claim the veterans allowance prior to death and who would otherwise qualify, that is to say by reason of age or their husband's service, are eligible for the allowance. The act says that is so and I am sure he will find it does operate in that way.


An hon. Member:: What constitutes
eligibility?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: As long as the widow has reached the age of 55 and her husband was eligible. In other words eligibility flows from the service given.
That is the only comment I want to make with reference to the ceiling. These things are all subject to discussion from time to time, particularly under inflationary conditions and no doubt the discussion will be of a continuing nature.
The observation has been made that there should be some provision whereby the veteran who reaches the age of 70 could receive both his veterans allowance and his old age security. Now that would push the ceilings up to the level of $1,500 per annum for a single veteran and $2,760 for a married veteran.
There is one thing to remember, of which I think most hon. members are aware, and that is the relationship between the war veterans allowance and the disability pension. This relationship must always be kept in mind. It was of course never intended that the recipient of a war veterans allowance payment should be in a superior position to the recipient of a disability pension. At the present time the single ceiling of $1,080 represents 50 per cent of the total disability pension and the married ceiling of $1,740 represents 73 per cent of the total disability pension for a married veteran. It is today considered that this ratio is an appropriate maximum; otherwise a veteran with a 20 per cent disability pension would, upon reaching the age of 60, receive the equivalent of an 80 or 90 per cent pension.
Everyone will agree that disability pensions are paid in respect of the highest possible kind of service and that a significant margin should be maintained between this type of compensation and the payment of allowances which are more in the nature of social legislation.
Here again discussion and debate can be carried on but at the point at which this actual situation stands at the moment there must be some suitable relationship maintained between these two categories, as the

disability pension and the war veterans allowance which is popularly known as the bumt-out pension.
Now I have not dealt in detail with all the matters raised by hon. members. I do not think some of these matters come within the purview of the bill before us, but if any member feels that this topic has not been adequately covered in my review I am quite sure the minister will be only too happy to discuss these matters further when we come to the committee stage. We all agree that this is a good beginning and one which has been handled expeditiously. With a large part of the cabinet made up of hon. members who are themselves veterans we can rest assured that under this new administration the welfare of our Canadian veterans will be kept uppermost in their minds. I think if we can now proceed to a further consideration of this legislation and the other legislation which is to follow, so as to clear the way for its expeditious consideration before Remembrance day on November 11 next, there could be no better tribute that we could pay to those whom we honour in this special way.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.
On clause 1-Widows of allied veterans.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rise at this time, Mr. Chairman, to say how pleased I am to see that this clause is in the bill. I remember distinctly on two or three occasions in the past I was associated with the minister in what was later termed in the House of Commons as a group of nice old ladies whose representations should receive favourable consideration and I am very glad he has given that consideration.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: May I ask a question? Will new application forms be printed to cover this bill, that is, on account of the section included concerning service in the United Kingdom?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I understand the hon. member wishes to know if an application form will be sent to those who wish to apply for the allowance in respect of service in the United Kingdom. Yes, application forms will be sent to any one on request.
I also wish to say how pleased I was to hear the hon. member for Kootenay West speak about the group of ladies who come to see us every year. I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that they will be very happy tonight to know that by the next time they come their request will have been granted. I am sure they are

going to be very grateful to members of this house for consenting to this section of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Repeal.
Walter Adam Tucker: On clause 3, Mr. Chairman, something was said today by some hon. member that the value placed on a home would be the assessed value. Under the regulations under the War Veterans' Allowance Act, as I recall them, it is not provided that the value set is necessarily the assessed value and I just wondered if the minister intended to change the regulations or if I am wrong in my recollection of the matter.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: My understanding is that it has been the practice, and the formula that is used under clause 3 is as follows:
The exempt value is not the market value of the property but the interest which the recipient has in this property. This interest is determined on the basis of the following formula:
"For the purpose of determining the interest of an applicant or recipient in real property owned or deemed to be owned by him, the value of such interest shall be either of
(a)	the assessed value placed on such property by the city, town or municipality in which it
is located, or
(b)	the equity of the applicant or recipient in such real property, whichever is the greater."
For this purpose, equity means the capital investment of the applicant or recipient in real property, that is to say, the original investment and subsequent payments on mortgages when applicable, plus the amount of any additional capital expenditures thereon.
That has been the practice of the department, I understand, since June 1956. That was after the hon. member was closely connected with the department as parliamentary assistant.


Walter Adam Tucker: What I was getting at was the fact that it is whichever value is the greater. Somebody in the house is under the impression that it has been changed and that the value now is the assessed value and I just wish to bring it out that it is whichever value is the greater, either the assessed value or the actual equity of the veteran in the house that is its value less the encumbrance against it. I wish to bring that out because it seems to me that when the Canadian Legion made the suggestion it should be raised to $9,000, and as the value of real property in the case of houses has more than doubled in the last eight years, I wonder if the minister would say why they did not raise the amount at least to the $9,000 asked for by the Legion. They asked for this two years ago and they repeated this request in this brief they have submitted recently to the government. Why was it fixed at $8,000 in this bill instead of $9,000?
War Veterans' Allowance Act


Alfred Johnson Brooks: My understanding is that the fair market value was the formula before 1956. The Legion in its brief asked that it be increased to $9,000, based on the market value. We are placing it at $8,000 which is the assessed value or the equity. As I explained this afternoon, the value in property since 1952 when the $6,000 valuation was set has increased by 32 per cent. We have increased it 33J per cent, that is to say from $6,000 to $8,000. It is really a better deal, I would say, for the veterans with $8,000 as the assessed value than it would have been at $9,000 as the market value.


Thomas James Irwin: If a man owns a house on which the fair market value is $12,000 and the municipality is assessing it at 75 per cent, that would be $9,000; but if that man had an equity in that house of $10,000, so far as he is concerned he would have to take the $10,000 as the basis.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The provision is, whichever is the greater.


Walter Adam Tucker: Greater.


Thomas James Irwin: You said whichever is the
greater, and in any event-


The Chairman:: Shall the clause carry?


Walter Adam Tucker: Before it carries I should like to be sure about the matter. I have the regulations here now. Sec. 11 (2) (a) is as follows:
For the purpose of determining the amount that shall be deemed income from any interest in real property of an applicant or recipient or, in the case of a married veteran residing with his spouse, of the veteran and his spouse, whether owned or deemed to be owned by the applicant or recipient or his spouse at the date of making application, or acquired subsequent thereto, the district authority shall,
(a) where it is used as a residence by the applicant or recipient and from which no revenue is derived, consider as income an amount equal to 5 per cent of the amount by which the fair and reasonable value of such property, as determined by the district authority, less the amount of encumbrances thereon, exceeds six thousand dollars-
So, when a person is living in his home the valuation is that which is regarded as a fair and reasonable value of the property. In regard to that, could the minister tell us what instructions are given to the district authority in arriving at that fair and reasonable value. Because if he can assure us that they are not taking the market value or being influenced by inflationary market values but are being governed, probably, by what the veteran put into his home in the way of ordinary investment and improvements, then it would make quite a difference.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: My information is that a
directive was issued to the district authorities in May 1956 along the lines I suggested here

War Veterans' Allowance Act a few moments ago. That is the latest instructions which have been issued to the district authorities.


Thomas James Irwin: That still does not cover the point. When a man has a house whose fair market value is $12,000 and that house is assessed by the municipality at 75 per cent, that is $9,000. Suppose that man has an equity in that house of $10,000; according to the regulations the minister read out they have to take (a) the assessed value or (b) the equity in the house, or whichever is the higher. You have to take the $10,000 according to what the minister said, and I am sure that is not the intention. Is that the intention? Will the minister give us his assurance that the regulation will be altered so the man will be taxed for the assessed value and not the full equity?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If the equity were $10,000, then $8,000 would be exempt and there would be $2,000 on which 5 per cent would be charged.


Mr. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question. In arriving at the valuation are municipal assessments taken into consideration?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes, the municipal assessments are taken into consideration; they are used as a basis. I might say that under the War Veterans' Allowance Act there are very few recipients with houses of $12,000 value and very few who have an equity of $10,000.


Thomas James Irwin: Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that the minister does not live in White Rock.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I hope to some day.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it the minister explained that the department uses municipal assessments to determine the value.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes, that is right.


Frederick George Hahn: Since there is such a wide degree of variation in the assessment of the various municipalities, I would suggest that the department take under advisement having its own assessors establish the value in comparison with other veterans homes on the basis of districts.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I might say my information is that the department finds it much better for the veteran if the municipal assessment is taken. I know from my own experience that municipal assessments are always far below the actual value of the property. Under this system it has been the experience of the department that it is advantageous for the veteran.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
[Stage Direction]

On clause 5-Absence from Canada.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, while I am pleased to see this improvement in this clause that permits six months absence from Canada, I would like to ask the minister if he would give consideration to the matter I brought before the house during the resolution stage and on second reading this afternoon, that is to permitting the veteran to leave Canada and continue to draw his war veterans allowance providing he has a medical certificate from an officer of the department indicating that it was necessary for his health.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I assure the hon. member we will take it into consideration.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Chairman, this matter has been under consideration for some time.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: A good many years.


Walter Adam Tucker: I for one certainly never thought for a moment that this matter in which my hon. friends opposite placed such store and about which they appeared to feel so strongly would have been neglected. I would have thought they would seize the first opportunity to provide for it because I well remember hon. members opposite when in opposition pointing out to the government of the day that the cost would not be very great because it would be a matter of health not affecting very many veterans. They went on to point out how fair it would be and that it was a proposal to help sick veterans to whom we have some obligation and therefore we should not allow a small amount of money to stand in the way of our doing justice. I cannot understand why the minister does not have in his files a thorough study as to what such a provision would cost. I am inclined to think he probably has had a study made of this question and I would like to ask if that is not the case.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The hon. member seems to be drawing on his imagination in this regard as he has done with regard to a number of other matters.


Pierre Gauthier: Oh no.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that I think the hon. gentleman is three years late in singing this tune. He has changed his tune.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Chairman, I cannot
understand the attitude of the opposition party because here we have a statement-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Adam Tucker: I should have said I cannot understand the attitude of the C.C.F. party and I apologize profoundly to hon. gentlemen

opposite for confusing them with the C.C.F. In regard to their attitude in this matter, they, the C.C.F., are adopting the attitude that nothing of much import has ever happened up until this time. This is indicated by everything that has been said by them on this legislation.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You are right.


Walter Adam Tucker: But they have gone all about the country pretending to have taken an active part in the veterans committee meetings and boasting that as a result the best veterans charter of any country in the world was established in Canada. Yet now they rise during this session and pretend that nothing has been done until the present government brought forward the bills we are considering. It is very hard to understand people who blow hot and cold like that and I am sure it must amaze the people in the rest of Canada although, of course, it does not amaze anyone from Saskatchewan.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You should be amazed at yourself.


Mr. Small:: Your amazement amazes me.


Walter Adam Tucker: You will find out.


George Carlyle Marler: It is only a small amazement.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two questions about this particular clause of the bill. The minister may recall I had some correspondence with him in the last few days about a case which concerned the length of absence of a veteran from the country. Certainly if he had been prepared to take the action suggested by my colleague the hon. member for Kootenay West in bringing forward this particular clause the problem I was speaking about would no longer be something which would be of concern. However, my question actually has to be considered in connection with the provisions of clause 9 of the bill which sets forth the fact that the bill is deemed to have come into force on November 1 once it has received passage in the house. My question relates to that date of coming into force in respect to the provision of this clause which extends the allowable period of absence from three to six months.
What I would like to know is whether this means the six months period will apply only to people who have left Canada after the date of coming into force of this bill or whether the six months period will apply to veterans or their spouses who may be absent from Canada but who may come back within a date six months from the time they left? I think that is a rather important question as it affects people who may be absent from
War Veterans' Allowance Act Canada at the present time and one on which we should have a firm understanding before this clause is allowed to pass.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In the case the hon. member mentions, if the recipient of the war veterans allowance was away three months, we will say, before November 1 he could still stay away another three months after November 1 and receive the six months allowance. That would be my interpretation and understanding of the bill.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The minister said if they were away for three months prior to November 1 they could stay away another three months, am I correct in that?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Let us take an example then. Suppose they have already been away for four months and come back two months after November 1. What is the situation then?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Two months after November 1; if he were away four months he would have two more months after November 1.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: They would still receive-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Six months payment.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Six months payment after they returned?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes, that would be my
interpretation.


Walter Adam Tucker: The minister did me the honour of suggesting that I had a good imagination, but I certainly would think there are some figures from which he could draw some inference as to what the cost would be of permitting people to be absent and still draw allowances if they needed to be absent in another country on account of ill health. I take it the figures he might have would be those indicating how many people went to the United States and had their war veterans allowances cancelled because they stayed there longer than the three months. Has he any figures on that?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, my information is that there was one.


Walter Adam Tucker: During what period of time?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Since 1954.


Walter Adam Tucker: And none since then?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: No.


Walter Adam Tucker: I take it from that, Mr. Chairman, that there is only one whose health has been bad enough to cause him to go there and lose his war veterans allowance. Perhaps that would satisfy the department that the number who should live in a warmer

War Veterans' Allowance Act climate for their health would not be large; it would be under the control of the department. I should like the minister to say whether he is still as favourable to this idea as he was when he was in the opposition of letting a person draw the allowance who gets a certificate or satisfies the officials that his health requires him to stay in some climate other than Canada, in a dry atmosphere, for instance. Perhaps it may be necessary because of his health; he may have tuberculosis or something of that sort. From the repeated statements of the minister's colleagues when he was in opposition I certainly was under the impression that they were very favourable to this idea. I should like to know whether they are still as favourable and if the only reason why they have not put it in this bill now is that they have not had time to do so?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, I can speak for myself. The hon. member is certainly drawing on his imagination. I do not recall ever having said that I was strongly in favour of the war veterans allowance recipient going to any other country and staying there for a period for his health. I do not recall that.


Walter Adam Tucker: I said the minister's colleagues. I would like to read this to the minister to remind him of the sort of statements I had in mind. I take it that his colleague, the Minister of Public Works, when he spoke on this matter in the house was one of the spokesmen for the Progressive Conservatives on behalf of the veterans. His colleague, the present house leader, now Minister of Public Works, when speaking in this house on July 11,	1956 said this, as reported at
page 5867 of Hansard:
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.
I certainly took it that the present house leader was one of the spokesmen for his party on veterans affairs, just the same as the present Minister of Veterans Affairs

was, and what I want to know is this: is the minister now of the same view as his present colleague was in July, 1956, because if he is of the same view then I suppose the only reason that they could not bring this change about since they have been in office was lack of time? I think that must be the reason; they did not have time to do it if they are still of the view that this should be done. So I should like to know if their party is still of the same view as expounded by the present house leader when he was a spokesman on behalf of the Progressive Conservative party?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before the minister replies may I say this. I must support the hon. member for Rosthern on this occasion because I happen to know that the Minister of Public Works was making representations with knowledge of the same case that I brought to the house repeatedly. The hon. member was the member for Vancouver-Quadra at that time and he and I discussed this matter on a number of occasions, and he was making those representations in support of the same tragic case that I mentioned on two occasions while the resolution and the bill have been under discussion. I do hope that serious consideration is given to the wishes of the present Minister of Public Works and others who made those representations.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I can only say, Mr. Chairman, that considering the fact that there has been only one case since 1954 it would not seem to me that there is very great demand for legislation to amend that provision. However, I should be very glad indeed to look further into this matter. As I said before, we shall give it consideration. I might say that I am not assuming responsibility for everything that my colleagues said, any more than the hon. member for Rosthern would assume responsibilty for what his colleagues said. It would be a ridiculous situation for both of us.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
On clause 7-Canadian veterans of world war I or world war II.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: If an application is made by the middle of this month when would payment start on that application?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In answer to the hon. member, it would take some time to review the case, possibly five or six weeks, but the payment would be from the date of the application. There will be a great number of applicants and I would advise those who are applying

to get their applications in early because the applications that are in first will receive attention first.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister said it would be paid from the date of the application. Will it start from the first of the month or the end of the month? You could not start it in the middle of the month.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The war veterans allowance is paid from the date of application. If it is received on the 10th of the month, then it is paid from the 10th; if it is received on the 12th or 15th of the month, then it is paid from the 12th or the 15th.


Jean Lesage: I understand that up to now the veterans who served in world war I were not entitled to this allowance if they had served only in the United Kingdom, unless, of course, they were in receipt of a pension?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They will now.


Jean Lesage: Well and good. Now that the government has decided to extend the payment of the allowance to veterans of world war I, even if they served only in the United Kingdom, what is the reason that the minimum period of one year's service is required?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Well, Mr. Chairman, this matter has been very carefully studied by the Canadian Legion and this is the recommendation of the Canadian Legion. The government has seen fit to take the advice of the Canadian Legion in that regard.
I might also say that there were a great many soldiers who arrived in Great Britain just in the last months of the war; I think there were from 30,000 to 40,000 or 50,000. The veterans themselves who had served in France or served in England for a long time I believe are of the opinion that they should not be included at the present time at least.


Jean Lesage: That is not a substantive reason. The recommendation of the Legion should be accepted by the government, in my opinion, only if it is substantiated by very good reasons. There must be reasons why the period of one year has been chosen by the government after a recommendation, if you wish, by the Legion. This period of one year has not been picked out of the air. Why not six months? Why not nine months or why not fifteen months? Why one year?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: My answer to that, Mr. Chairman, would be that I have not the least doubt that six months was considered, that nine was considered and possibly three months was considered and that a year was decided by the veterans organizations as a logical period. That would be my answer to the hon. member.
War Veterans' Allowance Act


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the government's responsibility when it makes a recommendation to this house goes much farther than the minister would seem to think. It is all very well to say that it is the recommendation of an association. But the government in acting on the recommendation of the Legion must have had substantive reasons for doing so and I believe the minister should give to the committee the substantive reasons why he and the government accepted the minimum period of one year as a requirement.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: My reply to that, Mr. Chairman, would be that the government considered it to be a reasonable time.


Jean Lesage: Why is it reasonable, Mr. Chairman? There must be a reason.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Does the hon. member consider it unreasonable?


Jean Lesage: It goes much further than that. Is there any special class that the minister wanted to keep out?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Does the hon. member consider it to be unreasonable?


Jean Lesage: I did not say that. Mr. Chairman, I am not here as a member of the government having to defend a policy; I am here to see that the government gives to the people of Canada the reasons why it proposes such and such legislation. I believe that that particular question is a reasonable one and one which should be answered.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The hon. member may consider it a reasonable one but his government did not consider any period reasonable. The Legion presented this brief to the government for a good many years and they paid absolutely no attention to it. I want to tell him that I think the veterans all across Canada will consider this is excellent legislation and that they are going to be extremely grateful to this government for having selected this period of one year. If it needs to be changed later on, we will take the matter under consideration.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, when I intervened at first I said that up to now it had not been decided to extend this allowance to the veterans of world war I who had served only in the United Kingdom; and I add this question: Now that the government has decided to extend it to those who served only in the United Kingdom, why is it that there is required a minimum period of service over there of one year? At the outset I accepted the fact that a previous government had not seen fit to do so. But now that this government which is in power has

War Veterans' Allowance Act decided to do so, I ask, "Why one year?" I do not believe I have received an answer which is satisfactory to anyone in this house.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not think you want a satisfactory answer. I can give some reasons. In 1914 and 1915 when the first contingent went to Great Britain they encamped at Salisbury Plain. They suffered, as all veterans know. They were in tents. The weather was extremely inclement and those men suffered. They formed the basis of a good many men who trained other soldiers who came over in the next three or four years. Instructors were taken from them. They were good administrative officers. They were kept in England and they stayed there for three and four years.
The men who came over in the latter part of the war were in England only a short time. They were not obliged to put up with the uncomfortable situation at Salisbury Plain or in camps. They were not compelled to do weeks and months of training of recruits that came over. They did not give to the country or to the men the service that was given by these men who had been there for a long period of time. That is one reason-and I think it is a very logical one-it was felt that consideration should be given to the men who had served longest and had earned, I might say, more consideration than had the men who had just landed in England a short time before the end of the war.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, from the answer given by the minister must I conclude that the purpose of the minimum period which is required under the amendment is to take out a certain class of veterans?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: No, it is to give the benefit to the men who served the longest and who the veterans themselves, as represented by the Canadian Legion, feel deserve the allowance the most.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have heard this matter discussed in Legion branches, in provincial conventions and in national conventions. Lengthy discussions took place there as to what sound principle could be put before the government with respect to giving the war veterans allowance to men who had certain service in England. The very reasons given by the minister this evening to the house were the very reasons that were given in support of the present representations to the government made by the Canadian Legion. Because of those certain conditions of service and length of service on the part of those who would have preferred to go to France but were obliged to remain in England and train troops and do other things, it was considered

by the Legion-I have heard this matter discussed a good many times-that there would be a sound argument for asking for the war veterans allowance to be extended to those who had served not less than one year in England.
Before I sit down, Mr. Chairman, may I say this. As a good many members of this house know, members of the veterans affairs committee have urged this amendment ever since the second world war, and have done so vigorously on a number of occasions. I am sure there are a good many of the members in the house tonight who will be pleased indeed that we are passing this particular amendment to the War Veterans' Allowance Act which will be of such great benefit to the men who will need it and welcome it when they receive it.


Walter Adam Tucker: I would point this out to the minister and I hope he will bear it in mind. While he has directed his mind to the people who served the last few months of the war and apparently has in mind excluding them from the benefits of this amendment, some of the very people he spoke about as deserving of the allowance were men who in their patriotism and enthusiasm volunteered at the start of the war, went over to England and found the rigours of the first few months over there were so great that they were invalided back to Canada and have been suffering from that experience ever since.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Those men would be under pension if they suffered in that way.


Walter Adam Tucker: They may not be on a pension. It is quite possible it was found that they were not able to carry on their military work and yet they may not have qualified for pension. My friend from Newfoundland calls to my attention the fact there must be quite a number of Newfoundlanders who, with their well known patriotism, got into the war right at the start. Sometimes they were older men who were not able to stand the rigours of military life. They went overseas, many served in England less than a year and were returned to Canada and are now suffering from the rigours of the first year in England. As the minister has explained these amendments, these men would be debarred from the benefit of this legislation.
While this legislation, as has been pointed out, may be a step towards recognizing these people, I do suggest that a further look should be had at the situation because the same reasoning applies to people who served in the first war as applies to those who served in the second. Personally, I never was absolutely convinced that what some of the servicemen went through in the first war in the United Kingdom was not just as detrimental to their healths as what

servicemen went through in the second war. I never was convinced that the distinction between these groups was entirely justified by what they went through. Anybody who served even one day in the United Kindom in the second war is entitled to war veterans allowance, but if a person served in the first war he must under this bill have served a whole year before he is entitled to anything. Why draw a distinction between these people which cannot be upheld in the long run?
I do admit that the Legion has seen fit to go only this far. So perhaps the minister, therefore, has justification in only going that far. However, I think he will agree that there is something in what I have put forward, and I hope he will consider it. Before I sit down, I should like to ask him as to how many people would benefit by this amendment, and how many would benefit if he extended the same right to those who served in the United Kingdom in the first war?


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Rea):: Shall clause 7 carry?


Walter Adam Tucker: No, I want an answer.


Mr. Quelch:: While the minister is getting the answer, I should like to say that the provision is a very reasonable one. We all know that the veterans who only saw service for a very short period of time did not have their lives dislocated to anything like the same extent as the men who had a number of years service. Any of us who were overseas in the first war know that the statement the minister made is quite true. During the earlier stages of the war, life in England was much harder than it was in the later years. Many of the veterans who were stationed in Salisbury Plain know the extent to which the soldiers suffered.
I cannot understand why so much exception is being taken to the period of one year. We have similar terms in other veterans legislation. Under the Veterans' Land Act you must have served for one year before you become eligible. If we are going to object to this, why not object to the one year in the Veterans' Land Act?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In answer to the hon. member's question, the number who would come under the bill as it is now would be 2,280 veterans, that is an estimate, and 1,150 widows. If everyone were included, and I think that was the question, there would be an additional 5,190 veterans and 1,710 widows. The granting of an allowance to the first group I have mentioned, those coming under the act, would cost $3,210,000 a year.
War Veterans' Allowance Act If everyone were included, the cost would be between $10 million and $11 million.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 8.
Walter Adam Tucker: There are just two things with which I wish to deal now. In speaking of the ceilings placed on married veterans, I erred in favour of the minister and I would not want to do that as seriously as I did. I made a mistake in my addition. I stated that a married veteran residing with his spouse, if he drew the full veterans' allowance of $1,440 and his old age security, would get $1,760 a year. I said that in setting the ceiling at $1,740 the minister had fallen short by $20. As a matter of fact, the $660 and the $1,440 make a total of $2,100, so the minister has fallen short by a matter of $360 in carrying out what I understood was the firm intention of the members of the government when they were in opposition.
Now as to the second matter; there was a suggestion made that raising the level of permissive income would help those who were able to work and help themselves more than those who could not work and needed the help. I think the person who made that suggestion misunderstood the situation. The person who can have casual earnings is now much better off in this respect than the person on a small pension, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for New Westminster. I would refer hon. members to page 24 of the Legion brief where it deals with the proposal to raise the level of permissive income to those on disability pensions, those on old age security and old age assistance. They will find the matter dealt with in the Legion brief very concisely. I also commend that to the minister in the study he is going to make of these matters between now and the great day, after Christmas, when all these problems are to be referred to the veterans affairs committee, which I now know the government is going to set up pursuant to their promise.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The hon. member is going to make an excellent teacher.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 9-Coming into force.
Mr. Bryce:: When does section 6 come into operation? Is it before or after the coming into force of the act?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In the revision of this year the salaries of the civil servants came into operation on July 1, and that is the date on which the salaries under section 6 will come into operation, July 1 of this year.
Clause 9 agreed to.

Business of the House
On schedule A.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to bring up a matter briefly under schedule A which I missed under one of the previous sections because widows are mentioned and I am always interested in widows. In schedule A, clause 1 (b), widow without child or not residing with child, I want to ask the minister if he would give consideration to introducing an amendment to section 30, subsection 11, paragraph (b) which would overcome the most unfortunate situation that I mentioned in my remarks of November 5. I am sure his officials are acquainted with this case and possibly some others like it. A very slight amendment would be required. I am looking at the Minister of Public Works and expect his support because this widow is the widow of an old comrade of ours who was in A company of the 54th.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I might say that I will take this matter under consideration. I believe there have been only four such cases since 1955.


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

Lionel Chevrier: Might I ask the house leader what is the business of the house for tomorrow.


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we shall commence with the resolution preceding the bill to amend the Pension Act, being No. 9 on today's order paper. That will be followed by the second reading of Bill No. 16 to provide for annual vacations with pay for employees in federal works, undertakings and businesses, which is No. 2 on today's order paper. Then we shall take the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Transport, which is

No. 8 on today's order paper, having to do with a branch line of the Canadian National Railway Company, and then the throne speech debate.


Lionel Chevrier: May I bring to the leader's attention that both the hori. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Marler) and myself will be out of town tomorrow and either one of us would like to make some comments on the railway bill. I wonder if the leader would be good enough to give consideration to holding it over so that we might be able to take part in the debate.


Howard Charles Green: We might be able to take the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Justice but that probably would not take very long and we do not want to commence the debate on the throne speech tomorrow if it can be avoided. The plan is to go back to the throne speech debate on Monday and then continue with it all next week until it is finished.


George Carlyle Marler: Might I ask the house leader if it would be possible to deal with the resolution concerning the Canadian National Railways immediately after the resolution on pensions. That is to say, to deal with it as the second item of business instead of the last one.


Howard Charles Green: If the hon. member wishes to have the resolution concerning the Canadian National Railways taken after the resolution concerning pensions that would be perfectly satisfactory to the government.


George Carlyle Marler: If that would be agreeable to the house leader I would delay my departure accordingly.


Howard Charles Green: That is to say, to have it as the second item on tomorrow's list; that is perfectly satisfactory.


George Carlyle Marler: Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.