1957-11-06

Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg: North):
1.	Has the earth satellite been fired in accordance with any agreement arrived at during the international geophysical year?
2.	Is the Soviet earth satellite infringing on the air space above Canada?
3.	How far vertically does the sovereignty of Canada extend?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of that question is that there was no formal agreement in connection with the international geophysical year pertaining to the launching of an earth satellite, and in any event the U.S.S.R. has stated that it did not launch the satellite in pursuance of any arrangement in that regard.
With respect to parts 2 and 3 of this question I might answer them together. Under the present generally accepted rules of international law the space above the territory of each nation extends to the upper limits of the atmosphere. Although the Soviet union did not join in the international civil aviation organization convention of 1944 it was decided that every state has complete and universal sovereignty over air space above its territory.
Until recently air space for the purpose of state sovereignty and control had been thought to vary between the heights of 60 and 80 miles. There has been some discussion in regard to this matter recently by those versed in international law. Professor John Cooper of the school of international air law at McGill University recently reported favouring a limit of 300 miles for the air space; however, there has been no determination in this regard. Recent events in science do suggest an early review of the present principles of international law applicable to the question of sovereignty over the air space.


UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES, BRITISH COLUMBIA AND CANADA
Mr. Sinclair: 1.	How many unemployed were registered in (a) British Columbia; (b) Canada, for each of the months of July, August and September, 1957?
2.	How many unemployed were registered in (a) British Columbia; (b) Canada, for each of the corresponding months in 1956?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is that the information available from reports of local offices of the unemployment insurance commission pertains to the Pacific region which comprises the Yukon Territory and all but the northeastern part of the province of British Columbia. The number of persons registered for employment at local offices in the Pacific region and in Canada on the dates indicated in July, August and September of 1957 were as follows: Pacific
region	Canada
July 18, 1957	 31,377	257,186
August 22, 1957 _____ 29,506	248,836
September 19, 1957 ..	29,837	255,896
The answer to the second part of the question is that the figures for comparable dates in 1956 are as follows:
	Pacific	
	region	Canada
July 19, 1956 	. 19,447	179,251August 23, 1956 	. 17,259	168,064September 20, 1956 .	. 15,619	f 58,804


UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES, QUEBEC PROVINCE
Mr. St. Laurent (Temiscouala): 1.	How many unemployed were registered in (a) the province of Quebec; (b) Temiscouata, on August 1, September 1 and October 1, 1957?
2.	How many unemployed were registered in (a) the province of Quebec; (b) Temiscouata, on August 1, September 1 and October 1, 1956?


Michael Starr: In reply to the first part of the question asked by the member for Temiscouata, the answer is that information is not available for the dates in question. However, the number of persons registered for employment at local offices of the unemployment insurance commission in the province of Quebec on August 1, 1957 was 76,195. On August 29, 1957, the figure was 68,975 and on September 19, 1957, it was 69,227. The answer to part (b) is that information is not available on the number of persons resident in Temiscouata who were registered for employment on these dates. The answer to the second part of the question is that (a) the number of persons registered for employment at local offices of the unemployment

Questions
insurance commission in the province of Quebec on August 2, 1956, was 53,822. On August 30, 1956, the figure was 46,366 and on September 20, 1956, it was 43,653. (b) Information is not available on the number of persons resident in Temiscouata who were registered for employment on these dates.
POST OFFICE DIRECTIVE 9/4 MS


Mr. Lesage: 1.	Under what statute was Post Office Department directive 9/4 MS dated August 8, 1957, issued?
2.	Does the said directive apply to mail contractors strictly during the time they are on duty? In other words, are the mail contractors free to participate in political activity outside the actual performance of their duties?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the question asked first of all under what statute the Post Office Department directive 9/4 MS dated August 8, 1957, was issued, to which the answer is the Post Office Act, chapter 212, section 6.
The answer to the second part is that it was the intent of such directive that mail contractors refrain from political activity during the performance of their official duties.


WINDSOR AIRPORT-TRANSPORT BUILDING
Mr. Martin (Essex East): When is it proposed to have the formal opening of the new Department of Transport building at the Windsor airport?
Mr. MacDonald, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Transport: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister will the hon. member allow this question to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Question stands.


PELEE ISLAND FERRY SERVICE
Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Does the government or the maritime commission subsidize a ferry service to Pelee island in lake Erie?
2.	Is such ferry service not wholly within the bounds of one province?
3.	Does the government subsidize any other ferry or shipping services wholly within a province, and if so, what are they?
4.	Does the government subsidize the ferry service between Portugal Cove and Bell island, Newfoundland?
5.	If not, what reason is there for a federal subsidy to a ferry In Ontario which does not apply equally to Newfoundland?
Mr. MacDonald, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Transport: Mr. Speaker, again this question concerns the Department of Transport, and in the absence of the minister I would ask that this question should stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Question stands.


JAN W OJTALA
Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Was a ship's deserter named Jan Wojtala deported from Canada?
2.	If so, to what country was he deported?
3.	What was the cost to the treasury of his deportation?
4.	Was the shipping company not liable for the cost of deportation?
5.	If so, why was he not deported by and at the expense of the shipping company?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the question consists of five parts. To part 1 the answer is yes.
To part 2 the answer is, to the United Kingdom.
To part 3 the answer is nil.
To part 4 the answer is yes.
To the last part of the question the answer is, see the answer to part 3.


TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES  CONTRACTS
Mr. Benidickson: What functions are performed by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Company Limited with respect to (a) awarding of construction contracts on the crown financed gas pipe line route eastward from the lakehead; (b) assuring proper performance of work after award of contract?
Mr. Thomas M. Bell, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
Mr. Speaker, I ask that this question stand.
Question stands.


TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES    FEDERAL ACTION ON PRICES
Mr. Benidickson: What steps, beyond the setting up of the Borden royal commission, is the government taking to assure, on an interim basis, that consumers will not be required to pay an inequitable price for natural gas from the trans-Canada pipe line in areas where gas is already or is soon to be made available?
Mr. Thomas M. Bell, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
Mr. Speaker, I ask that this question, too, should stand.
Question stands.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. MacEachen: 1.	How is the compensation for prevailing rate employees in the national parks of Canada established?
2.	What are the present hourly rates for each classification of these employees in each of the national parks of Canada?



BRITISH COLUMBIA


Mr. Barnett: 1.	Was a program of aerial forest spraying carried out in the Quatsino sound-Nimpkish valley region of northern Vancouver island this year?
2.	If so, what forest pest(s) was this designed to control and what spraying formula (s) was used?
3.	What was the total acreage sprayed and what is the estimated number of million feet B.M. by species covered?
4.	Of the total sprayed how much by acreage and by feet B.M. was (a) unalienated crown timber; (b) held under forest management licence and by whom; (c) held under other forms of alienation from the crown and by whom?
5.	By what agency or agencies of (a) the federal government; (b) the provincial government, was the spraying carried out?
6.	What other agency or agencies of (a) the federal government; (b) the provincial government, participated in or were consulted about this spraying program?
7.	What was the total cost of this program, by whom was it paid and in what amounts?
8.	Has a report been prepared of the resultant effect on the forests? If so, what is the estimated number of feet B.M. preserved from (a) killing; (b) serious damage by forest pests, and what is the estimated value of this as (i) standing timber; (ii) logs in the water; (iii) processed forest products?
9.	Is a further spraying program planned or contemplated over the same area? If so, when?
10.	What are the names of the salmon spawning streams and lakes in whole or in part within the area sprayed, and what by species, annual average number and annual average value at current prices to fishermen, are the runs to each?
11.	Has the federal Department of Fisheries, alone or in co-operation with any other agency, made a survey or completed an assessment of any damage to salmon populations? If so, has it been, or will it be, published and in what form?
12.	If damage has occurred what does it amount to by (a) percentage of runs affected; (b) total estimated value of fishing catches?



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Hahn: 1.	Were any civil servants dismissed owing to their political activity in the recent federal election (a) between the date the writ of election was issued and June 19, 1957; (b) since June 10, 1957?
2.	If so, what were the conditions leading to the dismissal of each individual?



MUNICIPAL SEWAGE PROJECTS


Mr. Marlin (Essex East): 1.	Has the Prime Minister received representations from municipalities in southwestern Ontario, including the city of Windsor, requesting financial aid for municipal sewage projects?
2.	If so, has the Prime Minister replied to such representations and what is the nature of the reply?
3.	Have similar representations been made to the Minister of National Health and Welfare requesting financial aid for municipal sewage projects?
4.	If so, what replies have been made to such representations by the Minister of National Health and Welfare?
Motions for Papers
5.	Will the government give consideration to requests for financial aid in this matter?
6.	Has the Prime Minister indicated that such consideration would be given?



NATIONAL DEFENCE-CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES, NEW BRUNSWICK

Mr. McWilliam: 1.	What were the results of the wage survey made in May-June, 1957, in the Miramichi area as applied to civilian employees of the Royal Canadian Air Force stations at Chatham and St. Margarets, New Brunswick, and the naval ammunition depot, Renous, New Brunswick?
2.	What increases in wages of civilian employees have been authorized in these three defence installations during the years 1950 to date?



BANFF AND JASPER NATIONAL PARKS-CHAIR LIFTS

Mr. Lesage: 1.	Have tenders been invited since January 1, 1957, for gondola or chair lifts concessions in Banff and Jasper national parks?
2.	If so, how many in each case, when were the invitations made and the tenders opened?
3.	Were concessions awarded?
4.	If so, (a) how many; (b) to whom in each case; (c) on what basis; (d) under what conditions?
5.	What were the relative advantages and disadvantages of each tender in the cases where concessions were awarded?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 11-Mr. Campbell (The Battle-fords):
For a return showing the names of (a) all persons appointed as P.F.A.A. inspectors, since September 1, 1957; (b) all former P.F.A.A. inspectors re-employed since September 1, 1957, in the constituency of The Battlefords.
Motion stands.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 14-Mr. Nicholson:
For a return showing the names and addresses of all persons residing in the Mackenzie federal constituency employed by the Prairie Farm Assistance Act division of the Department of Agriculture: (a) January 1 to June 10, 1957; (b) June 10, 1957, to date.
Motion stands.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 15-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged since June 21, 1957, between Mr. J. R. Taylor or any member of the law firm of Taylor, Marshall and Company on the one hand and the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or any official of that department on the other hand.
He said; Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this with the minister and agreed to limit the scope of the motion to the immigration branch and to headquarters and the Vancouver office, and I would ask that the amendment be made.
[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers
Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member permission to amend the motion as stated?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion as amended agreed to.



IMMIGRATION, FAR EAST-INSTRUCTIONS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 16-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of all directives and instructions to the staff of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration issued since June 21, 1957, regarding the admission of immigrants or visitors from Hong Kong, China, India, Pakistan and Ceylon.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, before this motion is put I should perhaps say that there is no objection on the part of the government to producing any such directives which have in any way become public knowledge or come to the attention of the public; but I shall have to say for the information of the house and of the hon. gentleman that such directives to the staff are regarded as intradepartmental correspondence and are therefore privileged, and I would not be able to produce any such directives except those first mentioned.


Mr. Pickersgill:: The hon. gentleman's explanation is quite satisfactory, sir, and I am quite willing to have the motion amended accordingly, but that is not the attitude the hon. gentleman took when he sat here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not remember ever putting such a motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion subject to the limitation expressed by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 17-Mr. Robichaud:
For a copy of all correspondence and other documents exchanged between the federal government or any of its departments and the governments of the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia or their respective power commissions, from April 1, 1957 to date, regarding the development of electrical energy.
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to accept this motion with the usual reservations.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion subject to the limitation expressed by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 18-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government and any provincial governments, persons, companies and organizations, since June 10, 1957, relating to the price and volume of natural gas which may be exported to the United States.
Mr. Thomas M. Bell, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister could I ask to have this motion stand. I would think that No. 20 should stand as well.
Motion stands.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 19-Mr. Stick:
For a copy of all correspondence and other documents exchanged between the federal government and the provincial governments, from January 1, 1957 to date, with reference to proposed amendments to the Old Age Assistance Act.
Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I believe this can be dealt with at the moment, subject to the usual understanding in regard to obtaining consent from the provincial governments concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion subject to the usual reservation?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 21-Mr. Deniset:
For a copy of all correspondence since 21st June, 1957, between the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport or other members of the government and the premier of Manitoba regarding air traffic rights at Winnipeg for carriers other than Trans-Canada Air Lines?
Mr. MacDonald, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Transport: In the absence of the minister, Mr. Speaker, I would ask to have this motion stand.
Motion stands.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 22-Mr. Christian:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government and the governments of the United States of America and the province of British Columbia, or any departments thereof, relative to the maintenance, repair and/or reconstruction or building of the Peace river bridge on the northwest highway system, dates of such documents to be about the time of the construction of such bridge in the first instance.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, before this motion is called I would like to explain that there is

no correspondence available. There was no exchange of correspondence between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia or the government of the United States of America dealing specifically with the construction, maintenance, repair and reconstruction of the Peace river bridge. This bridge forms part of the Alaska highway system. The construction was undertaken by the United States, and there has been no correspondence whatsoever since January 28,	1944, when documents were
tabled in the house pursuant to an order taken at that time. There have been no further communications relevant to the question raised.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the explanation given by the Prime Minister, does the hon. member wish to withdraw his motion?


Mr. Christian:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that this motion be dropped?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion dropped.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a press report from Vancouver, appearing in the Vancouver Sun, that a conference of the British Columbia federation of labour, which 400 delegates attended, had asked that a national emergency be declared to deal with the unemployment situation?


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Speaker, no such notice has been drawn to my attention.



KITIMAT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I wonder whether he has received a telegram from the Kitimat-Kemano labour council within the last few days requesting some federal government public works action to overcome the unemployment situation there. If so, what did he reply?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, if I might reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Skeena, three telegrams were received in regard to the
Inquiries of the Ministry Kitimat lay-off including one from the Kitimat-Kemano trades and labour council and one from the minister of labour for the province of British Columbia. We have replied to these telegrams pointing out that we are carefully studying the matter with a view to ascertaining what effective action could be taken. We are fully aware of the serious nature of this situation, and will endeavour to deal with it as promptly as possible.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in my absence from the house yesterday a number of questions were asked concerning the reported closing down of operations by the Howe Sound Company at Britannia Beach. In so far as these questions were directed specifically to myself I think they can be answered in one statement, as follows. Both questions, Mr. Speaker, dealt with matters of government policy in so far as they concern support or protection for the base metals industry. The present situation of the mine derives from the present condition of the market in base metals, which in turn derives from a number of factors, many of them international in nature and outside the control of this government.
I may say that the whole situation is being actively examined in line with representations received, and when a decision has been reached it will be communicated to this house in the usual way. Meanwhile the mine is still operating, and should the officials in charge of its operations decide that it is no longer economical to continue in production on account of the low world prices presently prevailing in zinc and copper, then the full resources of the Department of Labour will be at the disposal of the workers involved.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean Lesage (Monlmagny-L'Islel):: should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Is it his intention to issue a new directive to mail contractors which will be in accordance with the reply he gave to starred question No. 17?


William McLean Hamilton: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to issue a new directive to the mail carriers. It is our intention, since some people seem to be unable to understand the meaning of

Inquiries of the Ministry the directive, to issue a clarification emphasizing the point which was emphasized today in answer to the hon. member's question.


Jean Lesage: Will the minister be good
enough to table the clarification when it is issued?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the actual document which issues from the department to the districts is a departmental document and should not be subject to tabling. I will, however, be delighted to table the document corresponding to the one which was tabled for the hon. member earlier this session.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Monlmo-rency):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister in a television broadcast on Monday in the following declaration lauded the wise counsel of the nine Conservatives elected in Quebec at the last election, as follows:
I am sure, he added, that at the next election-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member state his question.


Wilfrid Lacroix: I continue:
-we shall find a good number of other persons of the same calibre among the candidates of our party.
My question is, is it true that he has decided at last to appoint three more of those nine high-calibre members to the cabinet? If not, does the Prime Minister not believe that he should give the same proportional representation to Quebec in the cabinet that he has given to Saskatchewan?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know whether the hon. member is a little hard of hearing, but I attempted to stop him earlier in this question. It has all been asked now, but I must say it is not a proper question to be asked on the orders of the day.


Mr. Hodgson:: There are none so deaf as those who do not want to hear.


An hon. Member:: Embarrassing to the Prime Minister, though.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, somebody who will remain anonymous for the moment said that the question would be embarrassing. I would be very happy to answer it were it not for 
your ruling, but the hon. gentleman should not be allowed to make a statement such as that in regard to a ruling by Your Honour.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) raised a question the other day about the effect of a ruling by the Speaker that a question was out of order, and I have given my best consideration to it. I see some problem in declaring a question out of order, particularly a question which makes some imputation or bears some inference if it is left on Hansard and is not answered; but I do believe that the proper consequence of the Speaker's ruling is that the question should not be answered and that no one should comment on it either, as has just been done. I hope, if the house agrees with my ruling on the matter, that hon. members will observe the practice that when a question has been declared out of order it will be dropped at that point and neither commented upon nor answered.


Mr. Claude Richardson (St. Lawrence-St. George):: May I rise on a question of privilege or a point of order. As I understood it, sir, the comment I heard was not in respect of your ruling but in respect of the question raised by the hon. member.


Mr. Brooks:: Explain that to him again.


Mr. Speaker:: That was what I was endeavouring to suggest to the house, that if a question is declared out of order it should neither be answered nor commented upon, and I hope hon. members will observe that practice.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: May
I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Will the minister take steps, as requested by the Brantford labour council, to reinstate Charles Kratzmeir with all lost pay since his dismissal from employment in the Brantford post office?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: I should like to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. I shall have steps taken at once to check this case.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lomer Brisson (Saguenay):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of

Inquiries of the Ministry
Transport or in his absence to his parlia- Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar): May
mental y assistant. Is it true that the De- I ask a supplementary question. Is the min-partment of Transport is prepared to act to ister implying that an agreement reached keep the St.Lawrence shipping lanes below between a province and the dominion must be Quebec city open through the winter, as subject to the permission of the province reported in the Gazette this morning?	before it can be tabled in this house? I am


Mr. A. R. MacDonald (Parliamentary not talkinS about correspondence. I am talk-Assistant to the Minister of Transport):: Mr ing about an agreement which has been con-Speaker, may I take the question as notice? summated between a province and the It will be answered as soon as possible.	dominion. If that is so it is a departure from
the usual practice.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[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 or in his absence to his parliamentary assistant. 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?


Angus Ronald Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice also and will provide the information.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I have a question to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In view of the fact that he advised the house yesterday that an agreement has been signed between the federal government and the government of the province of British Columbia with respect to the Stewart-Cassiar road, would the minister be disposed to table that agreement?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I was going to rise on the orders of the day and make a correction in what I said yesterday. An agreement has been reached but I was in error yesterday in stating that the formal agreement has been signed. If the hon. member will look at my answer carefully he will see that I said there were certain details still to be worked out. I would imagine that as soon as the formal agreement is signed we would be glad to table it, with the permission of the province of British Columbia.
96698-52J


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I may be in
error in having used the word "permission". What I meant to say was that in dealing with these matters we like to make the announcement simultaneously so there will be no embarrassment one way or the other.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. R. Milchell (Sudbury):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. I have already given him notice. First, when does he expect the federal building in Sudbury will be ready for occupation? Second, has he received representations from the city of Sudbury to purchase the old federal building, and will preferred consideration be given the city when tenders are called by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation to dispose of the building or is the highest tender to be accepted?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, we expect that the new building will be ready for occupation about the end of January, 1958. Representations have been received from the city of Sudbury requesting that they be allowed to purchase the old building. The ordinary practice in such cases is that Crown Assets Disposal Corporation calls for tenders for the sale of the building, and then gives the municipality the opportunity to meet the highest tender. There may be special circumstances which make that rule inapplicable, but that is the course that is ordinarily followed.
(Translation):




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Monelte (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Postmaster General. Has the minister received from the municipalities of Montreal North, Ville St. Michel, Ville Montreal East and Pointe-aux-Trembles a request for the

Inquiries of the Ministry construction of a post office in each of those municipalities?
If so, what does the government intend to do in this regard?


William McLean Hamilton: I thank the hon. member for his courtesy in giving me notice of his question. We have received no representations from the municipal authorities of the said towns with regard to the construction of a post office.
However, on January 23, 1957, the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) received from the authorities of Ville St. Michel a request emphasizing the need of a new post office in that town. The then postmaster general replied, by letter dated February 7, 1957, that any decision as to the need of a postal station would be postponed until that district had further developed.
(Text) :



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker, might I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. It is further to a question I asked and an answer I received yesterday with respect to the United States-Canada joint air defence command and further to the committing of Canadian forces by General Partridge. My question is this. If there was an immediate attack by air across the D.E.W. line by an aggressor, how could there be consultation with the government of Canada prior to Canadian fighters being put in the air?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minisier of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, by telephone or other means.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of National Defence aware of the fact that on September 6 the continental air defence commander, General Partridge, in answer to a question said that he was not now obliged first to obtain the permission of the President of the United States under present circumstances, that he would not have to wire Washington, that it would be too late?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that and I question very much whether that is the arrangement existing between General Partridge and the President of the United States.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sending over the question put to the continental air defence commander and the answer given, and I should like to ask a supplementary question. Can my hon. friend say whether or not Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom was advised of this proposed step? Can my hon. friend also say whether this matter was discussed in the defence committee of the cabinet?


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime
Minister says "oh, oh". This is an extremely important matter.


John George Diefenbaker: It certainly is.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Was it discussed in the defence committee and was it discussed in cabinet? Was it a decision of cabinet or was it a decision merely based upon ministerial discretion?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the minister answers the question, may I say that I consider inquiry into what took place in cabinet as being irregular, though other parts of the question seem to be in order.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am surprised that an ex-member of the cabinet should put such a question to me. I am bound by the same oath of secrecy he was.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that in this particular instance Your Honour is suffering under a misunderstanding as to the nature of my question. I did not ask the minister what was discussed by the defence committee or what was discussed by the cabinet. I merely asked a question which I think is open to any member of parliament to ask in this house, and that is to ask of the government whether a decision so vital as this was discussed, first of all, by the defence committee and by the cabinet itself. I am not asking what was discussed in cabinet. I am merely asking whether this decision was made by this agency of the executive or by the executive arm of government itself.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, however much my hon. friend wishes to turn or twist the words he used, the question constitutes a direct interference with constitutional rights.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Never before in my
experience in the house have I heard a question asked as to whether a decision was made by the cabinet.

Inquiries of the Ministry


An hon. Member:: What about your
speeches?


John George Diefenbaker: How many are acting as Speaker here?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend knows that he has carried the type of questioning that has been going on lately far beyond fair limitations. This is one question that contravenes our rights.


Mr. Speaker:: I was hearing the Prime
Minister on the point of order, and I called him to order because I thought he was going beyond that point. I have already given my decision on the question, and I think it is hardly proper for the house to continue the discussion on the point of order except to clarify a possible misunderstanding. I understood the hon. member's question and my view of it, as I stated, is that an inquiry into the method by which the government arrives at its decision in cabinet is entirely out of order. Even to ask whether it was on the agenda is out of order in itself, and that is what the hon. member asked. What can be asked, of course, is what decision the government came to. As I understand the situation, the decision of the government is one and indivisible. Inquiry into how it is arrived at and particularly inquiry into the cabinet process is not permitted in the house.


Major James William Coldwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask this question. Is it not permissible for an hon. member to ask whether it is a government decision or a decision of a minister?


Mr. Speaker:: My hon. friend is asking a
hypothetical question. I shall be glad to deal with that matter when it arises, but no one has asked such a question today. I could give my view, if the house wants it. I think hon. members have the right to know whether a minister has declared his policy or whether it has been declared as the policy of the government.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker,
may I ask this question of the Prime Minister. Was this decision taken by the Minister of National Defence or was it a decision of the government of Canada as a whole?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the decision was the decision of this government.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Then, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister this question. In view of the fact that the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) asked for the tabling of all documents and the only document tabled was an order in council
setting out the salary of the vice air commander, will the Prime Minister indicate to the house whether or not there is a minute of cabinet or an order in council that can be tabled in this house?


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to comment
on the question that has just been asked by the hon. member for Essex East. If the inquiry is as to whether there is an order in council I think that is a question which may be answered, although as I understand it all orders in council are public information and are equally open to inspection by any hon. member. However, as a matter of convenience I think that question might be asked as a short-cut to getting the information but not, as I am advised, with regard to a minute of council.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, I
think your correction about the minute is well taken. May I ask the Prime Minister if there was an order in council, and whether it will be tabled?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, all orders
in council in connection with that matter have been tabled.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Then there was
no order in council.



INQUIRY AS TO ALLEGED REPACKING OF U.S. IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would like to direct to the Acting Minister of Agriculture or the parliamentary assistant to the minister. 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 Canadian pork products. I wanted 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.


Mr. John Charlton (Parliamenlary Assisianl lo Ihe Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as no notice was given of this question I will have to take it as notice and give the answer later.



U.S. DISPOSAL PROGRAM    REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF MINISTER'S STATEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Macdonald (Vancouver-Kings-way):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Further to the optimistic

Inquiries of the Ministry report given to the house by the minister with regard to the recent conference in Washington on economic and trading relations with the United States, would the minister clarify his statement of last Friday that he is far from satisfied with recent assurances given by the United States government with respect to its surplus disposal programs?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I observe that in my absence yesterday a similar question was asked by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson), as recorded at page 757 of Hansard in the following terms:
Would the minister inform the house as to the reason for making the statement in New York over the week end that Canada is far from satisfied with the assurances recently given by the United States government regarding its surplus disposal policy. What further steps does the government consider taking in the face of this dissatisfaction?
Both those questions I take it have reference to an address I delivered last Friday in New York to the annual Maple Leaf dinner of the Canadian Society of New York. The statement I made there outlined the objections which the Canadian government has taken to the agricultural surplus disposal program of the United States administration and are quite in keeping, in fact identical, with those objections which the four Canadian ministers put before their four opposite numbers of the United States cabinet at the meeting in Washington a month ago to which my hon. friend refers.
As the house may recall from the report I made here a fortnight ago with respect to that meeting, the United States ministers in the joint statement which was issued at the conclusion of the two-day conference gave us an assurance in regard to the barter feature of the methods followed in the disposal of agricultural surpluses in the United States. That assurance, or at least the particular undertaking given by the United States secretaries, was confined to the barter feature of the program, as I pointed out in my report to the house; but the Canadian government has made no attempt to disguise the fact that, with regard to all features of the surplus disposal program of the United States administration, it regards that program as being very damaging to Canada's interests in reference to the marketing of wheat; and on any occasion we propose to put forward that strong point of view of the Canadian government.


Major James William Coldwell: Has
the minister taken any exception to the manner in which the present secretary for agriculture in the United States proposes to endeavour to sell more United States wheat in Japan, when he suggests that they would

be prepared to take local currency and invest that currency in that country? I think many people believe this is a serious interference with Canada's trade in wheat with Japan. Did the minister get any assurance that that kind of practice will be stopped? I imagine that is one of the practices he had in mind when he said there were some other practices outside of barter which he felt were not in keeping with the understanding.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked a similar question last week of my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Major James William Coldwell: Not quite the same.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was on the same point. The secretary for agriculture in the United States cabinet well understands the position of the Canadian government in regard to that and other methods employed by the United States administration in its agricultural surplus disposal program.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Since the Fowler commission report and recommendations on radio and television were presented some considerable time ago, can we expect that any changes will be made this year in the legislation governing radio and television in Canada?


Hon. G. C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the reference to this year I presume means this calendar year. The matter of the Fowler commission report is receiving the attention of the government. It will involve substantial legislative changes, and those changes are of such a nature that they would, I think, require some substantial and prolonged consideration in parliament. Therefore I would not think it advisable or possible to deal with them in this session of parliament during this year.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa West):: would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Has the royal commission on energy, the establishment of which was announced by him on October 15,

1957, been constituted as yet? If it has not, why not; and also if it has not, when is it expected that it will be so constituted?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was kind enough to let me know he was going to ask this question. The commission was constituted on October 15 last. Preparatory work is now being done; no determination has yet been reached pending the completion of that preparatory work, as to the date of the commencement of the sittings.


George James McIlraith: Then may I ask a supplementary question. In view of his answer would the Prime Minister elucidate the answer he gave on October 16, 1957, as it appears on page 32 of Hansard, where he said "If when the commission is constituted it is deemed advisable-" and so on. He used the term "if when the commission is constituted", and that was in answer to a question put on October 16 this year.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, as a matter of fact, the use of the word "constituted" there was the word upon which my hon. friend based his question.


George James McIlraith: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: At that time I was discussing in general the commencement of the sittings and the decisions to be arrived at. The actual constitution was under order in council.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. B. Huffman (Kent, Ont.):: I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works, the house leader, if he would arrange the business of the house so that the resolution to establish guaranteed prices for certain agricultural commodities will come before parliament before the resumption of the debate on the speech from the throne.


Howard Charles Green: It is not the intention of the government to bring on that debate before the conclusion of the debate on the speech from the throne.
(Translation):



THE SENATE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the hon.
Inquiries of the Ministry member for Russell (Mr. Gour) asked whether a French-speaking representative from Ontario would soon be appointed to the Senate. My answer is yes.


Mr. Gour:: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank the right hon. Prime Minister.
(Text):



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. C. Stinson (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Has any decision yet been made as a result of the report of the restrictive trade practices commission on the brewing industry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his courtesy in sending me notice of this question, and I am able to advise him and the house that this matter has been reviewed and has now been referred to counsel with instructions for prosecution.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Bourget (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister inform the house if it is the intention of the government to lower down payments on N.H.A. homes, and if his answer is in the affirmative, when may we expect an official announcement from the government?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I can make no announcement on that question. If and when such a policy is decided upon it will be announced in the house.


Maurice Bourget: So there is no immediate intention of the government to lower down payments-


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, to answer that would be going too far. All I can say is that if and when a policy is adopted it will be announced in the house.



STATEMENT ON NUMBER OF STARTS IN ALBERTA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, on November 4 the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston)

Inquiries of the Ministry asked me for information concerning the number of starts under the $150 million plan for low price homes. At that time the hon. member intimated that he had been informed there had been only 12 such starts in Alberta. I now have the figures for Alberta to the end of October, and I find there have been 118 starts in Calgary and 635 in Edmonton, a total of 753, and the number of loans which have been approved under this scheme in those two offices are 246 in Calgary and 732 in Edmonton, a total of 978. That involves total loans of over $9,400,000, and in addition there are many applications which have not yet been dealt with finally.


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works arising out of his answer to the hon. member for Bow River. Is the minister in a position to advise the house how much of the $150 million is now left in the fund?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, as of the end of last week there had been loans approved amounting to $80,500,000 for a total of 8,264 units, which indicates, of course, that the average amount per unit is now considerably lower than $10,000.
In addition there still seems to be a potential of about $41 million which comprises requests for loans and requests for approval in the offices of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or applications still in the hands of approved lenders. This would indicate a total of something over $121 million as being committed, which would leave a balance of about $28 million.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the minister did give the number of starts for housing in Alberta, I wonder if he could bring us up to date on the subject and give us the number of starts for all the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give the starts for the other provinces. I was so startled by the figure given by the hon. member for Bow River two days ago when he intimated that there had been only 12 starts in Alberta that I put on a special burst of speed in order to prove how far off the mark he was.


Charles Edward Johnston: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I was only using the figures that the minister himself gave previously.



REPORTED DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND PREMIER OF ALBERTA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister care to comment on the result of recent talks between Premier Manning and himself, reported to have taken place in the Toronto Daily Star of November 5, in respect to oil production?
Right	Hon.	J.	G.	Diefenbaker	(Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the Toronto Daily Star of November 5. After I have perused it I will give the hon. gentleman an answer.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right	Hon.	J.	G.	Diefenbaker	(Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and also, I think, by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar in connection with the results of investigations on the part of the board of transport commissioners into Trans-Canada Pipe Lines explosions in the province of Manitoba, and also one at Mortlach in the province of Saskatchewan.
The board of transport commissioners reports that an investigation has taken place not only in these cases but also in all cases where there have been explosions on pipe lines under the board of transport commission's jurisdiction. They have not been able to determine exactly the reason for the explosions. They find that the breaks which have occurred appear to have been in the longitudinal seam welds, but the reason for the breaks has not been determined. Testing was carried out under a pressure of 110 per cent of the maximum allowable working pressure. In addition, the piping is inspected visually at the factory and on the job. What has happened must have been the result of latent and as yet undiscoverable defects. The company has also instituted an investigation and is doing everything it can to ascertain the reason for the explosions, but as yet no determination of the cause has been arrived at.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he would make an early statement to the house on the increased federal grants for scientific education which he forecast yesterday at Toronto. I believe there is a great deal of interest in this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there was no forecast; there was a consideration of the need for an expansion of scientific education, and also of providing for a larger number of science graduates in our country and throughout the free world. This is a matter which has been brought before the free people of the world in the last few weeks as a result of the launching of Sputnik I and its successor, as well as by the appearance of the intercontinental ballistic missile.
One of the matters to be discussed when the North Atlantic Treaty Organization council meets in Paris will be the means whereby we can achieve something of unity in this regard in scientific and technological education, to the end that the free world may be able to maintain its advances in keeping with the type of developments which have taken place in the Soviet union under state control, and do so without in any way sacrificing our democratic way of life.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question, whether the government has considered making any increase in federal grants?


John George Diefenbaker: That question is a matter of government policy.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I did not quite get the question. Maybe it was the same as the one I was going to ask. I intended to ask the Prime Minister if I may infer from what he said that this means the government will give some consideration to making further aid for education available, and also federal scholarships in the scientific field.


Some hon. Members:: No answer. AGRICULTURE



POULTRY AND EGGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Casileden (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of
Inquiries of the Ministry Agriculture or, in his absence, of his parliamentary assistant. Will the minister inform the house as to any recent changes in price supports on poultry and eggs, and of any change in import controls on turkeys?


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yorkton has just sent me what purports to be a copy of the question he has asked, but it does not seem to be in the same words.
This is a matter of policy, and any change in policy will be announced by the Minister of Agriculture.



STATEMENT AS TO FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO CHEESE FACTORIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Lavigne), I may say that financial assistance for the amalgamation and improvement of cheese factories has not been discontinued.



PORTION OF INCREASE IN PRICE TO BE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture or, in his absence, to his able parliamentary assistant. I did not send him notice of this question because, knowing his ability, I knew he would be able to answer it without my doing so.
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?


An hon. Member:: Your premise is wrong.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the compliment he has paid me, but I think that is a question which should more properly be given a little more consideration before it is answered.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is it the intention of the government to proceed with the three-year project for reconstruction of the protection wall at Ste. Anne de Sorel,
818	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry which I understand was approved by the previous government? If so, would it not be advisable to begin the reconstruction of the wall immediately, so as to relieve the unemployment situation in that area?


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member was good enough to give me notice of his question, and in reply may I say that the officials of the Department of Public Works advise me that it is necessary to reach an agreement with the municipality concerned before this work can be commenced. Evidently negotiations are under way, but they have not yet been completed.


Maurice Bourget: May I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister not aware that it was always the policy of the government in the past to pay 100 per cent of the cost of the construction of such walls?


Howard Charles Green: That may have been the case with regard to a certain type of wall, but with regard to another type of wall with which the hon. member is well acquainted, the practice of the preceding government was to put a wall in front of Liberal farmers and none in front of anybody else.


An hon. Member:: Not true.


Maurice Bourget: I would not have thought the minister could get away with this. It has been the policy of the government in the past to pay 100 per cent of the cost.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is rising on a point of order I will be glad to hear him.


Mr. Slick:: It is the Conservative wall.


Mr. Sluder:: A stone wall.



NEW BRUNSWICK-PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND   INQUIRY AS TO INVESTIGATION INTO CAUSEWAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Henry Joseph Murphy: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is the minister in a position as yet to report on the progress of the investigation into the possibility of a causeway from Westmorland county, New Brunswick, to Prince Edward Island?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, about two weeks ago I told the hon. member that investigations were being made by the department, and no final conclusion has as yet been reached.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wilfrid Lacroix: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Public Works if he is ready to give me an answer in connection with the question I asked him yesterday?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a very good answer ready for that question. As reported at page 763 of Hansard of yesterday the hon. member asked the following question:
In view of the fact that most of the pulp mills in the province of Quebec have cut down employment since the last federal election, is it true that the government has decided to build a pulp mill at Bonaventure in the province of Quebec, as promised by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault) during the last election campaign?


Mr. Gaulhier (Porlneuf):: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: The answer is this, that in the first place the unemployment in the pulp mills had commenced long before the last federal election.


Rosaire Gauthier: No.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Howard Charles Green: The second point is that the hon. member for Bonaventure has been most insistent and very effective in making demands upon the government that some action be taken along this line.


Jean Lesage: Is he getting anywhere?



PRICE SPREADS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister anything to add to his reply given in this house to a question of mine on October 15, in which he said that within a few days an announcement would be made regarding the establishment of a royal commission to inquire into price spreads affecting agricultural products? Can the Prime Minister say what progress has been made in establishing this commission?
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minisler): Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. gentleman that the matter is receiving consideration at this time. The government is not yet in a position to make a final announcement as to the setting up of the commission, but I am hoping a decision in this regard will be made shortly. As I told the hon. gentleman

when he asked the question originally, as soon as a decision is made it will be announced in the house and the full particulars as to the members of the commission and the field of its activity will also be announced.



AUDIBILITY OF REMARKS OF MR. SPEAKER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. J. Irwin (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Will his department consider having the microphone adjacent to Mr. Speaker made live at all times in order to overcome any hardness of hearing on the part of members and also to make Mr. Speaker audible at this end of the chamber at all times?


Howard Charles Green: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the fault is in the microphone or in the Speaker, but we will do our best to get this problem settled.


Mr. Speaker:: We may have either to lower the microphone or elevate the Speaker.



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 or, in his absence, to his parliamentary assistant. Yesterday the minister gave the selling price of wheat in store at Fort William and Vancouver. Would the minister or his parliamentary assistant give the prices at which wheat is sold to millers for milling at some central point on the prairies such as Saskatoon?


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Parliameniary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I will take note of this question and present it to the minister for answering.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I would like to direct a question to his parliamentary assistant. Would the minister check the accuracy of part 2 of question No. 49 answered on page 750 of Hansard, because I have reason to doubt the accuracy of the answer.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Angus Ronald Macdonald: should like to take the hon. member's question as notice and get the information as soon as possible.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: Yesterday the hon. member for
Essex East, noting that five weeks had elapsed since the Mont Tremblant conference, asked two questions. The first was as follows:
Has any commonwealth government yet acted on the recommendation on any one of the finance ministers that a commonwealth trade and economic conference should be held?
The answer is yes.
The second question reads:
At the same time, could the minister indicate whether or not any decision has yet been reached as to when and where this conference will take place?
I had indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, that the decision taken at Mont Tremblant concerned a conference to be held in 1958. No decision as to the precise time and place is expected to be taken until the first of the meetings of the officials in preparation for the conference.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In January?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Again, no precise date has been set for the meeting of the officials but it is expected that it will be held early in the new year.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Alpheus Charlton: In answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Christian) yesterday as to inspection of cattle being exported from southern British Columbia, I am informed that this trade has increased to unusually high levels in recent weeks. When it became evident that available veterinarians in the area could not make the required inspections promptly, steps were taken to provide additional staff. Two additional federal veterinarians have been moved into the area and assistance is being given by provincial government veterinarians. It is now expected that the backlog of work should be cleaned up in a short time.

War Veterans' Allowance Act
In this connection I quote from a telegram just received by the veterinary director general from Mr. J. E. Fry, secretary of the British Columbia beef cattle growers' association:
Re veterinary service on export cattle shipments B.C. Glad inform you have had excellent cooperation your Vancouver office also have been able arrange good and freely-given assistance from B.C. department agriculture believe situation now under control in Penticton, Kamloops, Williams Lake from which districts principal exports in this province.



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Alpheus Charlton: On Tuesday, November 5, at page 761 of Hansard, the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary asked a question having to do with the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. I just wish to say to him that this is a matter of government policy, and any changes will be announced in due course.



WAR VETERANS' ALLOWANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, November 5, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Brooks-Mr. Cassel-man in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the War Veterans' Allowance Act, 1952, to increase the monthly rates of certain allowances and permissible income; to extend the provisions of the act to additional classes of veterans, widows and orphans; and to increase the salaries of the members of the war veterans allowance board.
Mr. Quelch:: Mr. Chairman, I have always had a very high regard for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I have been associated with him on veterans committees for the past 22 years, and during that time I have come to know him as a persistent fighter in the interests of the veterans. We in the Social Credit group and the C.C.F. group along with other members of his party have always joined with him in trying to improve the conditions of the veterans. But of course it will continue to be our duty in this group and in the C.C.F. to continue that fight if for no other reason than that of strengthening his hand. He himself, of course, will no longer need to fight for these things in the house, but he will have to fight with the cabinet and the treasury board in order to obtain the funds to reach the objective that he himself has striven for in the past.

I think the minister is to be commended for this measure. It is in line with the proposals that have been made by him in the past, and I trust that this measure will be referred to a special committee on veterans affairs or, better still, that he will carry out one of the things he has advocated in the past, namely the setting up of a standing committee on veterans affairs and then refer this measure to that standing committee.
I have always felt that the War Veterans' Allowance Act was one of the most important acts coming under the Department of Veterans Affairs. I say that because the War Veterans' Allowance Act may be regarded as the veteran's last resort in case of need. For example a disabled veteran, unable to get a pension owing to the fact perhaps that his disability has been classed as being of preenlistment origin or not attributed to the war, has to depend upon the War Veterans' Allowance Act in order to get any form of compensation.
Then we have the aged veteran farmer who may be a small farmer with a family, who finds that his farm can no longer support himself, his wife and grown-up children. He turns the farm over to the son and seeks the war veterans allowances. The same thing applies to the aged veteran worker who can no longer continue at his trade and who has not been able to build up a reserve for old age,i and also applies for the war veterans allowance.
In the past we have been very fortunate in the type of men who have administered the War Veterans' Allowance Act. However, there are a number of limitations in the act which make it impossible for many of our aged veterans in need to obtain an allowance. First of all there is the ceiling on permissible income being too low. For the single veteran it is $960 and for the married veteran, $1,620. Very often we find that wives of the recipients of the war veterans allowance try to improve their condition by getting jobs and after a while they receive a notice from the war veterans allowance board to the effect that as a result of the wife's wages the joint income has exceeded the permissible income, with the result that the war veterans allowance is cut off and then later reinstated at a lower figure to make it possible for the war veterans allowance board to recover the overpayment.
On a number of occasions the Legion has asked that the allowance be raised to $1,200 for a single veteran and $2,000 for a married veteran. I have always regarded the Minister of Veterans Affairs as one of those members who have fought to achieve that objective. I was therefore somewhat surprised yesterday when he interjected while

the hon. member for Kootenay West was speaking. I quote from Hansard at page 802:
It was a great disappointment to the veterans all across Canada that the government did not see fit at that time to raise the ceiling. I did mention that the Canadian Legion had recommended a certain ceiling but I did not say that was the ceiling I was recommending. I said "raise the ceiling".
It may be true that in the instance the minister was referring to he was not advocating that the ceiling be $1,200 for single veterans and $2,000 for married veterans.
But the minister must recall that on a number of occasions in the house or in the veterans affairs committee he has advocated not only that the ceilings on permissive income be raised to $1,200 for single veterans and $2,000 for married veterans but that he actually voted in favour of those ceilings. For fear the Minister of Veterans Affairs has forgotten just what he has done in the past let me refer him to the report of the committee on veterans affairs dated Thursday, March 24, 1955, page 139. A motion was moved by Mr. White of Hastings-Frontenac, seconded by Mr. Green, as follows:
That the committee recommend that the government give consideration to introducing legislation during the present session of parliament which will have the effect of providing for amendments to this bill that will substitute $1,200 for $840 in section 1, column 3 of schedule A, and $120 for $108 in sections 2 and 3 of column 2 in schedule A, and $2,000 for $1,440 in sections 2 and 3, column 3 of schedule A.
It is interesting to note that when the vote was taken those who suported that amendment were Messrs. Brooks, Dinsdale, Gillis, Hahn, Harkness, Herridge, Pearkes, Quelch and White. I notice that the name "Green" is not there. I presume the Minister of Public Works was not present in the committee that day because I am sure if he had been not only would he have voted for the amendment but he would have filled two or three extra pages of the report of the proceedings speaking in support of it.
Therefore, while the minister may be right that at the time referred to by the hon. member for Kootenay West he was not supporting the idea of permissive income ceilings being raised to $1,200 and $2,000, nevertheless he is on record as having fought and fought persistently to achieve that objective in the past and, as I say, has not merely supported it vocally but has voted in favour of it.
It is interesting to note that in the United States the ceiling under the comparable legislation is even higher than that advocated by the Legion. In the United States the legislation comparable with the war veterans allowance is known as the disability pension,
War Veterans' Allowance Act and I quote from a world war I fact sheet put out by the veterans administration of the United States. They make this comment:
Disability compensation and disability pension should not be confused. Compensation is payable to eligible veterans, whose disabilities are due to service. Pension is payable to veterans whose total and permanent disabilities are not due to service.
At the age of 65 these pensions can be paid even though the veteran is not disabled. With regard to the ceilings on their income, I quote again:
The pension is payable only if the veteran's income does not exceed $1,400 a year without dependents, or $2,700 if he is married or has a minor child.
In addition to these amounts the veteran is allowed his social security which in some cases would amount to several thousands of dollars. In so far as permissive income is concerned, the United States legislation is far more generous than ours. It is true that in some respects the legislation is not as good -for instance, the amount of the allowance. I quote again from the report.
The monthly rate is $66.15 which is increased to $78.75 after ten years or when the veteran reaches age 65.
You will note that a single veteran is very much better off than a single veteran in this country but they do not differentiate between single and married veterans. On the other hand, if the veteran is totally disabled the amount of the pension can be increased to $135.45 a month. So I think it is only fair to say that the United States legislation comparable with the war veterans allowance is very much more generous.
Our legislation is not too bad for the veteran who is able to work because he can take advantage of section 4 or he may obtain casual earnings of $50 a month or $600 a year. Unfortunately, however, the disabled veteran who is not able to work is not in that position. The present Minister of Veterans Affairs has argued the case of the disabled veteran eloquently in the house and committee on a number of occasions. Let me refer to what the minister said, as found on page 1734 of Hansard of March 4, 1955. At that time the minister stated:
The employable veteran can take advantage of casual earnings, and I commend the minister and the department upon their definition of casual earnings and extending casual earnings so that a man will be able to earn an average of $50 a month. Also the single employable veteran can take advantage of section 4 of the act. The same applies to the married veteran who is employable: he can take advantage of section 4 and also of the casual earnings.
The veteran who loses out is the man with a small pension. His pension and his war veterans allowance now have a ceiling beyond which he cannot go, and he may not be employable.
822	HOUSE OF
War Veterans' Allowance Act
I would say that at the present time we discriminate quite severely against the recipient of war veterans allowance who is disabled and unable to work compared with the veteran who is able to work. Surely the main purpose of the act should be to take care adequately of the man who has been disabled as the result of his war service and is not able to supplement his allowance by earnings.
I want to refer to a table to show the effect that this legislation has upon these two classes. For instance, take a single veteran who is able to work. He can have casual earnings of $50 a month, making a total of $600 a year. He can have war veterans allowance of $60 a month, making a total of $720 a year. He is allowed other income of $20 a month, making a total of $240, which means that the single veteran who is able to do odd jobs can earn and receive as much as $1,560.
Compare the case of the single veteran who is able to work with that of a single veteran who is disabled and unable to work and receives a small disability pension equivalent to the amount of the casual earnings. The disability pension of $50 a month makes a total of $600. In that case the maximum amount of war veterans allowance that man is allowed to have is $30 a month instead of $60, making a total of $360 a year or an overall total of $960.
On the one hand you have a situation where the recipient of war veterans allowance who is able to do odd jobs can receive as much as $1,560 while on the other hand the recipient of war veterans allowance who suffered disabilities as the result of his war service is only able to receive a total of $960 because we do not classify his disability pension in the same way as we classify casual earnings. In other words, we classify the disability pension as income and we do not classify the casual earnings of $600 as income.
The minister has spoken strongly on that point many times and I know he feels quite sincerely about it. I gather from the way he introduced the resolution that it is not intended to deal with that matter at this time.
I am not going to criticize him on that point because I realize that he is bringing in a number of changes that are to the advantage of the veteran and it takes time to accomplish all these things, but I do hope he will give very sincere consideration to this matter so that at least at the next session of parliament the necessary changes can be made to remove what appears to be discrimination against the veteran receiving a disability pension.


The minister has referred to a number of limitations-I will call them limitations- that he intends either to remove or modify by this measure. Apparently he is going to allow the veteran to leave the country for a certain length of time without being penalized by losing his war veterans allowance. We trust that he will be able to leave for at least as long a period as a recipient of old age security can leave the country, namely six months.
Then I understand that veterans who saw service in England only, under certain conditions will be allowed to receive the war veterans allowance. I have always argued that where a veteran volunteered for service in any theatre of war he was entitled to the war veterans allowance even though he did not get beyond England because that was not his fault. He had volunteered for service anywhere. If the army found that they could use him to better advantage in England than elsewhere, the veteran should not be penalized as a consequence. I am hoping that the legislation will provide that all these veterans who volunteered for service overseas and were left in England will be eligible for the war veterans allowance.
Then the minister referred to the widows of allied ex-servicemen whose husbands died before completing 20 years residence in Canada. Those widows at the present time are not eligible. I hope the length of residence will be reduced in line with the Old Age Security Act from 20 years to 10. I think such a reduction would take care of most of the cases we have raised in the past. But even so, I feel that just as soon as the widow has completed residence in this country for the time necessary to comply with the residential requirements she should be eligible for the widows pension.
Then I am glad that the minister stated that the allowable equity in the home will be raised. He did not say by how much. The Legion have asked that it be raised from $6,000 to $9,000 which, when you consider the great increase in the cost of living and in the value of property today, does not appear to be out of line.
I again congratulate the minister on bringing down this measure. However, on the face of it, it does not appear to me to go anywhere nearly as far as is necessary to reach the objective which he himself has striven to attain time and again. I am hoping he will continue in the cabinet to fight for these things.


Mr.   Carier@: Mr. Chairman, like those who have already spoken, I welcome the amendments implied in this resolution and which will have the effect of increasing the rates

of war veterans allowance and permissible income and also of extending the provisions of the act to additional classes of veterans, veterans' widows and orphans. I am particularly happy to learn that the scope of the War Veterans' Allowance Act will be extended to include the veterans of world war I who served in the United Kingdom. I am sure this provision will be greatly appreciated by all the veterans in my province who have found the present regulations somewhat distasteful because its result has tended to give the appearance of a classification downwards in the status of their war service.
Prior to confederation all Newfoundland veterans who left the shores of Newfoundland were considered to have overseas service. They were particularly disappointed to learn that they could not be eligible for benefits under this act unless they had served in France. This arbitrary definition of a theatre of war seems to me to be somewhat illogical because since the Atlantic ocean itself was a theatre of war it was impossible for soldiers to be transported across that ocean in ships without serving in a theatre of war. This fact was vividly impressed upon me personally when the convoy in which I was being transported was chased by submarines.
Furthermore, navy veterans who served in the Atlantic retained their eligibility. It has always seemed to me to be a bit absurd to maintain that a naval man while crossing the Atlantic served in a theatre of war but that a soldier who crossed the Atlantic did not. This regulation which limited the theatre of war to continental Europe is also extremely unfair and unjust for the simple reason that no soldier has any control over his movements. He has no choice as to his sphere of service; he must obey orders. He must go where he is told to go and must stay where he is put. As the hon. member for Acadia has just pointed out, many veterans were kept in Britain by the order of their superior officers because, in their judgment, that was where their particular services were most needed. It seems to be extremely unfair to penalize a veteran for obeying orders which are designed to enable him to serve his country with maximum efficiency and effectiveness.
This arbitrary definition which says that the east side of the English channel, is a theatre of war but the west side is not has resulted in some paradoxical rulings. For example, a veteran who crossed the English channel to play on a football team would acquire eligibility merely by crossing the channel and landing on the coast of France while his comrades in Britain who were not so fortunate would not do so. Also it was
War Veterans' Allowance Act possible for a veteran to cross the channel, land on the coast of France, go out and get drunk, break his leg, get shipped back to England the next day but he would have acquired eligibility for war veterans allowances. It should be remembered that in the last phase of the war the front line was some distance from the coast of France and that the only difference between the veteran who crossed the channel and the one who stayed in England was that the former was about 20 miles nearer to the front line.
I note that the minister's statement yesterday indicated that a minimum period of service in the United Kingdom will still be required before world war I veterans can attain eligibility. For the reasons that I have just outlined, I urge him to remove this restriction completely and to extend eligibility to all veterans who left the shores of Canada. The ranks of world war I veterans are thinning fast. Every year more and more answer the final roll call. The number is rapidly diminishing. Consequently the recurring charge on the federal treasury for this group of veterans is one that will get smaller year by year.
I also urge the minister to extend eligibility to members of the merchant navy and to members of the rescue tug service. The role of the merchant navy I think was notably dramatized by the glorious exploits of the Jervis Bay. In my own particular riding the casualties in the merchant navy outnumbered those in other services and in some cases were greater than those in all other services combined. In one little community in my riding, with less than 1,000 population, 14 men made the supreme sacrifice in the merchant marine. Many of those men in the merchant navy were torpedoed more than once and spent hours and hours floating around in the water and drifting around the ocean in very small boats.
I know that the argument has been used in the past that the merchant navy received extra pay which was somewhat greater than the scale of pay granted to the armed services. In this respect I would like to point out that the members of the armed forces received war service gratuities and rehabilitation credits which the merchant navy did not get. These benefits in a very great measure compensate for the extra pay of the merchant navy; it puts them on a more equal footing and in my opinion strengthens the case of the merchant navy for their entitlement to war veterans allowances.
For the reasons which I have just mentioned and in recognition of the vital service performed by the merchant navy I urge
824	HOUSE OF COMMONS
War Veterans' Allowance Act
the minister to broaden the scope of this legislation so that its benefits may be extended to those persons who served in the merchant marine.
There are one or two other points about the veterans allowance which I would like to bring to the attention of the minister. The present War Veterans' Allowance Act regulations compel automatic suspension of war veterans allowance whenever a veteran is released from a T.B. sanatorium or from a mental institution. This works a very definite hardship because it means that in many cases the veteran is forced to return home with no adequate provision for food or fuel. I urge the minister to change this regulation so that the war veterans allowance can be continued for at least 30 days after discharge from these institutions.
This would provide sufficient time to allow the district authority to review the case and decide whether or not the allowance should be continued indefinitely.
I have a considerable number of veterans in my riding who need the benefits under the War Veteran's Allowance Act but they are not eligible because they are under 60. They do not receive a disability pension and their present ailments are ruled not attributable to war service. I think veterans all over Canada feel that awards of this nature should be based mainly on the two factors of need and service.
I do not think any veteran feels it is right that any veteran should have to depend on charity. In a good many cases veterans have come before the allowance board and their applications have not been successful because the veteran has been ruled to be not permanently unemployable. Well, in a province like mine and particularly in a riding like my own that term "permanently unemployable" is a relative one because the veteran in most cases is a fisherman. If his physical condition prevents him from fishing or working in the woods and mines then there is nothing else he can do. It is true that should he live in a city or move to a city, he might be able to get a job as a night watchman or run an elevator but there seems to be very little opportunity for assistance of this nature. Therefore I would like to see some relaxation in that particular regulation so that the district authority would have discretion to consider each case on its merits and make an award without being restricted by this requirement of having to be permanently unemployable.
In conclusion I would like to join with all those who have suggested that this legislation be referred to a committee on veterans

affairs. As the hon. member for Rosthern pointed out last night, that is the grand old tradition that has been established throughout the years in this parliament. We have always endeavoured to deal with veterans legislation on a non-party basis and I am sure the veterans throughout Canada would wish to have this tradition continued.


Mr. Nicholson:: I was disappointed that the minister was not able to give us more detail last night. He mentioned that it would not be appropriate at this stage to give us full details but that indicates he has some bad news for us when he presents the bill. His colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare did give us a great deal of detail in connection with the resolutions of which we have disposed.
Like all the others who have spoken I am very glad this resolution is before the house. I have the honour to represent in parliament a great many veterans of world war I and world war II. Some of the names of communities in my riding will indicate this: for example, Blighty, Somme, Veterans, Souchey which were communities that existed because world war I veterans went to northern Saskatchewan where it was possible to get some free land and to receive some assistance and encouragement from the veterans department of that day.
Some hon. members who were here in the forties will recall a delegation of those old veterans who came to Ottawa to present some of their problems. They were able to point out that if they were to travel across Canada to tell the true story of their hardships they would not be a very effective recruiting committee. I think the minister is going to need the fullest co-operation of every member of this house to get from the cabinet the sort of support which he must have if we are to discharge our responsibility to the veterans of the two world wars. I mentioned that a great many of these veterans went to the frontier.
I should like hon. members to contrast the position of those veterans who are looking toward this legislation with some hope, with the treatment which this government provides for others. I find the Minister of National Defence considers he should have one dentist for every 750 men in the armed services; one dentist per 1,000 is usually considered to be a fairly reasonable proportion in the country. In fact, one dentist per 2,000 of the population can provide quite adequate service. But veterans in my riding are now living where there is not a single dentist in an area in which 45,000 people reside. A great many of these veterans on

the frontier find it difficult to get away to the city, make an appointment, receive dental treatment and pay the bill.
When one considers that the Minister of National Defence finds no trouble in getting $200 million to develop a new type of aircraft it is hard to understand why we are so niggardly with regard to the Minister of Veterans Affairs when he tries to meet his obligations. If a young man decides to join the air force in 1957 the Minister of National Defence is quite prepared to find $60,000 for the training necessary to enable him to fly a jet plane, and a nation which can spend $60,000 on training a man for military service can do something better than it has in the direction I have suggested.
The minister pays some pensions which are quite attractive. I notice the highest pension he pays amounts to $1,021 per month. Of course, one would have to be a general to qualify for that, and, unfortunately, everyone who joins the army cannot become a general. The pension paid to generals is of course not quite as generous as the highest the Minister of Justice provides in his department, $1,041 per month, but it would seem to me that the Minister of Veterans Affairs should be able to convince other members of the cabinet that a rich country such as ours can provide the wherewithal to do something more generous than it is doing now. I think one of the reasons why the previous government was defeated was its failure to recognize its responsibility for those who joined the armed services in the two world wars. Those who came back found that people did not honour the commitments which were given to them on enlistment.
Immediately after the election, the former minister of finance felt that before leaving office he should do something for the civil servants of Canada in order to enable them to meet the problem of inflation. That is a very real problem, but unfortunately many of the veterans are unable to cope with it in any way. I noted three of the civil service classifications mentioned in the newspapers at that time. Similar increases were provided all along the line in the civil service. In class 6, salaries were increased from $5,460 to $6,300, that is, an increase of $75 a month. In class 7 there was an increase from $5,700 to $6,870, an increase of $90 a month. In class 8 there was an increase from $7,000 to $8,300, or over $100 a month. The Minister of Finance authorized these increases because of a very real and disturbing Canadian problem, the problem of inflation, and I think the Minister of Veterans Affairs should be taking this fact into consideration and, if this bill is not yet in its final form, or if it is
War Veterans' Allowance Act not disposed of today, I hope he will be able to convince his colleagues that something better should be done, something, perhaps, which he had in mind but which he did not care to put down in the resolution or state last night. I think no one in this house is better informed than he is with regard to the representations made by Legion organizations across Canada. Ever since I came to parliament in 1940 the minister has been one of the most dependable members of parliament in coming to the defence of veterans.
I noticed in the February copy of The Legionary that there is a good article headed: "Write to your M.P. now". 1 presume the suggestion was that people should write before the election in order that candidates seeking office would be made aware of the fact that a great many who offered their lives in the service of their country in world war I and world war II did not enjoy the security promised to them. This article, written by Robert Macnicol, British Columbia member of the executive council, deserves careful reading. The author refers to an article which was carried in a well known Liberal publication, the Toronto Star Weekly, which says:
The answer is that not all Canadians share our national abundance. A sad contradiction in our prosperity is the fact that good times mean, not a higher, but a lower standard of living for many. Surely, in a land of plenty, in a country teeming with prosperity, our senior citizens, our recipients of mothers' allowances and others dependent on government pensions, should get more consideration. In the new year, let us resolve to find new ways of sharing our country's bounty by attending to these and similar problems. In this way we can transform "prosperity" from a national slogan to a real and meaningful way of life for all Canadians.
Then Mr. Macnicol has a very interesting section on war veterans allowances. He mentions that war veterans allowances present a complex problem, and goes on to say:
This is not a pension by right, but an allowance paid on a "means test" basis. Needless to say, and with some reason, many decent, thrifty veterans abhor this means test, although in ail fairness it ought to be stated that the vast majority of departmental investigators carry out their duties with sympathy and discretion.
I am sure there are a great many people alive in Canada who have seen service in the first world war, and it is my belief that a rich country such as ours could afford to do something better for them than it is doing at present. I have been in touch with the minister in connection with two of my veterans, Bob Morden and Bob McKeith and the minister has been giving sympathetic consideration to my correspondence. These are men whose injuries date back, in one case to 1916 and in the other to 1917. In one case it was possible to find the doctor who examined the veteran 40 years ago and that

War Veterans' Allowance Act doctor is of the opinion that the condition which is now affecting this veteran could have resulted from his war service.
Unfortunately there is nothing in the records to indicate that the condition is the result of war service.
In the other case the injury was not considered serious at the time but I am convinced that if either or both these veterans decided 40 years ago they were going to be a drag on society and never do another day's work they could have qualified for pensions. Both of them have been outstanding citizens in their respective communities. In good times and ill times they have been as successful as any people in the community and after 40 years they would not be considering appealing for consideration if it were not for the fact that extremely difficult conditions have arisen making what appeared to be a secure old age a life of uncertainty. After the lapse of 40 years between their service it is not easy for these proud Canadians to get down on their knees and beg for a little larger crust of bread.
I urge the minister to have another look at the speech he made in this house on July 6, 1956. I am sorry that time does not permit me to quote from it at length. At that time the hon. member for Royal, now the Minister of Veterans Affairs, made an excellent speech and outlined an exceptionally good case for the veterans.
The present Minister of Public Works made a moving speech reported at page 5866 of Hansard of July 11, 1956 in which he said:
Actually there is a great need today for an attack on the problems of the veteran and his dependents with renewed vigour. Yet that has not been done.
I am sure that after listening to his colleague last night the Minister of Public Works, if he were speaking freely, would again repeat that there is a great need today for an attack on the problems of the veteran and his dependents.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs did not tell us what is going to be done about permissive income but on July 11, 1956, as reported at page 5867 of Hansard, the Minister of Public Works said:
If that ceiling were raised from $840 per year to $1,200 per year for the single veteran, and from $1,440 per year to $2,000 per year for the married veteran, as requested year in and year out by the great veterans organizations of this country, then that situation to which I have referred would be met.
Perhaps the Minister of Veterans Affairs is going to tell us that these are the ceilings that will be established when the bill is brought down but I fear the fact he did not

mention it last night indicates that he has bad news for the veterans. I suggest that he read the speech delivered on July 11, 1956 by his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce as reported at page 5872 of Hansard and he should also make sure he reads the speech delivered by the Prime Minister as found at page 5897 of Hansard of July 12. At that time the Prime Minister said:
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. 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. 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?
Now that the minister has had these words of the Prime Minister brought to his attention I am sure he will make an effort to ensure that nothing less than what was suggested by his colleagues in July of 1956 will be provided in this legislation.


William James Henderson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Veterans Affairs on his appointment to the post he now holds. I might say that his amiable and co-operative conduct in the past will probably make it much easier for him to obtain the support of his colleagues in this house in his effort to do a good job for the veterans of Canada. I would also like to say to him that he has been most fortunate and in these words I would like to congratulate him on the staff which he has inherited. I am sure it is the opinion of all Canadians that in his staff he has inherited a great wealth of experience and a high degree of industry and integrity.
It is perhaps fitting that the minister should bring this resolution before the house so close to Remembrance Day which falls on November 11. It cannot go unnoticed today that many of our colleagues in this house are wearing poppies in remembrance of those

who paid the supreme sacrifice and in remembrance of the many military engagements in which the veterans of Canada took part in the past.
I am sure the minister in bringing this legislation before us at this time had in mind the season of the year and the fact that our thoughts turn to those who served knowing that this might also be conducive to his encouraging his colleagues to loosen the purse strings in order to benefit our veterans.
While I welcome and support this legislation as a veteran, a Canadian citizen and a member of this house I would urge upon the minister, as previous speakers have done, that if he cannot go so far at this time as to establish a standing committee on veterans affairs he should at least refer the legislation to a special committee on veterans affairs. I know I am supported in this sugestion by the minister himself in his previous speeches inside and outside this house. We cannot forget that a committee on veterans affairs is the proper forum to which the various veterans organizations can go to present to the members of that committee their suggestions as to improvements in veterans legislation on behalf of those whom they represent.
If this legislation were referred to a committee we might be then able to determine if the minister has made adequate allowance in the legislation for the veteran who has a small pension but who might be incapacitated to such a degree that he is rendered unemployable. We could also learn if he has made provision for the veteran over 70 years of age who may find himself receiving war veterans allowance but who is associated with men in his own neighbourhood who are over 70 and who, although they may have an income of thousands of dollars per year, are still receiving the $55 per month old age pension.
I know that the minister is in favour of the establishment of a special committee on veterans affairs because when the extension of the war veterans allowance was being discussed in this house in 1955 the minister expressed himself as being most anxious to have a special committee on veterans affairs established. As a matter of fact the minister praised the veterans as reported at page 1735 of Hansard, 1955, volume II. He said:
I have confidence that when Bill No. 164 comes from the committee it will not be in the same state.
I would suggest to him that the same confidence should exist today, and possibly the bill which he has forecast by this resolution might not come back from the committee in the same state. I notice that on the resolution
War Veterans' Allowance Act the minister stated that this resolution forecasts legislation which is intended to and which will help a most deserving group of citizens. I might say that possibly if we have a special committee on veterans affairs now the minister might also find from representations made before that committee-if there is a public hearing-that he might be inclined to increase the pensions to the disabled, who are also a most deserving group of citizens. I just leave this thought with the minister and I know he will take it under very serious advisement.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I have just one question to bring before the minister, but before I do so may I say I am just happy to look at him in his new position. He looks capable and he looks willing and I expect he will prove both by results. He is now in the position where he can get things done according to what he thinks is right, and if he does what he suggested ought to be done when he was on this side of the house he will be the best minister of veterans affairs who has ever sat on that side, but I doubt it. Any man who has been overseas knows what the veterans went through, knows how they risked their lives and wondered sometimes whether they would ever be spared to come out of the trenches.
For the past four years, usually twice a year, Mr. Chairman, I have advocated one thing for the veterans because I think if you want to get something done you should not have too many things on your list. You should have one thing and try to do it well. I have advocated that a veteran who spent two, three or four years in active warfare has a right to have his old age pension at 60 without a means test. On many occasions I have given examples. One especially I will give again.
A man had four Christmas dinners in the trenches in the first war. The minister will know that when he was eating his dinner in the trenches there were lots of flies and those flies were just as hungry as he was. Just imagine a person having wet feet and wet clothing eating his Christmas dinner. Any doctor will tell you that that takes years off a person's life.
Another man was asked to go out into the trenches and it was known that this trench had a considerable amount of water in it. There was no dry place in it. He was supposed to go for two days; he was there for 31 days. When he came back he had to go into hospital. You cannot tell me that that does not take years off a person's life.
Look at the number of aged veterans who have gone to their great reward. How many of them attained the age of 70? I know one
828	HOUSE OF
War Veterans' Allowance Act man in Fort William who is a little over 60 and he could not sprint with me 100 yards, much less carry out some other tests, because of what he left behind in the trenches in France. I would appeal with all the might that I have to the minister to consider this question and grant this man a pension at 60 without a means test. He might make it 65 but I like 60 far better.
I said that these veterans are growing fewer all the time. As I said, how many of them ever attain the age of 70? They have left in France something that they could not bring back with them and we are proud of them. I again appeal to the minister, as I have appealed to the former ministers, to grant this request and I shall thank him in advance.


Mr. Macdonald (Kings):: Mr. Chairman, in rising for the first time in this house to speak on this resolution I am conscious of two things in particular. Firstly, that I enter on my duties here with a deep sense of humility, with the highest respect for this house and an earnest desire to do the best possible job as the representative of my constituency of Kings of the province of Prince Edward Island, and of this great country of Canada. I think, too, of my late father who at one time sat just two seats in front of this one as a privy councillor and of the high example of public service he set for me here and in the other house.
Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I am most pleased that my first effort on the floor should be in the field of veterans affairs. In my two years of hospitalization after Normandy there was plenty of time to think, to mingle with the "old sweats" of the first war, to discuss the problems of veterans, their widows and their dependents. Long before being discharged I had decided that my prime interest would be to work in the cause of the ex-servicemen, the ex-servicewomen and their dependents. Since returning to civilan life I have pursued that purpose zealously at the sacrifice of very considerable time and expense. For this I have received tremendous personal satisfaction in being able to do many things for veterans, not as much as I would have hoped sometimes, and I have been amply rewarded with their confidence by being unanimously selected for the key position in their organization in my province, to the highest one of being representative on their dominion council, which position I have held for a number of years.
May I now congratulate the Minister of Veterans Affairs on his being selected for that important office. We all know the hon.


member's exceptional interest and experience in the problems of the ex-servicemen, his splendid record of service in two wars and the high regard in which he is held in this house. In his department he is fortunate in being most capably assisted by the young member for Brandon-Souris.
It was a matter of great interest to veterans generally, Mr. Chairman, when our present Prime Minister became the first from the ranks of the veterans. It may be noted in passing that two of our leaders, the late Hon. Dr. Manion and the Hon. George Drew were in that category and had done very good work on behalf of the ex-servicemen.
When the Prime Minister first announced his cabinet the fact that no fewer than 12 of the 16 appointed were veterans was noted. There is no doubt that the affairs of the veterans will receive very earnest consideration from this government. I might add that I think this government has an unusually large quota of war veterans among its members and I feel that we shall all, regardless of party, have a very great interest in the problems of the ex-servicemen. As long as there are veterans there will always be problems to solve and I know that we shall all always give special regard to this important section of the Canadian people.
In this regard I should like to pay tribute here to the wonderful work done by the organization set up by the veterans themselves, the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League. This great society, dedicated to the welfare of veterans, has done an outstanding job in rendering assistance in framing veterans legislation and in looking after their problems generally. The work done in this regard by the officers of the Legion and their members all across Canada-and throughout the United States has been tremendous. The gratuitous effort by so many is worthy of the highest commendation of the Canadian people and I believe it is receiving the recognition it deserves.
With regard to the proposed changes in the war veterans allowance regulations, earlier this year a change was made to increase the married rate bringing it up to double that provided for a single recipient. While I feel, speaking from practical experience, that two cannot live as cheaply as one, I have had a number of complaints from single veterans that their amount should have been raised as their costs are understandably higher in proportion than those of the married veteran. I do hope that consideration will be given to the request of this class of recipients under the War Veterans' Allowance Act.

As far as permissible earnings ceilings are concerned, I believe they too should be raised. This would allow some recipients to earn a limited amount of extra money on their own and also allow more to qualify under the act. If these ceilings could be raised even somewhat from what they are it would be helpful to a goodly number of our veterans.
Another class of veterans deserving consideration are those who had service in England only in Word War I. We all know that for the purpose of war veterans allowance veterans of World War II who served in England are considered as having served in a theatre of war. To go into the history of this legislation briefly, it was established for the purpose of looking after those who were "pre-aged" due to the hardships and dangers of the trenches in Word War I. This legislation in general was broadened to include World War II veterans after that war who, in accordance with a means test, could be declared "permanently unemployable" due to health reasons, even if they had served only in England unless, of course, they were in receipt of a disability pension.
This seemed to place the World War I veteran in an unfair position and I may say in that regard that in my experience the veterans of World War II have been more sympathetic than those of world war I in discussions of the matter among veterans groups. The reason for this was that the first war veterans felt that a large number of men came to England near the end of the first conflict, some of them not of their own accord, and that they should not expect assistance as they were in the army a relatively short time and did not undergo the hardships of trench warfare which I have mentioned previously.
The recommendation that this class of veterans be looked after under the War Veterans' Allowance Act has been made by the Legion for the past number of years. Last year their recommendation included the qualification that there should have been at least one year of service in England. This should overcome the resistance by some veterans and allow a fairly large and deserving group to qualify under the War Veterans' Allowance Act.
I note that these resolutions contain many other recommendations, the details of which are not yet available. We all realize that the legislation now being proposed, as in the case of other types of legislation which has been receiving the consideration of this 23rd Parliament, is of an emergency nature and not expected to cover all the problems. At the next session it will be possible to consider the requirements in greater detail and in the committee on veterans affairs. I hope that
War Veterans' Allowance Act more and more progress will be made in solving the ever-pressing problem of the veteran and his dependents. I hope, Mr. Chairman, this resolution will receive the unanimous support of the house.


Mr. Cameron:: Mr. Chairman, as a relic of the first world war I must confess that when I hear hon. members speaking in the vein that the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo and the hon. member for Fort William spoke this afternoon I rather feel that the man with the scythe is creeping up behind me. But, of course, they are perfectly right. We are dropping off at a very quick rate each year and will be doing so at an accelerated rate in the future.
I think that is really one of the major arguments against any opposition, if there is opposition, to increasing the permissible earnings ceilings of war veterans. In my constituency we have a great many war veterans and quite a number on the war veterans allowance. Because of climatic reasons these people go there to live and the problem is brought very forcibly to our attention. There are a number of great hardships at work due to the present rather low levels of permissible income. Many of these men are unable to hold even comparatively ill-paid jobs if they are going to hold them all year round. I have known of instances of men who had to arrange to be laid off for a certain length of time in order not to exceed the permissible income.
Another factor that I think we should consider is that the money incomes that people are getting today are in purchasing power very much lower than that same number of dollars was ten or fifteen years ago. Therefore we should at least try to be as generous as we have been in the past, which we will not be unless we are prepared to take into account the depreciation of the dollar. Of course, as I say, I do not know if there is going to be any opposition to this one point, and like the hon. member for Fort William I think one should concentrate on one point. To my mind the most important of the demands of the Canadian Legion and the one that affects most veterans is the raising of the level of permissible income.
I had hoped that there would be no question, since the events of last June, that when the act was amended it would be amended in line with the demands of the Canadian Legion. Last night I was a bit disturbed, in the same way that the hon. member for Acadia was, by the interjection of the minister which suggested that he and his colleagues were not accepting the levels suggested by the Canadian Legion as the proper

War Veterans' Allowance Act levels. II that is so, I would hope that the members of the present government would perhaps do what my colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay West, apparently has been doing and consult the records of Hansard for previous years. For instance, I hope that the present Minister of Trade and Commerce will consult Hansard of March 7, 1955 in which he will find these words included in a very moving speech he made on that occasion with regard to the position of veterans. He makes reference to the then minister's remarks and says, as found at page 1769 of Hansard:
The minister's remarks the other day I thought were cold, unsympathetic, confusing and unconvincing. He attempted to equate the ceilings of war veterans allowance with the rates for disability pensions. What purpose this procedure served I am at a loss to know. He then went on to estimate the additional cost to the treasury if the ceilings were placed at $1,200 and $2,000. He estimated that these would open the way to placing 14,750 new applicants on the rolls and would increase the cost by $13 million over and above the present proposed increase.
Here is a place, Mr. Chairman, where I think the present ministers should give their attention because the present Minister of Trade and Commerce on that occasion went on in this vein:
This is a familiar dodge practised by some cabinet ministers. We are supposed to accept these statements as gospel truth. No detailed analysis was given by the minister. All that was given was just a bland assurance that this would be the result and that consequently there was no further argument. I hope that the committee will pursue this matter and get a detailed breakdown of these figures.
In connection with that, Mr. Chairman, I want to support the suggestion made by a speaker earlier this afternoon that a standing committee on veterans affairs should be appointed because I notice that among other eminent members of the present cabinet the Minister of Public Works very flatly and plainly came out and stated that when his party became the government they would immediately establish a standing committee on veterans affairs. I hope that is going to be done.
Then perhaps we could get away from these rather vague estimates of what the increased cost would be if we raised the permissible allowance to $1,200 and $2,000. I am not going on the assumption that there may be some opposition to the Legion's position in this regard. We have not yet been told definitely whether that is so, although I would think that the present government would hardly throw aside the Legion's representations when the present

Prime Minister had this to say in 1955, as set out at page 2592 of Hansard of March 31, 1955:
Mr. Chairman, the veterans of this country would be interested if they were here this evening in hearing the applause by Liberal members when it was indicated that the government does not intend to act upon the recommendations and suggestions of the Canadian Legion and the national council of veterans. If they were here tonight they would be interested in hearing the applause that greeted the words of the hon. gentleman as he spoke rather disparagingly of the fight which we in the opposition have put up on behalf, not of something ephemeral and fantastic but of something that is asked for, and reasonably asked for, by the Canadian Legion and the National Council of Veterans Organizations.
I would suggest that the members of the Canadian Legion will be equally interested to know what the position of the new government is going to be with regard to these requests. I share their interest. I trust that the action of the government will not lead us who are still in opposition after the events of last June to remember the old proverb, "Plus ga change, plus c'est la meme chose".


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Chairman, I have
listened with interest to the discussion which has gone on concerning the proposals which the present minister is making. As the hon. member for Acadia has pointed out, we in our group are glad to welcome those suggestions but we are extremely conscious of the deficiencies which are still to be found in considerable number in the whole scheme of things under which we seek to take care of our veterans.
I can well remember when world war II began to develop hearing ministers representing the Liberal party say on the floor of the house, "We shall so manage the affairs of this war that no one shall be any worse off because he went overseas and no one shall be any better off because he remained at home". In the light of the almost ghastly picture which has been painted, even here this afternoon, that statement was almost full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Although many things were done by the Liberal administration for the soldiers of world war II, nevertheless many things were left undone.
I remember, and will always do so, one experience I had with a friend in my constituency whose home I occasionally visit. This man loved to keep chickens. He was a chicken fancier. He was able to produce eggs successfully. He was a successful gardener. I went to his home one time and he said to me, "You know, Mr. Blackmore, I have got to sell all my chickens and plow up my garden because they have been around to see me and they are going to cut off my

pension because of my chickens and my garden". He was a man who had risked his life and lost his health in the struggle for his country. Yet his country was so mean and niggardly that it could not even let him raise chickens and have a garden without penalizing him by a deduction or a threatened deduction from his war veteran allowance. Probably no more needs to be said.
I am told by the hon. member for Acadia of one experience he had while he was overseas. Hon. members no doubt know that the hon. member for Acadia had a distinguished career in the army as he has had in this parliament. He told me that one time after a hard day they were visited behind the lines by Mr. Arthur Meighen, about whom we all know. Mr. Meighen warmed up to the occasion and said, "Now, men, when you get home your country will assure you that you will never lack for anything". Nothing more needs to be said.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that before very long we shall have removed many of the painful and rankling inequities or injustices which now fill our whole scheme of things in taking care of our veterans.


Mr. Bryce:: Mr. Chairman, I want to take only a couple of minutes in order to say that I am in support of this legislation. My colleagues have said most of the things that I would have liked to say. I am glad that we have the present Minister of Veterans Affairs. He was the one man in the new cabinet who I thought fitted into the position better than did anyone else. I have been able to cooperate with the minister for a great number of years. He has supported some of the things I wanted to do for the veterans, and I had the opportunity to support him. I now support him in connection with this bill.
I do not think we should waste any time on this matter. I think it is something of which everybody is in favour. I think we should be careful not to delay it. If we do so, we may find that some minister is going to get mad at somebody one of these days, we are going to be out on the hustings and the veterans are going to have no legislation passed. Do not let us make that mistake. Let us get this legislation passed when we have the opportunity to pass it.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to repeat a great deal of what has been said before in support of this bill because I believe we are all in favour of improvements. However, there is one matter upon which I desire to speak. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister if he will introduce an amendment to his own bill. I have never been able to understand why a
War Veterans' Allowance Act government should set a definite date as to when love ends. To my own knowledge, I have in Vancouver in my own constituency one person who joined up in 1914, went all through the war, was made a commissioned officer on the field of battle and came out of the war. He joined as a bachelor and he came out as a bachelor. He was not entitled to any pension because of wounds of battle but, because of the rigours of war, he reaches a point where, under the present act, at age 60 he is entitled to a pension. He joins up in 1914, goes through the war and does not until a year ago meet the woman with whom he wants to spend the rest of his life. I imagine that is not for biological reasons but affection and companionship and they then find because they did not marry before a certain month in the spring of 1953 the wife is not entitled to any allowance. Now would the minister tell me how he establishes a date in 1953 as the date when love ends for a veteran of the war of 1914-1918?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I did not do it.


Harold Edward Winch: Why can a person who is a veteran of the 1914-1918 war if he married before this month in the spring of 1953 draw an allowance for his wife, but, not if he married after that date? I am not being humorous at all; to me this is an extraordinary arrangement. On investigation I find it is not by any regulation. A change is required in this act to say that a veteran could be married after 1953.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I think he is discussing a section of the Pension Act and so I am sure he will be very pleased with a section which it is proposed to put into the new Pension Act.


Harold Edward Winch: In the War Veterans' Allowance Act?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: No, in the Pension Act.


Harold Edward Winch: No no, it is the veterans allowance act that we are discussing now. The burned out pension, that is in the veterans allowance act.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is right, that is the veterans allowance act. Perhaps I have not quite followed the hon. member too closely but I believe the matter he is discussing does come under the Pension Act and I think I can tell the hon. gentleman that an amendment will be introduced which will meet the point he has raised.


Harold Edward Winch: But it is the same in the veterans allowance act and that is what I am discussing. I have two cases in my own riding where they got married in August,
832	HOUSE OF
War Veterans' Allowance Act three months too late, and so the wile is not entitled to any pension. Both acts come under the minister, do they not?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes.


Harold Edward Winch: Well then will the minister make the necessary change so that love does not have to end at a certain date in 1953.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: As I am very anxious that love should never end I will look into the matter.
(Translation) :


Mr. Denisei:: Mr. Chairman, may I add a few words in connection with this discussion? I shall do so in French, because I want to stress the fact that, of course, the large family of veterans comprises Canadians speaking one or both of our official languages. If I had a gift for the tongues, I would also add a few words in several other languages, out of regard for those of other origins who are nevertheless Canadian veterans.
I want to greet the veterans and I really think there is no better opportunity to do so than now, when Armistice day or rather Remembrance day is near and when we shall be called upon to lay wreaths of flowers on cenotaphs and memorials to our dead brothers.
I am happy to say, Mr. Chairman, that the resolution before us augurs well for the future.
I am also pleased about the non-partisan position of hon. members with regard to our veterans. This attitude confirms our national unity which was welded on the battlefields, and which, I hope, will endure forever.


Mr. English:: Mr. Chairman, I have the honour to represent here the beautiful constituency of Gaspe which, considering its population, is among those that gave the greatest number of soldiers to the country. Gaspesians are not slow to answer the call of duty. Those brave people were not afraid to leave their homes, relatives and even their children to defend our country, our democracy.
Many of those valiant men died on the battlefields and we shall have a thought for them next Monday.
Many of those veterans came back, and they had every reason to expect special consideration on the part of the government. However, Mr. Chairman, such consideration was not always commensurate to the courage they displayed on the battlefields. I wish to congratulate and thank the hon. Minister of


Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks), as well as the government for the special consideration they are now giving these veterans in the course of this first session.
However, in my constituency there is a rather peculiar situation, one which indeed appears really strange to me. A large number of ex-servicemen who were classed A-l on enlistment have returned in no condition to do any further military service. However, when they apply for a pension they are told simply that the disability they have is a pre-enlistment condition. That seems to me to be an extraordinary situation. If these people were classed A-l, it would seem that after enlistment they should draw a pension worthy of the gallantry with which they served on the battlefield.
I have seen even more than that in my constituency. I must say that I have always paid particular attention to Gaspe ex-servicemen. There is one case which I would like to refer to especially. The man in question is aged 64, served during the last war and was captured in Hong Kong. As he is now ailing, he asked to be treated at the Veterans' Hospital in Quebec. He had to travel a distance of 500 miles and then pay for the treatment which he thought he was entitled to receive free of charge. Had he thought for one moment that he would have to pay for his hospital care, I am sure he would have gone to a Gaspe hospital.
What happened? At the time he was receiving a monthly pension of $22.90. His hospitalization bill amounted to $182, and each month the authorities deduct $20 from his pension and send him the balance of $2.90.
Well, Mr. Chairman, this is a situation which the government should correct. So I say that if the government wants to give special consideration to Gaspe veterans, it must first of all appoint officials who will look after them. It should also appoint a pensions advocate for the veterans of the Gaspe constituency, so that they will not have to travel 500 miles to interview the department's advocate at headquarters.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to bring this situation to the attention of the house and I am confident that, with the good intentions of the government and the beneficial legislation it now proposes, it should find it possible to open an office in the Gaspe constituency where an advocate will be responsible for looking after the veterans of that area.

(Text):


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take up the time of the committee for very long by speaking about the legislation which is now before us, but I do wish to go on record and thank the Minister of Veterans Affairs for the manner in which questions relating to veterans have been dealt with during the present session. The many letters which I have received from veterans in my constituency justify my standing up and saying a grateful thank-you for what the Minister of Veterans Affairs has done, and also to the government for the manner in which these questions have been dealt with. This is but one of the many items which the Conservative party desires to put forward in the present session, and again I offer my very best thanks to the government and to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Walter Adam Tucker: Is it the intention of the minister to make any statement?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, I intend to make a statement on second reading but there are a few remarks I should like to make at the present time. I have taken note of the many points which have been raised by hon. members, and there will be full opportunity given, of course, to debate and to discuss these points later on on second reading.
I would like to take this opportunity, though, of thanking the hon. member for Rosthern, the hon. member for Kootenay West, the hon. member for Acadia and many others who have spoken for the very kind remarks they have made concerning myself. I do not think they are altogether deserved, but I must say that in the many years I have been in this house and discussed veterans affairs in committee and in the chamber it has been a great pleasure for me to have been associated with the hon. members I have mentioned and the others who have spoken. We are all interested in one thing, that is, the benefit of the veterans, and I think it is our intention to do the very best we can for them under the rules and regulations, and under the circumstances as we find them.
The one matter I wish to discuss today has to do with the setting up of a veterans committee. I have been interested in listening to the remarks made by different members on past history. One of the greatest sports in this house over the years has, I find, been the discussion of what hon. members said years ago. I may say I am not in the least embarrassed by anything I have said in the past regarding veterans affairs or regarding the setting up of a committee. I have always been in favour of a permanent committee on 96698-53
War Veterans' Allowance Act veterans affairs being set up in the House of Commons and I am still of the same opinion.
However, Mr. Chairman, I may say that I feel that this is rather a special session, if I may call it such. This session, as has been pointed out by various hon. members at different times, has been more or less a session devoted to dealing with unfinished business, the unfinished business of the last session when the estimates of the house were not dealt with except, I believe, the post office estimates. As a matter of fact these two bills which I am introducing, and other bills which were introduced, indicate that the business of the house was not finished at the last session of parliament. The War Veterans' Allowance Act would have had to be amended this session under any circumstances. Hon. members opposite will recall that a bill was passed called an omnibus bill which provided for increases in old age security, provided for certain changes in the War Veterans' Allowance Act and also for certain changes in the Pension Act. As I said a moment ago, this unfinished business has to be dealt with by us this session.
The two acts which the Department of Veterans Affairs is bringing before the house are not controversial. The subject matter of these bills have been discussed in this house and in the veterans affairs committee on many occasions. There is the question under the War Veterans' Allowance Act of making Great Britain a theatre of war; there is the matter of the imperial veterans; there is the matter of deleting section 8 of the War Veterans' Allowance Act. All these matters have been discussed time and time again in this house and in committee. As far as the proposed pension amendments are concerned, the same applies, as hon. members will see. I would ask them to wait until they get the bill, and I am sure they will agree with me that there is no great reason why the veterans affairs committee should be set up during this session.
I may say, and both the hon. member for Kootenay West and the hon. member for Selkirk have pointed this out, that we are faced with an unusual situation, and it is our feeling that it is most desirable in present conditions to ensure that the additional benefits given to veterans by this bill are made available to them without delay. The social security acts have been passed providing for pensions and allowances for older citizens. It is, I think, quite right that without delay the same benefits should be provided for our war veterans. We all know that to set up a committee takes time; we all know that it is necessary to bring in different organizations from different parts of the country, and this, to my mind, would only delay the passing of this measure and only delay the opportunity

War Veterans' Allowance Act tor veterans to receive the benefits which we wish them to have as early as the recipients of benefits under the other acts I have mentioned.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, there is nothing controversial in these two bills. I have spoken to the head of the Canadian Legion and without divulging to the Legion what is in our bills I learned that the Legion is of the opinion that it would be more satisfactory if a permanent committee on veterans affairs were to be set up at the beginning of the next session at which time veterans legislation which might be submitted to it including the Veterans' Land Act, the War Veterans' Allowance Act, the Pension Act and others could be reviewed. The Legion indicated it would much prefer to have a permanent committee established at the beginning of next session and I believe the various veterans organizations across this country are of the same opinion. If this were done there would be no loss of time and, as I said a moment ago, we would not withhold from the veterans for some time the benefits accruing to them under the proposed amendments.
I wish to make it clear that I have not changed my opinion as far as the setting up of a permanent committee on veterans affairs is concerned. I am of the same opinion today as I was when I sat on the other side of the house. However, I do not think any good purpose would be served by setting up a committee at this time and, as a matter of fact, I think it would be to the detriment of the veteran.
I am satisfied that when hon. members opposite see the bills which are to be presented containing the amendments to the War Veterans' Allowance Act and the Pension Act they will agree with me in this respect. I hope every effort will be made by all hon. members of the house to expedite this legislation as quickly as possible.
I do not say this in a critical manner but it does seem rather strange to me that some of my hon. friends on the government side of the house should say that we should set up a committee to study this legislation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. member not mean the opposition?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes, I am sorry. I fall into that mistake when I look at some hon. members opposite.


Mr. Marler:: It is a habit of long standing.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes, that is very true. However, when I think of the fact that the Liberal administration last year put through veterans benefits without amending the acts their criticism of our action appears strange.


They did not amend the War Veterans' Allowance Act or the Pension Act. They simply brought in what is known as an omnibus bill and provided for the payment of benefits to veterans on July 1, not by amendments or the introduction of schedules to the acts but by the supplementary estimates.


George Carlyle Marler: Do you think it made any difference to the recipients?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: When I reflect on this it does not seem very becoming on the part of hon. members opposite to suggest something which they did not choose to do. As a matter of fact they did not go anywhere near as far as we are going at the present time. I am not going to labour this point further. As I say, I know it will be greatly to the benefit of veterans for us to put through this legislation as quickly as we can.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Chairman, the minister has referred to the position taken by the present members of the opposition when they formed the government in regard to matters such as this being referred to a committee and because he has done so I think I should say a word in regard to that.
The attitude taken by the Liberal government last spring was that while there was not time to amend the veterans legislation it was desirable to make some improvement in the position of war veterans and the increases were introduced as part of the estimates. The attitude taken at that time by the official opposition and particularly by the present Prime Minister, who was then in opposition, was a very strong one. He emphasized what he claimed was upholding the rights of parliament. During the subsequent campaign he said he was going to adhere to the stand he had taken without deviation from it and without flinching. One of the reasons for the position he took in attacking the government for not referring these matters to a committee was that by refusing to do this the government was flouting the rights of parliament. The reason I am speaking at this stage, Mr. Chairman, is to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs to consider what his oym leader said in regard to this very matter.
What the present government has to answer for is not what the Liberal government did which was so severely criticized by the present government when in opposition and particularly by the Prime Minister. They went to the people on this ground more than any other and won support and I think they are now honour bound to pay some attention to the basis on which they achieved their support. They should not turn around and say, "We are not going to do it because you

War Veterans' Allowance Act
did not do it." Surely to goodness this is not going to be the attitude adopted by the present government toward the promises it made and upon which they presumably got a great deal of support.
Before the minister absolutely closes the door on this question, as already stated, I would like to draw to his attention for consideration what his leader said on April 11 of this year in regard to this very subject. I would ask the minister to bear in mind that his party requested an election as early as possible and if we were to make improvements in veterans legislation such matters had to be disposed of as early as possible- practically at once-or else we could not have had an election on June 10. In spite of the attitude of the opposition of that day that these things should be done for the veteran and an election held without delay, what did the present Prime Minister say at that time? Reading from page 3405 of Hansard of April 11, 1957, such a short time ago, we find the present Prime Minister saying:
There is no adequate opportunity for discussion here. These pension increases deserve an opportunity for full discussion. They should have been placed before committees of the house in order to enable representatives of the people to attend here, give evidence and express their views with regard to the inadequacy of the increases. I say that the attitude taken by the government is a cynical disregard of the parliamentary function of careful and meticulous examination.
I ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs that if the failure of the Liberal administration to refer these matters to a parliamentary committee was in the opinion of his leader, the present Prime Minister of this country, a "cynical disregard of the parliamentary function of careful and meticulous examination", is it any less so on the part of the Conservative government which appealed to the country on that basis and won the support it has and which now adopts the attitude that his leader has so characterized?
I am astonished that within a matter of such a few months following the taking of so strong a stand on this question by the present Prime Minister, the Minister of Veterans Affairs should now get up and adopt the attitude that it is not the government's intention to refer this legislation to a committee and, in the words of the Prime Minister, deny parliament the right of properly examining it because it might mean some delay, for which attitude the previous government was severely criticized. I submit that the referring of this legislation to a committee would not at all delay the time when the veterans would come into receipt of these increased benefits and payments.
96698-53i
As the minister very well knows, if he would move a motion to set up a committee on veterans affairs the setting up of that committee would be facilitated by all parties in the house, and I am sure that the representatives of the veterans and of the various veterans groups would be very glad-they have the situation at their fingertips-to appear on short notice to give their opinion of this legislation and wherein it should be improved.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, it would not delay at all the time that the veterans would get in possession of the benefits they may be getting under this bill. I do submit that if the minister believes what he said in the past, namely that a veterans committee could and did improve measures brought down by the last administration, he should be the first one to see that we have the benefit of the opinion of the veterans in regard to this legislation and to see wherein we could put them in possession of an improved measure to what is proposed here.
I ask the minister at this stage to consider what his own leader said in appealing to the people of Canada, to uphold the sacred rights of parliament and on the basis of which he sought and got support, and that he stand behind his leader at this time and abide by the promises held out to the people of Canada.


Thomas Miller Bell: You have not enough veterans over there to form a committee.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I have nothing further to say except to repeat what I said a moment ago. The hon. member is asking us to set up a committee to consider legislation and I might say that these bills have to do in part with the legislation which was passed this year by the omnibus bill. I suppose if we had had no further legislation at all my hon. friend would have stood up in this house and said we should set up a committee in order to discuss the legislation which is now law and has been passed. As I say, these bills have to do mostly with that, except proposals which have been discussed time and time again in this house. I repeat, I see no good purpose that would be served. I believed it would be to the disadvantage of the veterans.
There is another point, Mr. Chairman. The increases which are being granted under the Old Age Security Act are straight increases from $46 to $55 a month, which means that it is just a matter of changing the amount of money on the cheques. As far as the war veterans allowance is concerned my hon. friend knows as well as I do

War Veterans' Allowance Act that all these cheques are for individual amounts. There is a means test and every case has to be decided on an individual basis. There is a tremendous lot of administrative work. My department is anxious, and we are all anxious, to see that these cheques get to the veterans as soon as possible. I might say that as far as my department is concerned the employees will have to do a tremendous lot of extra work. I also wish to say that they are very anxious and willing to work the extra time, but our particular anxiety today is to see that these benefits are obtained by the veterans as soon as possible.
At the next session we intend to carry out what the Prime Minister and other members of the government said when we were in opposition; we intend to set up a veterans affairs committee to study all phases of veterans legislation which may be submitted to it. I know that the veterans organizations across this country are very anxious that this be done at the next session of parliament. That is the situation, Mr. Chairman. I think it is logical and I think it will appeal to the logical sense of the members of this House of Commons.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, may I through you ask the minister a question. He said that he conferred with the officers of the Canadian Legion. Did he also confer with the officials of the army and navy? While I am on my feet may I ask this question? Because this is a non-controversial matter will the minister introduce the required amendment to remove the marriage bar on the pension?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I might say, Mr. Chairman, it was not a case of conferring with the head of the Legion. I happened to meet the head of the Legion and some of the higher officials of that organization and I had a discussion with them. They asked me about setting up a permanent committee and I said it was our intention to do it at the next session.


Harold Edward Winch: Did the minister also confer with the army and navy?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I did not see the army and navy. I have heard indirectly that the army and navy and some other organizations feel exactly the same way about this matter as the Legion does.


Harold Edward Winch: The minister did not answer my second question. Because of the noncontroversial nature of this matter is the minister prepared to introduce an amendment to the bill to wipe out the marriage bar?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I would suggest to the hon. member that he wait for the bill and see what

is in it and whether it needs an amendment before we make a decision in that regard.


Walter Adam Tucker: There is one thing I should like to draw to the minister's attention, namely the various statements by members of his government such as that they are now in an election campaign so that there is a great possibility that there will be no real legislation brought in before they go to the country again, and consequently there would not be a chance for this extended examination of veterans problems that he is now talking about. Either what he has already put out as a hope now that there will be such an investigation may on the one hand be correct -and I am not questioning the minister-or if his colleagues are right it may not be; but I think the people in general will question whether he is speaking with any authority that there is a hope before another election of improving this legislation as it should be improved or whether, judging by what is said by some of his colleagues, we are now in an election campaign. If that is so, what chance will there be of improving this legislation in accordance with the hope held out by the minister?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I might say in answer to my hon. friend that I have never heard any of my colleagues say that they were in an election campaign.


Walter Adam Tucker: The Solicitor General said it at Toronto last night.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: As far as I am concerned I do not know of our being in any election campaign.


Mr. Chevrier:: You had better consult your colleagues.


Jean Lesage: May I ask a question? Last night the Minister of Veterans Affairs said that the bill which would follow this resolution would extend eligibility for an allowance to a veteran of the Canadian forces who during world war I did not reach France but for various reasons stayed in Britain. This would apply for a specific minimum period. What will the period be?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: As I said, we are discussing the resolution at the present time. If this resolution passes a bill will be submitted to the house and I shall give the particulars on second reading.


Jean Lesage: Can we be sure that it will not be announced over the radio before the bill is introduced?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You can be quite sure of that.
Resolution reported and concurred in.

Pension Act
Mr. Brooks thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 28, to amend the War Veterans' Allowance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PENSION ACT


Alfred Johnson Brooks: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Pension Act to place dependants of persons who served in world war II in a position comparable to that of dependants of persons who served in world war I in cases of disability or death due to improper conduct: to ensure that pensions may be paid to the dependants of deceased members of the forces resident and domiciled in Newfoundland; to provide for the continuation of disability pensions and widows' pensions to the end of the month in which death occurred except in cases where no additional pension for dependants is payable; to provide for the payment of pension to the daughter of a pensioned widower where the domestic establishment is maintained after his death; to provide for an increase in the clothing allowance on account of amputation or use of appliances; to provide for an increase in the allowances for funeral and burial expenses; to remove the limitation on the amount of pension payable to a dependent parent of a deceased pensioner after discontinuance of pension to other dependants; to authorize payment of widows' pensions at current rates upon reinstatement of discontinued pensions; and to remove the limitation on payment of pensions to or in respect of children born after a specified date, or to wives whose marriage to a member of the forces or a pensioner took place after a specified date; such measure to include, in addition, certain consequential and clarifying amendments.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.


Lionel Chevrier: Six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the business of the house is for tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we shall commence with second reading of the
bill to amend the War Veterans' Allowance Act. Then we shall take the resolution concerning the Pension Act which has just been put into committee. Then the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport having to do with a proposed branch line for the Canadian National Railway Company. We may then also ask to go on with the bill standing in the name of the Minister of Justice to amend the Criminal Code and the resolution standing in his name respecting the Judges Act. Then we shall proceed with the bill in the name of the Minister of Labour. I am not sure that the ones I have just mentioned will be called, but if we run out of other business we shall go on with the debate on the speech from the throne.


Mr. Barnett:: Could the minister indicate whether all the items he has mentioned will be dealt with in the order he has mentioned them? Am I correct in understanding that?


Howard Charles Green: This bill and the resolution in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs will be first, and then the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport. At the moment I cannot give the order for the other measures to which I have referred. I am not even sure that they will be ready tomorrow.


Lionel Chevrier: Could the house get some indication of what is likely to take place on Friday?


Howard Charles Green: We will have to take the bill to amend the Pension Act in any event. We are going to complete dealing with the two measures standing in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Once they have been completed we will go back to the throne speech debate, but I am trying to make provision in the event of these veterans affairs measures being completed before the end of a day so that we can then fill in the rest of that day with government business and start the throne speech debate at the beginning of the sitting the next day.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:
an all-year shipping point for the shipping of base metals, concentrates, iron ore and other consignments from northeast New Brunswick?
2.	If so, what is the present status?
Answer by: Mr. Hodgson, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:


Mr. Fisher: 1.	Have any plans been formulated to carry out the royal commission on broadcasting's recommendation that C.B.C. satellite T.V. stations be established for nodal points with a population of 5,000 or more that are beyond the practical bounds of reception for presently-licensed stations?
2.	What is the estimated cost of such establishments?
3.	Has the government received any requests from any communities for partial help in establishing such transmitters?
4.	Has the government offered any technical advice on a gratuitous basis to communities wishing to undertake either their own transmitting station or community antenna?
Answer by: Hon. G. C. Nowlan (Minister of
National Revenue):
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation advises as follows in answer to 1 and 2:
1.	The corporation has made general studies but has not formulated definite plans.
2.	Estimated capital costs run from about $50,000 to $250,000 depending upon the type, power, and location. Annual operating costs are estimated at about $22,000 to $100,000 also depending upon the type, power and location.
3.	No.
4.	Officers of the Department of Transport and of the C.B.C. have from time to time answered questions raised by parties interested in such matters.



ALL-YEAR SHIPPING POINT, NEW BRUNSWICK

Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Has the government given consideration to making the port of Miramichi, New Brunswick,
1.	Yes.
2.	The department has found that while the Miramichi is an important waterway for the movement of goods in the smaller ocean boats drawing 20 feet, a very significant part of the potential new shipments would call for boats of 27-foot draft. The cost of dredging and maintaining a channel of the necessary depth on the Miramichi would make it an uneconomic proposition at the present time.



HARBOUR PROJECT, CARON POINT, N.B.

Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Has the Minister of Public Works received any indications from the Brunswick Mining and Smelting Corporation to the effect that the company is prepared to proceed with its share of the development for the harbour project at Caron point, near Bathurst, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, are steps being taken to proceed with this project?
Answer by: Mr. Hodgson, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
1.	Yes.
2.	Further discussions will be held in the near future.



ALBERTA PRODUCTION AND IMPORTS

Mr. Shaw: During each of the calendar years commencing January 1, 1952, what was:
1.	The total number of coal mines in operation in Alberta?
2.	The total tonnage of coal produced in Alberta?
3.	The number of Alberta coal mines which ceased operation?
4.	The total tonnage of coal imported into Canada?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):
1952	1953	1954	1955	19561.	157	146	136	116	1042.	7,194,472	5,917,423	4,859,136	4,456,578	4,329,6393.	18	19	35	16	194.	24,932,853	23,265,541	18,579,989	19,742,531	22,613,374



COAL PRODUCTION AND MARKETING, NOVA SCOTIA

Mr. MacEachen: