1957-11-29

Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave of the house to withdraw notice of motion No. 8 on the order paper, which reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of encouraging reasonable early vesting of pension rights of employees by disallowing in whole or in part the employer's claims for a deduction of the expenses of pensions for income tax purposes where reasonable vesting provisions are not adopted.
I might say that I would like to discuss this matter on the appropriate estimates or on a motion to go into supply. It does not seem to me that we will reach this notice of motion this session. If it remains on the order paper it might be considered out of order to discuss early vesting of pension rights because of anticipatory discussion on the order paper. I would therefore ask unanimous consent of the house to drop this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to drop this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion dropped.



MORNING AND SATURDAY SITTINGS ON AND AFTER DECEMBER 4

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the house leader. When does the house leader expect to suggest morning and Saturday sittings to provide more time to discuss the government's estimates and further legislation?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Well, Mr. Speaker, we are planning to put a notice of motion on the order paper today which will appear on Monday, and which will ask for sittings on Wednesday mornings, Thursday mornings, Friday evenings and on Saturdays in the morning and afternoon only until the end of the session.


Mr. Pearson:: What, not Saturday night?



BUFFALO AND FORT ERIE PUBLIC BRIDGE COMPANY


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 194 (from the Senate), to amend an act respecting the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley, to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the continuing crisis in the agricultural industry brought about by depressed prices of farm products, increasing costs of production and loss of markets, together with the inexcusable delay of the government in taking steps to provide farmers with guaranteed prices for their products at a level to create parity with other prices and to assure farmers a fair share of the national income as promised in the recent election, and the need for immediate action by parliament to deal with this grave emergency.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would add that one further reason prompting this motion is the fact that the government will not announce a date when it is prepared to advance its own legislation.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would simply refer to government order No. 9 on the order paper, which reads in part:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a system of guaranteed prices for agricultural commodities to be named therein and to provide that prices may be guaranteed for any other agricultural commodity-
-and so on. I am not going to read the entire resolution. That resolution-


Mr. Irwin:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, please-


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Just one minute.
1658	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Agricultural Industry-Alleged Crisis


Thomas James Irwin: We have not yet had your decision, sir, as to whether or not this is a matter of urgent public importance.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on the question as to whether it is a matter of urgent public importance. The resolution on the order paper-


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: rise on a point of order. According to the rules, when a motion of this kind is made does Your Honour not read it out and decide whether or not it is of urgent public importance?


Mr. Sinclair:: Quite right.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is right; it is the Speaker's duty to decide whether the matter is within the rules, though I believe it has been customary to take brief advice on the subject. Will the house allow me a minute to consider this?


John George Diefenbaker: That was the attitude I was adopting, simply to bring to Your Honour's attention the fact that it is not one of those matters that are of such importance as require a motion for the adjournment of the house.
The resolution sets out in detail the various steps that are intended to be taken with reference to the agricultural problem of this country. I may add that the legislation committee has been working on the bill to be introduced and at twelve o'clock today will meet for the final determination of the terms of the bill. My submission is that the motion is premature; it is simply trying to beat the gun. Having regard to the resolution that is already on the order paper, it is not a matter of such importance as requires a motion for the adjournment of the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to make a comment on the statement that has been made.


Thomas James Irwin: On the point of order, paragraph 3 of standing order 26 reads in part:
He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr. Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not
the Prime Minister.


Thomas James Irwin: Not the Prime Minister nor any other member of the house. I continue:
-and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the house.
The Speaker himself decides whether or not it is a matter of urgent public importance.


Mr. Speaker:: I know what the rule says. The Speaker is actually thinking and would appreciate a little assistance in this matter.

He has had some from the Prime Minister, and would like to hear what the member for Assiniboia has to say on the subject.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would like to make some comment on the urgency question. Any member who is acquainted with the position of the agricultural industry today will realize that it is in a very deep crisis that requires immediate attention.
On the basis of what the Prime Minister has said there is still no indication as to the date on which the government will advance its own legislation. The resolution to which the Prime Minister has referred was filed on October 31, and I suggest that that is an unwarranted delay.
As far as beating the gun is concerned, to use the Prime Minister's own words, I suggest that this is not likely to be the case in any way, since this motion says that the government should provide guaranteed prices for agricultural products at a level to create parity with other prices and to assure farmers a fair share of the national income, as promised in the recent election campaign.
I would suggest that the terms of the government's own motion show that it is not the intention, according to that motion, to provide prices for agricultural products at a parity level. For all these reasons I submit that my motion is in order.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: May
I point out that the terms of the hon. member's motion place it clearly out of order; and to assist Your Honour I would refer you to Bourinot, whose authority I have always found to be unquestioned. At page 310 of the fourth edition Bourinot says, in discussing motions to adjourn the house for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance:
All the rules of debate apply, of course, to discussions upon such a motion. Discussion cannot be raised on such a motion on any matter already appointed for consideration or of which notice has been given.
The hon. gentleman has clearly brought his motion and the discussion which would arise therefrom within the ambit of item No. 9 on today's order paper, which provides for the discussion in committee of the whole of the government resolution to introduce a measure to establish a system of guaranteed prices for agricultural commodities. Whether or not that measure will be considered adequate is a matter properly to be discussed by the hon. member on that motion, but his present motion is clearly out of order in that it seeks to anticipate the stage at which he can raise that question.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their assistance. As they will appreciate,

this is the first time I have had to deal with this question. It seems to me that the subject matter of the proposed discussion is one that has been discussed off and on throughout the session, perhaps not by itself but it has been a subject of continual discussion throughout the session and of questions and answers in the house. There has been and will be an opportunity to discuss the matter, more particularly because of the resolution on the order paper.
It seems to me that the hon. member's motion is defeated by subsection (d) of section 6 of standing order 26, to which the hon. member referred. It is in these words:
The motion must not anticipate a matter which has been previously appointed for consideration by the house, or with reference to which a notice of motion has been previously given and not withdrawn.
That seems to me to be an insuperable obstacle to the motion. In any event, I would not have thought the matter properly debatable on a motion of this kind at this time in view of the opportunities there are to discuss the matter and the discussion that has already taken place in the house. Therefore I must reject the hon. member's motion.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. E. B. Huffman (Kent, Onl.):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister spoke to the motion of the hon. member for Assiniboia I understood that he was of the opinion that the subject was not of sufficient urgency to warrant moving the adjournment of the house. When the Prime Minister makes his announcement on Monday respecting further legislation for this session, will he give priority to the resolution to establish guaranteed prices for agricultural products?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I did not say it was a matter of no urgency, I said urgency of debate at this time. I would point out to my hon. friend that at no time has the house been held up by the failure of the government to have its legislation ready, and if less time was taken in the discussion of certain items we would get along much faster, and I am hoping we will.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Closure.


John George Diefenbaker: I have had the cooperation of my right hon. friend. I want to say that, but it has not been general.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Why don't you answer the question?


John George Diefenbaker: If there is a little more co-operation these matters will be introduced at the earliest stage possible. We want this
Inquiries of the Ministry legislation passed as soon as possible, but we have two items to consider. We have the item concerning the estimates that were left over from last session, which involves practically all the estimates. We have brought before the house the legislation that has been necessary to meet immediate conditions, having regard to the order of their urgency and the opportunity to have them passed by the house. The legislation with regard to agriculture is on the order paper, and if my hon. friends will get along a little-


An hon. Member:: Is the bill ready?


John George Diefenbaker: -and assist in getting the estimates out of the way, the legislation will be introduced, as will the other matters to which reference will be made on Monday.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a question for the Prime Minister, arising out of his remarks now as compared with his remarks earlier. Is the legislation to which he has referred now ready, in that the bill is ready?


John George Diefenbaker: If my hon. friend had listened to what I said earlier he would have had the answer to his question. The legislation committee has drafted the legislation. At twelve o'clock today, provided the question period does not continue on and on with questions that have no place in the house and merely kill time-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
that not for Mr. Speaker to decide?


John George Diefenbaker: -that committee will meet for the purpose of finalizing the legislation.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is not yet ready.


Mr. Jacob Schulz (Springfield):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. I have never had the privilege of asking him a question, so I do so today. If the Prime Minister is so sincere about bringing forward his agricultural legislation, why is it that the resolution extending unemployment insurance was brought in and acted on in two days-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member thinks of what he is saying I believe he will appreciate that he is making an argument and not asking a question of the Prime Minister.



NORTHERN ALBERTA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he is in a position this morning to tell the house in a general way the contents of the report which I understand he

Inquiries of the Ministry has received concerning the tragic crop situation in the Peace river country, and to let us know what measures his department proposes to take to help relieve the situation there.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a very unfortunate situation this year from the point of view of weather in the Peace river country. I sent a special investigation team into the area some two weeks ago to make a report on the exact situation that existed there, with a view to seeing whether the crop situation was such that although no threshing had taken place in a large number of places it would be possible to put into effect P.F.A.A. payments.
The report I received was that approximately only 30 per cent of the threshing had been done in the Peace river area including the British Columbia block, and that it was extremely doubtful whether more than something between 10 per cent and 20 per cent of the remaining grain would ever be threshed. In view of those circumstances I issued instructions that something between 40 and 50 P.F.A.A. inspectors should be secured immediately to make a detailed assessment of the situation in practically every township in the Peace river area. As a result of this I expect that P.F.A.A. payments in very considerable amounts will be put into effect in the area.
In addition, the crop which was harvested in the Peace river country was nearly all tough and damp grain. Therefore representations were made that if this grain was to be saved and prevented from going bad, special means would have to be taken in order to get it down to a terminal elevator where it could be dried. I took up this matter with the wheat board and the Department of Trade and Commerce. They are now working on that problem, and I trust that some means will be evolved of getting this grain into the terminal elevator in Edmonton and possibly the terminal elevator at Vancouver, where it can be dried and thus made available for general use.



PUBLICATION &quot;CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture which perhaps might more appropriately be raised as a question of privilege. In any event, it has to do with the exchange which took place between the Minister of Agriculture and myself on Tuesday, November 26, as to whether certain agricultural prices in this country were falling. In his statement the minister referred to a-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I remind the hon. member that if exception is taken to what is said in the house it must be taken at the time. We cannot go back and correct Hansard of the past.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I believe I can substantiate the point that the house was misinformed, misled in a very material way by the minister, and I think that is a question of privilege. If you believe at this moment that it has more to do with the argument itself I am quite prepared to drop it, but I do believe that if you will hear me out you will agree that it is a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: It may very well be a question of privilege, but my point is that the practice has been to limit the raising of objections to what is said in the house to the time when it occurs. It would be impossible, I think, as the house appreciates, to go back and deal with matters which are long since past, and I would ask the hon. member to try to correct it in another way.


Hazen Robert Argue: I will make it a direct question to the minister. Can the minister give us the source and origin of the publication to which he referred last Tuesday, which he entitled "Canada-Prices of Selected Agricultural Products"? A most diligent inquiry at the bureau of statistics, the library of parliament and the library of the Department of Agriculture would indicate that this publication was either a fiction-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, this particular publication, which I took the precaution of bringing down with me again today in case there might be any other question in regard to prices, is entitled "Canada-Prices of Selected Agricultural Products". This particular issue is dated 20/11/1957. It is put out by the economics division of the Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Ontario. I think the hon. member can see that it exists; it is not a myth.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a further question. Is it not a fact that this is an intergovernmental document and that it contains statistics produced by the bureau of statistics on the clear understanding that they would not be made public?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, I cannot make any definite statement with regard to that. My understanding was that it was not a document of that kind, but I would have to inquire in order to find out the exact status of the publication.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think you should.
[Mr. Low.l


George James McIlraith: Would the minister tell us if that publication is available to other members of the House of Commons?


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is the very point I just made, that I will have to inquire what is the status of the publication. My understanding was that it was available generally but that may not have been the case.


George James McIlraith: Will you inquire?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have just said I would inquire.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think it is classified.



DECREASE IN MARKETING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister give an explanation to the house and the country as to why the farmers' marketing of grain in the prairie provinces from the start of the crop year until November 13 has been only 129 million bushels, which is the lowest figure at this time in the last 10 years and slightly more than half of the 10-year average? Is the minister prepared to give consideration to the immediate announcement of a deficiency payment in the form of a participation payment from the treasury on last year's crop to compensate for this drastic decline in income?


Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I
received notice of this question just a few moments ago, and I shall take it as notice.



STATEMENT ON REPORTED REFUSAL OF ADVANCES BECAUSE OF LEASED ACREAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, on
November 27 the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort asked the following question:
Has it been brought to the minister's attention that farmers are being refused cash advances on their specified acreage merely because they have additional acreage under lease?
The answer is as follows. I am unaware of producers being refused cash advances for the reason given by the hon. member. The Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act became effective on November 25, 1957, and it may be several days before it is operating smoothly. The act provides for advances to producers who farm their own land and who have additional acreage under lease. As hon. members are aware these are advances and it is therefore necessary that all parties
Inquiries of the Ministry interested in the land, as recorded in the producers' permit book, sign the application form and agree to the deduction of one-half of the proceeds of subsequent initial payments for deliveries of wheat, oats and barley.


Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldl-Melforl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In his absence possibly the acting minister would take my question as notice. It arises out of an answer he gave a few moments ago. Will the minister give consideration to amending the regulations in respect of a producer getting the cash advance on his own acreage, and thereby remove the present condition that is presenting a serious problem to those producers under the present regulations?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I shall take the question as notice as requested, but I should like to emphasize the fact, as I stated in my previous answer, that the act became effective only on November 25 and today is November 29. Therefore there has not been very much time in which to iron out any small difficulties which may arise. Nevertheless, I will take it as notice.



REPORTED SLOWNESS IN PROVIDING ADDITIONAL QUOTAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce. My question arises from a substantial number of complaints I have received to the effect that often where elevator space is available at marketing points for additional quotas, the quotas are not being quickly provided. Can the minister say whether such situations are being corrected, and what the wheat board's policy is in this regard?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, it is the policy of the Canadian wheat board to increase delivery quotas as rapidly as possible. The hon. member will appreciate, however, that before a delivery quota can be increased some space must be accumulated to take care of at least a part of the increase. This is particularly true at larger delivery points, where an increase of 1 bushel per specified acre requires a relatively large amount of space. Bearing upon the question of the hon. member is the fact that at a considerable number of delivery points in the prairie provinces there is some space available but not sufficient to take care of all the grain which producers can deliver

Inquiries of the Ministry under present delivery quotas. It will not be the policy of the board to hold this space for any length of time.
The present country elevator stocks of grain are 305 million bushels as compared with 296 million bushels at the same time last year. I can assure the hon. member that the wheat board will continue to increase delivery quotas just as rapidly as space permits.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question which the minister may not be able to answer and, if not, he could take it as notice. I take it from his answer that the wheat board is not following a policy of waiting until enough space has been made available for an additional quota merely because the wheat board is reluctant to give these points quotas higher than the general prevailing quotas in western Canada?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will agree that this is a matter with regard to which I should consult with the board.



SALMON-INQUIRY AS TO IMPORTS FROM JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister received a letter from the united fishermen and allied workers' union concerning the heavy importation of Japanese canned salmon? If so, what action does he contemplate taking in the matter?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: I want to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. However, the notice reached my office only a few minutes ago, and I am not in a position to make as full a statement at this time as I should like. I can say that such a letter did arrive in the department about an hour ago.
The question of the importation of Japanese salmon, which is said to be heavy-and I think that is a matter of opinion-is one which has existed in previous years. I understand the purpose of allowing these importations is to permit Canadian producers of salmon to maintain their best market, which is the British market. In any case I shall give a fuller reply on Monday.


Mr.  A. B. Patierson@Fraser Valley: should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Fisheries. While investigating the matter that has been raised by the hon. member for New Westminster, would the minister consider as well the fact


that in the marketing of imported salmon from Japan, Canadian canners use the "Cloverleaf", "Gold Seal", and "Paramount" labels, which are the top brand labels of three of the largest companies. The words "Product of Japan" were printed in such small letters that few individuals knew they were not purchasing the Canadian product. Will the minister insist that adequate indication of the country of origin be printed on the labels?


John Angus MacLean: This is a matter that has already been brought to my attention, and I think the facts stated by the hon. member are substantially correct. This question has received careful consideration, and I will give a fuller reply to that question as well on Monday.



CANADIAN SURPLUS DISPOSAL PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Caslleden (Yorkton):: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, notice of which I sent him this morning. Will the minister inform the house what consideration has been given to establishing a disposal program for our surplus agricultural products in order that they may move more quickly to the underdeveloped countries of the world, now in urgent need of food?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I shall take this question as notice, since I received it just a few minutes ago.



ALLEGED IMPORTATION OF BRITISH TRACTORS AND PARTS THROUGH U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Blake Huffman: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce of which I have just sent him notice. Would the minister comment on the announcement in this morning's Gazette that a large portion of the $150 million Canadians spent last year for so-called United States tractors and parts actually flowed back to Britain because such parts were manufactured in Britain, exported to the United States and then re-exported to Canada? Would the acting minister also take steps to correct Canadian statistics on trade with the United States, as suggested by members of the trade mission now in Great Britain?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am informed that Canadian import statistics are based on

customs entries, as is customary in all countries. This is the only practical way of gathering figures of imports and exports. It would be virtually impossible to adjust the statistics so as to allocate all components and materials to the ultimate country of origin. I would not even care to hazard a guess as to how such a compilation might affect our trade balance with different countries. For example, some of our imports from the United Kingdom are made from materials or components which come from the United States-for example, cotton textiles-and many of our exports contain items which are of foreign origin.



MISSION TO UNITED KINGDOM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, on November 27 the hon. member for Kingston asked me the following question:
May I direct a question with respect to the Canadian buying mission sponsored by the government of Canada, which mission is now in Britain?
Is it true that members of the mission may make arrangements to buy aluminum products in Britain to import into Canada?
Of course I have no information on the business discussions which the more than 50 members of the mission are conducting while they are in the United Kingdom. However, I might point out that the Minister of Trade and Commerce described the purpose of the mission as "to stimulate purchases from United Kingdom sources of goods now imported by Canada from non-commonwealth countries".
As the hon. member knows, Canada is herself a leading manufacturer of aluminum products. In fact, this industry has made a great contribution to the economic development of our country, and its products are exported to all parts of the world. We do also import some aluminum products from various countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States. The hon. member may draw his own conclusions from these facts.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the concern that has arisen in the motor car industry because of press reports that there would be a reduction in the tax on automobiles, can the minister say whether he intends
Inquiries of the Ministry to introduce a budget at an early date or is he considering giving notice of tax reductions that could be effective immediately upon such notice, subject to approval by parliament?


Donald Methuen Fleming: These matters are all under consideration, and I shall be only too happy to make any recommendations of the government known to the house as soon as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May
I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Does his statement, that any recommendations to be made by the government concerning taxation proposals would be made known to the house mean that there is still the possibility of a budget at this session? Is he aware of the fact that his unwillingness to give direct answers to questions about the budget is not only a denial of information to members of this house, but is also causing deep concern in the country?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such thing, because it is not the fact.


Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of the policy he announced yesterday. In the interests of descriptive accuracy, would the minister change the name of his swinging-door policy to the flapping-door policy, or is it correct to assume-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


John Hornby Harrison: -that the minister is opening a chain of beverage rooms to recoup his losses?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I trust that the hon. member does not want to take the time of the house with a question phrased in those words.



CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the report in this morning's Gazette that United States citizen Harold Banks is reported as denying that he refused the minister's offer of mediation in the seamen's dispute, and as this is an implication that the minister did not inform

Inquiries of the Ministry the house correctly the other day, would the minister care to comment on this fellow's remarks?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that what I said yesterday in reply to the question put to me by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway is correct.
[Later:!


Mr. S. H. S. Thompson (Edmonton-Strath-cona):: Mr. Speaker, further to the question asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West concerning Mr. Banks, would the Minister of Labour inform the house whether it is the policy of the government to negotiate with other than Canadian citizens regarding the welfare of Canadians and Canadian industries?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear all of the hon. member's question. I wonder if he would mind repeating it.


Sydney Herbert Stewart Thompson: Would the minister inform the house whether it is the policy of the government to negotiate with other than Canadian citizens regarding the welfare of Canadians and Canadian industries?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice and see just what implications are contained therein.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. Louis Lewry (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. Can the minister obtain the pressure rate which was being applied during the test on the trans-Canada natural gas pipe line just prior to the blow-out on the line near Mortlach, Saskatchewan, on November 3, 1957, in view of the earlier statement that the pipe was designed for a working pressure of 826 pounds?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: I will make inquiries of the board of transport commissioners and try to obtain that information for the hon. member.



STATEMENT ON ADVERTISEMENTS IN C.N.R. DINING CARS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I should like to answer the following question
[Mr. Herridge.l
which was asked me yesterday by the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Murphy):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I should like to ask the minister-he will not do anything, but I should like to ask him, nevertheless-why only British Columbia apples are advertised on the C.N.R. dining car menus on trains in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, where excellent apples are also grown, and whether he will do anything to remedy this matter?
Contrary to the hon. member's expressed expectation I immediately, as I always do, got in touch with the management of the Canadian National Railways, and I have this report from them. This advertisement is a paid advertisement on the back of all dining car meal checks. Apple growers throughout Canada were asked to bid on this advertisement and none did so exeept British Columbia. They were therefore awarded the space.


James Sinclair: The minister knows where the applause is coming from.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. A. Tucker (Roslhern):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has he completed conferring with the representatives of the Saskatchewan government with regard to the South Saskatchewan dam? If so, is he prepared to make any statement on the matter?


John George Diefenbaker: The answer is that, to use my
hon. friend's expression, the conferring is still continuing.


Walter Adam Tucker: Might I ask a supplementary
question. Are those conferences still going on in Ottawa, or are they now going to go on by means of letters spaced several weeks apart?


John George Diefenbaker: As to that matter, as
I mentioned the other day, in 1948 my hon. friend advocated in a by-election in Rosthern the election of Mr. Boucher, and said that the dam would be proceeded with at once if he were elected. May I say that we do not intend to follow that type of conferring, not weeks apart but years apart. Anything further that is done from now on will naturally consist of conferences as between engineers and officials, and also representations by letter as between the government of Saskatchewan and this government, to the end that at the earliest possible date an agreement will be arrived at to permit proceeding with the dam.


Walter Adam Tucker: On a question of privilege-

Inquiries of the Ministry
Righl Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Melville): May
I ask a further question. Would it be possible to draw the inference that the conference might be continued at the Grey cup game?


John George Diefenbaker: I have known Grey cup
games to be the excuse for many other conferences in the past, and possibly that suggestion has some ground for consideration.


Walter Adam Tucker: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister suggested that some promises were made during the 1948 by-election. Might I point out to him, as was pointed out in that byelection-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is not raising a question of privilege, as far as I understand what he is saying-


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, the other day the right hon. Prime Minister made a statement which he repeated today, and I do think it is in order for me to be permitted to state what actually happened when it is within my own knowledge, which is all I wish to do. I think I have the right to frame a question without misrepresentations being made.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I disagree with the hon. member. As I understand it, he has endeavoured to correct a statement which the Prime Minister has made. That might be permitted as a matter of privilege if it were a reflection on any member in the house, but I do not understand that to be the situation.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister may not regard it as a reflection when he speaks of not keeping promises, but when he makes that statement about me I regard it as a real reflection. He has now stated twice that this promise was made. I let it go once but he repeated it today, and I think I should be permitted to say exactly what was stated in that by-election.


Mr. Monieith:: No, no; save it for the next election.


Mr. Speaker:: I would appreciate it if the hon. member would repeat the statement to which he objects so I will know what is his question of privilege, if there is one.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Prime Minister said that in the 1948 by-election, when Mr. Boucher was elected the representative for Rosthern, it was promised that if he was elected the dam would be proceeded with at once, and I wish to state that no such promise was made. It was merely indicated-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Adam Tucker: It was indicated-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: When is a promise not a promise?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Walter Adam Tucker: It was indicated by me that if the people voted for Mr. Boucher it would show they were favourable to the dam being built.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the matter need not be pursued, but I did not think there was a reflection on any member in the house.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Labour and he may take it as notice if he is unable to make a statement today.
The question is as follows. Is the minister aware that persons in the Northwest Territories are having great difficulty in obtaining their unemployment insurance payments and, in some cases, are not even receiving acknowledgment of their application from the Edmonton office of the unemployment insurance commission?
Will the minister investigate this condition and recommend the re-establishment of the unemployment insurance office in Yellowknife in the very near future? In the meantime, will he dispatch a man from the Edmonton office to Yellowknife to look after this immediate situation, which is causing great hardship to many persons?


Michael Starr: In answer to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, may I say that we will look into all aspects of this situation to which the hon. member has brought my attention, and we will certainly do everything possible to rectify it.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Murphy (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Does the government intend to increase family allowances, as promised by Conservative candidates in New Brunswick, and will this be done in time for Christmas, 1957, in line with other social legislation of this

Inquiries of the Ministry house and because of the severe unemployment situation which paints a gloomy picture for the nation's children this Christmas?


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: You are not
getting any press on these questions, Murphy.


Henry Joseph Murphy: I am getting more than you got, Bell.


Mr. Gauthier (Porineuf):: Ding, dong, Bell.


Mr. Cardiff:: You are getting to be a nuisance around here more than anything else.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You ought to know how it feels.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and ask him whether he has received representations from the Shelburne and other county ministerial associations, requesting that the opening of the lobster season in district No. 4 be changed from Sunday, December 1, to Tuesday, December 3? If so, what action if any does the minister plan to take?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. I think the correct answer is yes, but I cannot be specific about this particular ministerial association. In any case, such a representation has been made by several ministerial associations, including that of Queens county, Nova Scotia. I might say that the hon. member for Queens-Lunen-burg (Mr. Crouse) has already discussed the same matter with me and had indicated his intention to ask a similar question.
A request was received on November 21 from the Queens county ministerial association that the Department of Fisheries investigate the matter immediately and, if possible, to take the necessary steps to change the opening date of the lobster season in this area for this year from December 1 to December 3. The lobster fishermen would thus be allowed to set their traps on Monday, December 2, instead of Saturday, November 30. Since the opening has already been advertised as effective December 1, it would be rather difficult to effect any change this year.
I might point out however, Mr. Speaker, that existing regulations permit lobster fishermen to set their traps on the noon of the preceding Saturday when the opening date falls on either a Sunday or a Monday.

This regulation was established pursuant to discussions between senior officials of the department and lobster fishermen throughout the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island; and I might point out that an overwhelming preference was expressed by the fishermen in favour of the existing regulation. Thus where the season opens on a Sunday, by reason of the fact that traps may be set on the Saturday preceding, the opening Sunday would be precisely the same as any other Sunday falling within the open season, and whether or not the traps are fished is left entirely to the discretion of the individual fisherman himself.
In other words, the decision is that the lobster fishermen can set their traps tomorrow, and that will result in Sunday being in exactly the same position as any other Sunday which falls within the lobster season.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is consideration being given or action being taken with respect to the construction of a new women's penitentiary in the Kingston area?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The
matter is under consideration, but no progress can be made until a decision is reached as to what is to be done in connection with the recommendations contained in the Fauteux report. This matter is now being studied, and it is hoped that we shall be in a position to invite the provinces into a conference early next year. We realize that several of the provinces have their own building programs which are being held up by the lack of a decision, but it has seemed desirable to arrive at a decision on the over-all implementation of the report before such building programs, including our own, are proceeded with.



DISPOSITION OF DOWNSTREAM BENEFITS IN INTERNATIONAL WATERWAYS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelsloke):: On November 21 I asked a question relating to top level negotiations by our ambassador to the United States in the matter of downstream benefits. In the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs this

was referred to the Prime Minister and, in his absence, I received this answer from the Minister of Public Works:
I believe this question was sent to the Prime Minister's office before the house opened this afternoon, and answers are being prepared.
I am just wondering, Mr. Speaker, how much longer it is going to take to prepare the answer to this quite simple question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will have it looked into. Certainly I will have it answered at the earliest possible date. I am sorry if my hon. friend has been inconvenienced. If he had given me a call on the telephone I would have seen that the answer was here by this time.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Sinclair: It was different when you supported these questions of privilege.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yesterday I asked the Minister of Labour if he would pursue a certain matter having to do with complaints regarding changes in the Canadian Pacific Railway's pension plan. The minister indicated that he had not had any representations concerning the matter. I can readily understand that he has a great deal of correspondence and since I had not given him notice I realize that his answer is not to be held against him. However, may I now send over to him copies of two letters and a note about a third which he received concerning this matter, and also copies of three of his replies concerning this same question. The minister's memory as to the correspondence having been refreshed, perhaps he might give me an answer next week.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Casselman in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
497. Departmental administration, $2,304,705.
Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say at this time that I am very conscious of my responsibility in presenting the estimates for the current fiscal year, of the department 96698-106
Supply-Veterans Affairs whose duty it is to care for my former comrades and the dependants of those who gave their lies in the cause of freedom. I must ensure that the work of the department is carried on just as economically as is possible, but, at the same time insist that there be no downgrading of the several services that the department is required to render.
I welcome this opportunity to express publicly my appreciation of the co-operation I have received since taking office, from all members of the house, from the Canadian Legion, the national council of veterans associations in Canada, and other veteran organizations, from officials of the benevolent funds of the three armed services and from other organizations and individuals with whom the department is associated in its work. I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that this co-operation has rendered my task much easier.
As hon. members know, the main estimates of the department which are now before the committee were presented to the house by the former government, and were actually prepared by the department in October and November, 1956. The experience in the rate of expenditure for the first seven months of the current fiscal year indicates that there will be some reduction in the requirements estimated at that time. The organization of the department has remained unchanged during the past year and the establishment has reached a continuing level. There has been a decrease in the number of employees in practically every vote except treatment services. The increase in treatment services staff results mainly from the extension of the five-day week to all D.V.A. hospitals.
In spite of reductions in staff, all salary votes show an increase consequent upon the general salary revision effective May 1, 1957. Furthermore, taking the main and supplementary estimates together, the votes for pensions and war veterans allowances show increases resulting from the revision in rates and permissible income ceilings which were approved by the last parliament to be effective July 1, 1957.
Generally speaking, Mr. Chairman, the volume of work of the department has remained fairly constant, but it might be noted that the trend of the activity of the welfare services branch has continued to move away from work connected with rehabilitation benefits and toward the handling of war veterans allowance problems and individual welfare cases of a problem nature. The branch is successfully applying the provisions of the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act, and it is gratifying to note that the

Supply-Veterans Affairs number of applications has exceeded somewhat the number the department had expected. A total of 277 children have completed their training program, and 465 are undergoing training at the present.
The level of the treatment patient load remains steady. Construction continues with a view to bringing all D.V.A. hospitals to a modern standard. The construction at Colonel Belcher, Calgary, is now completed; that at Deer Lodge hospital near Winnipeg will be finished next spring; construction at Shaugh-nessy, Vancouver, has been started; and at Westminster hospital, London, Ontario, it is in the planning stage.
As hon. members know, the government, in the few months since it took ofiice has already been able to prepare two bills, one of which to amend the Pension Act is now before this house and the other, amending the War Veterans' Allowance Act, has already received the approval of this house and the Senate and has been given royal assent. Other acts are being studied, and where changes are necessary amending legislation will be introduced at an appropriate time in the future.
Before resuming my seat I should like to say a word about the Vimy memorial. As hon. members know, this is one of the most impressive monuments built after world war I. Though undamaged by enemy action, the Vimy memorial has suffered somewhat by lack of adequate maintenance care during the war years. Extensive renovation work is now being carried out and is expected to be completed by next spring. The work will restore the beauty of this outstanding memorial to Canada's dead.
I shall have more to say, Mr. Chairman, on the different items in the estimates as they come up for consideration. I shall also answer, as far as possible, any questions which hon. members may care to ask on the first item. I assume, following the ordinary procedure, there will be a general discussion. We have already had an extensive debate on the War Veterans' Allowance Act and a considerable debate on the resolution preceding the pension bill.


Walter Adam Tucker: I do not intend to take too long at this stage, Mr. Chairman, because as the minister has stated most of the expenditures provided for in these estimates are expenditures authorized for pensions, war veterans allowance, treatment of veterans, Veterans' Land Act operations and the like. It is a matter of voting money for the splendid work being done by Canada for those who served in her armed services over the past many years. I have not heard the minister suggest that this is one of those departments in which there is waste or extravagance, reference to which has been made by

other members of the government concerning proposed expenditures in the estimates brought down by the previous government. I hope the minister will definitely indicate whether or not he has found any evidence of waste or extravagance in his department.
I have more knowledge of this department than other government departments, and I must say that if other departments are administered with similar devotion to the duty of the department under the statutes passed by this parliament and with the same attempt to do the best possible job of which human beings are capable, then I am sure we have the finest administration by the civil service of Canada of any country in the world. Sometimes it seems to me that people do not realize the tremendous amount of good work that is being done in this department. Again I say that I do not know very much about the other departments, but I do know that at times there is a feeling there are more civil servants than are necessary to do the work involved. I am not saying that is true, but I know some people believe it. If the same conditions prevail in other departments that prevail in the Department of Veterans Affairs, then I can say decisively the statement is not true.
The various persons involved in the administration of this department are really trying very hard to do their work in a conscientious way and to carry out the purposes parliament had in mind when it passed the veterans charter and the amendments which have been made thereto from time to time. Sometimes we do not realize the amount of very hard work and devoted service we get from our civil servants. I think these remarks, made at a time when I am now in the opposition, will probably be more fitting and carry more weight than those of a person who is a supporter of the government. I have known many men in that department who have worked to the point where I felt they were endangering their health in order to get a good job done.
If one looks through the report of the Department of Veterans Affairs and considers the number of people in Canada who are benefited by the work of that department I think, even if he has some knowledge of the work of the department, he must be astonished at the amount of work that is accomplished. For example, let us consider the payment of war service gratuities. There was actually paid out a sum totalling $470 million, not including payments to the Korean veterans. Payments to Korean veterans numbering 26,476 amounted to over $6.5 million, according to the last annual
NOVEMBER 29, 1957	1S69
Supply-Veterans Affairs
report. Re-establishment credits, which helped so many veterans get re-established, totalled $299 million, not including the payments to Korean veterans. If we include the payments to Korean veterans the total is brought up to over $302 million.
There is another matter I should like to mention. The Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act was passed to ensure that the children of men who served their country and who were killed or disabled, do not suffer by virtue of that service. I am sure all hon. members approve of that measure, and personally I hope consideration will be given to expanding that act in order to see to it that when a person has lost his life or has been disabled in the service of his country, his children shall not suffer in any way shape or form having regard to the education they are able to get or the training they may get for life. In that regard the country should consider itself as stepping into the position of the parent who gave his service so unselfishly for his country. This work has gone on well but, as I say, study should be given to expanding it so as to make it apply not only to those who were killed but to those who were disabled.
As the minister knows, he and I have talked about this matter. I am sure he and his associates, the people in the department, are sympathetic to the idea I have put forward. I was pleased to see that even more advantage had been taken of this act providing for help to educate the children of the war dead than I think was expected at the time it was passed. I note that according to the annual report the total number who had been dealt with under that act is 872. When one considers what that means in the matter of helping the children of those who have served, one must be extremely glad that parliament has made that provision.
I should like to compliment the department on the work being done in connection with correspondence courses. I was glad to find that there were no less than some 9,500 being helped last year through correspondence courses under the Department of Veterans Affairs. Then I think of the welfare services, and I will not take the time of the house to go into that matter in any detail. However, that personal attention given to assisting veterans in their various problems and difficulties is something of which any one who knows anything of the work must be very proud and pleased.
The war veterans assistance fund, which was designed to help those people who could not supplement their incomes, also has been helpful and has been used, I think, more than
many hon. members realize. I note that according to the last annual report there were no less than 4,058 on the list receiving help as at March 31, 1956, and that the total number of those who had been helped during that year 1956-57 ran up to something over
8,000	who were in receipt of war veterans allowance but who needed additional help under that war veterans assistance fund.
As to the number of veterans under the War Veterans Allowance Act getting help, I have heard that act described by many people as an act which is perhaps rather unique with regard to veterans legislation. Many people regard it as a pension for disability or something of the sort but it is, in fact, an act designed to give assistance to those who are not pensioned or not getting adequate pensions to get along. Several countries which were our allies in the war have no such provision to assist their veterans. I know that war veterans generally consider that act to be one of the finest under the veterans charter. The war veterans allowance expenditure, as I see it in the estimates, is nearly $50 million.
Then I come to the treatment services. There again continuing treatment of those who were disabled, particularly those who are permanently disabled, is a work that is going on carefully and with some consideration for services rendered by those being treated. I think ex-servicemen are highly satisfied with the treatment they are getting in our veterans hospitals. I note that according to the report the number of patients in departmental hospitals as of March 31, 1957, was over 7,800. Actually the number of admissions to departmental hospitals during that year had been over 50,000, the number of admissions to other hospitals some 18,000, and the number of out-patient treatments some
657,000.
I should like to mention prosthetic services. I venture to say most hon. members have no idea of the amount of good work that is being done in that particular field. I note that according to the report the number of appliances supplied during the year was no less than 123,000, with 20,000 repairs, and that the total number of patients dealt with in connection with prosthetic services in the last year were no less than 69,000.
The veterans bureau is something that is, in my opinion, of great value. No doubt the various veterans organizations such as the Canadian Legion, the army and navy and air force veterans association, and the Canadian council of disabled veterans, have given great help to veterans in pressing for their pensions and other needed assistance. The veterans bureau is always there to give help

Supply-Veterans Affairs even where the Canadian Legion or other veterans organizations are willing to help. They may not be as well organized in one part of the country as in another. According to the annual report I note that the number of claims brought forward by the veterans bureau was 5,800. I think hon. members who have had anything to do with this work will realize the tremendous amount of work involved in preparing that number of cases for submission to the pension board.
There is one act to which I very much want to refer, and that is the Veterans' Land Act. Under the director of the Veterans' Land Act, Brigadier Rutherford, there has been set up a system of advising the veterans who are settled under the V.L.A., and of assisting them in being successful farmers, giving them the best scientific advice and the like, so the man who is the representative of the Veterans' Land Act I believe in most cases is regarded as the real friend of the veteran and not purely as a collector of outstanding accounts. The amount of good work done in enabling people to establish themselves in full time and part time farming, as evidenced by the number of happy and successful homes that have been set up as a result of this splendid legislation, is really something on which, in my opinion, we can look with a great deal of satisfaction.
I see in the annual report that $357 million had been expended on behalf of over 67,700 veterans, and I think hon. members can be very pleased that, up to March 31 this year, of the amount spent over a period of 12J years in settlement operations approximately 40 per cent has been paid by the veterans themselves. This shows that the legislation was conceived in such a way as to give our veterans a chance to be successful, and it is also an indication of good administration over the years. In this connection I would like to sincerely compliment the people engaged in this work.
I would also like to mention the work done by the department in connection with small holdings and the encouragement of veterans in the building of their own homes. They have been able to save a great deal of money in this way, and I think it has worked splendidly in enabling them to become home owners for much less money than would otherwise have been the case.
I would like to deal for a moment with the Pension Act. I am going through these details rather hurriedly, as I do not wish to hold up the proceedings in the house, but I feel quite strongly, having been in contact with the department for many years, that it would be unfair of me not to take the first opportunity to commend the people with whom I have


been associated in the department on the wonderful job they have done. I think the veterans of our country and the people of Canada generally do appreciate the good work done by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Now in regard to disability pensions, I think the average member can have no conception of the amount of work done by the pension commission. Each case, of course, requires detailed examination and, although I do not say that pensions have always been granted where I personally may have thought they should have been granted, it has been the feeling of veterans that it is desirable to have the matter left in the hands of an independent pension commission which would not be under pressure from any person in government. In this way the matter is freed entirely from any question of political partisanship, and this is only fair to our veterans. This tradition has been established by the pension commissioners down through the years, and they have tried to do a completely non-partisan job. As a matter of fact I know that members sometimes get letters about pension matters from their constituents, who find it hard to believe that the member cannot in some way bring pressure to bear in this regard.
What the member can do and in fact does -and this is welcomed by the commission- is to bring forward all the facts and arguments he can on behalf of the veteran. My own experience has been that these cases are given very sympathetic consideration, but there the matter stops so far as any influencing of the commission is concerned. The tradition has been established, and they decide as they think right in the light of the terms of the act provided for them by parliament. I am sure the people of Canada and parliament would wish this to be so.
According to the annual report I see that disability pensions in force at March 31, 1957, numbered 54,400 with respect to world war I. Pensions paid in respect of dependents numbered over 15,000. Payments in respect of disability went to dependents numbering 69,400. The grand total in receipt of benefits totalled over 114,000. This is in respect of world war I. This involves a tremendous amount of work, and one wonders how the people who have done this work over the years have managed to accomplish as much as they have.
With respect to world war I, their numbers are unfortunately dwindling. I believe the falling off in the number of people in receipt of pensions with respect to world war I totalled somewhere around 2,000 during last

year. As the country sees the people who served it in war passing from their midst, I am sure they will be glad that at least as much has been done for them as has in fact been done; and will certainly feel that in all fairness if there is some further improvement which can be made it should be given sympathetic consideration.
With respect to world war II, of course, the department has been more active in connection with application for pensions and so on, and I see that the total number of pensions in force with respect to this war as at March 31, 1957, was 120,700. This again involves a tremendous amount of detail work, important as it is. I have not spent much time in dealing with the pensions received by men and their dependents with respect to service in the Korean war. I feel, however, in the light of our experience and the satisfaction with which the country has greeted efforts made on behalf of veterans in previous wars, that those who served in Korea will get at least as favourable consideration, if not better. The experience gained with respect to those who served in the previous wars will be invaluable in this regard.
I have not been able to deal in detail with the tremendous amount of work done by the war veterans allowance branch, but I find in the annual report that the recipients of war veterans allowances as at March 31, 1957 totalled 53,590. Here again I would like to pay tribute to the deputy ministers through the years, and particularly the former deputy minister, Walter Woods, for setting up an organization which has enabled all these matters to be dealt with in an expeditious and sympathetic way, and which has also enabled much of the red tape to be taken out of the administration of this department. This work has, I think, been very well carried on by the present deputy minister and the various heads of departments.
I have not done more than scratch the surface of this subject nor point out all the work done by the department, and I would apologize to those whose work I have not mentioned. I would commend to the members of this house a perusal of the annual report of the Department of Veterans Affairs so they may be made aware of the efforts of a very devoted department of our government.
I am sure the minister, having had long connection with the work for the veterans, the setting up of the veterans charter and the improvement of it from time to time, to which I know we are all devoted, has his heart in the making of this legislation as effective as it can be. I know he will want to see that it goes as far as it possibly can
Supply-Veterans Affairs to give expression to the feelings and desires of all our people to be fair to those who gave their services to their country in times of war. I extend to the minister and his associates in the department the very best of good wishes, and express the hope that the work which has been carried on so well up to now may be continued and improved in the years ahead.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, in rising to speak on the first item of these estimates I must again assure the minister of the support of this group for all his efforts on behalf of veterans, because we know that our cooperation in this respect will redound to the benefit of our comrades.
As a member of parliament I naturally take a very keen interest in the subject of veterans affairs, but I take a keen interest in it also for a number of other reasons. As one who was awarded the distinguished order of chattering teeth and quaking knees; as one whose father served in two world wars and at 82 kicked up a devil of a row because they would not take him as a quartermaster in the second world war; as one whose wife went to war with the old contemptibles as a nursing sister in 1914; as one who is the father of two daughters who served in the second war, and as the friend of many comrades in my own battalion and other battalions I have a deep, personal and abiding interest in this question.
Now, before proceeding with a few items of what I might describe as unfinished business, I want to express my appreciation of the work of the senior officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs including those delightful ladies, those charming senior officials who are so courteous and anxious to assist us and who, if they have not the information we seek, will usher us in the right direction to obtain the information. As the previous speaker said, I think this department sets an example for a good many other departments of government. This department is administered with every sympathy for the human beings those employed in it are trying to serve, and I feel that is generally recognized across the country.
I am going to make a sort of omnibus speech, Mr. Chairman, and I am going to save the time of the committee, as the previous speaker did, by taking the full time I have at my disposal.


Walter Adam Tucker: I did not do that, though.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am not going to deal with the Canadian Pension Act at this time, because Bill No. 38, to amend the act, will soon be before the house and we will have ample opportunity to bring its deficiencies to the attention of the minister when we discuss it.

Supply-Veterans Affairs However, I do want to deal with a number of matters. Some of them I have mentioned before, and I shall refer to them very briefly just to refresh the minister's memory so that when he gives consideration to amendments to veterans legislation he will have them all in order and in sequence.
With respect to the War Veterans' Allowance Act, I feel it should be amended to provide for certain unfortunate widows-and there are very few such cases-who are not married from the departmental point of view and who are not able to obtain the allowance because the husbands were not in receipt of the allowance before they died. I mentioned this on November 5, and my remarks will be found at pages 801 and 802 of Hansard of that date. I urge the minister to give some consideration to bringing in an amendment to correct that situation which will be of great benefit to those few people who suffer under the present terms of that section.
I want to bring to the minister's attention again the necessity for an amendment which would permit war veterans allowance recipients to leave Canada if their health required it, on the certificate of a departmental doctor *or medical officer. I am all for giving these war veterans allowance recipients the right to reside outside Canada for at least as long a time as that allowed the recipients of other welfare legislation. That is now possible. I do urge that consideration be given to this question. My previous reference to it can be found at page 801 of Hansard of November 5.
I also want to bring to the minister's attention the fact that there are quite a number of people in this country who think the veterans of the merchant navy have never received complete justice to date. They played a most vital role during the war, many of them suffering great hardship and danger, but they have been denied up to this time the benefits of the veterans charter. I urge that the minister consider an amendment to the War Veterans' Allowance Act that would bring them under this legislation.
I also think there is a necessity for an amendment to the act to provide for certain , dependent mothers not eligible at the present time. Here again these are rare cases where ' the veteran is the sole source of income for the mother concerned. I urge the minister to consider an amendment to the act to provide for those mothers who are at present destitute when their son, a war veterans allowance recipient, dies.
Naturally we support the constant Legion representations asking for an increase in the ceiling on permissive income to $1,200 for single persons and $2,000 for married persons. Those are the main things that require
attention so far as the War Veterans' Allowance Act is concerned. I hope when the minister replies he will indicate his attitude toward these suggestions for amendments which have come from the Canadian Legion and various parties in this house.
I wish now to deal with another matter that is of great importance to Canadian veterans and which is mentioned in the last brief presented to the cabinet by the Canadian Legion; that is, that the government give consideration to amendments to the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act. As far as I can ascertain this does not involve heavy expenditures, but it is a question of helping a number of children of war dead to secure a better education. In order to save the time of the committee and to be exact in presenting the case I am going to quote from the Legion brief, which says:
We have noted with some satisfaction the benefits which young people have derived from the above legislation in the last few years. We have also realized that the original act leaves out many children deserving of educational assistance. These groups, which we feel the provisions of the act should be extended to include, are:
(1)	Children entitled to receive pension because the father was in receipt of disability pension at the rate of 50 per cent or more at the time of death but whose death was not directly attributable to his service:
I know of a few cases that would be included if that amendment were provided. The Legion's request continued as follows:
(2)	Those children who are unable to pursue higher education as presently specified in the act and regulations but who take vocational and technical training to better fit them for employment.
I think there are more of those cases, but that does not necessarily mean any increase in expenditure. It does involve, however, a widening of the basis of the assistance, providing opportunities for boys and girls without academic qualifications but who want to learn trades and things of that sort; and if there is one thing we are short of in this country it is skilled tradesmen. Nearly every small community finds it difficult to secure people capable of doing electrical work, plumbing and carpentering and work of that nature. This provides an opportunity to correct that situation in the future by assisting those who would prefer to take technical and vocational rather than academic training. Because of the situation that exists at the present time the Canadian Legion recommends that the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act be amended to correct it.
I want to mention two amendments the Legion thinks are required in respect of the Veterans Insurance Act. This legislation has been of great benefit to veterans throughout
[Mr. Herridge.l

the years. First of all they ask for an extension of the application date for veterans insurance. The brief has this to say:
Unless a veteran of world war II still has reestablishment credit his opportunity to apply for veterans insurance was cut off on December 31, 1954, or 10 years after discharge, whichever was the later. Veterans of world war I were given 15 years, following cessation of hostilities, in which to avail themselves of similar protection.
I think that is a very reasonable request. I am one of those veterans who came back after the first world war concerned about re-establishing myself, regaining my health and things of that sort, and looking after a young brood of children. I did not realize for four or five years the advantages of this veterans insurance, but when I did realize it some years later I took out a policy because I was permitted to do so by the extension of the time limit. These veterans are growing older; they are accepting their responsibilities, and more and more they realize the advantages of this act. I do urge the minister to consider an amendment that would extend the date for application. The Legion brief bears out what I have to say in that connection, because it goes on to say:
Many disabled veterans seeking to provide security for their families, denied them by ordinary insurance, have found that their right to apply for veterans insurance has lapsed. There is no valid reason why the same privileges which were extended to world war I veterans cannot be made available to world war II veterans. The fact that this exists for those with re-establishment credits indicates its administrative acceptability.
As I said before, veterans more and more recognize the benefits they can obtain by taking out policies under this act, and I do urge the minister to repeat the procedure which was followed after the first world war. It is on this account that the Legion recommends:
That the government of Canada amend the Veterans Insurance Act to extend the date of application for world war II veterans to December 31, 1960. Comparable treatment should be accorded Korean veterans.
The Legion suggests a second amendment to the Veterans Insurance Act respecting disability pensions, section 10(1). It has this to say:
Widows of disability pensioners are deprived of the full effect as beneficiaries under the Veterans Insurance Act because they may receive less than the full death benefit of the policy. Technically, the veteran is charged with knowledge of this provision, but there is grave doubt that all understand its practical application. This is a violation of the accepted concept of life insurance.
The Legion therefore recommends:
That the government of Canada amend the Veterans Insurance Act to eliminate this section.
The minister will recall when we discussed this section of the Veterans Insurance Act. At that time he took exactly the same
Supply-Veterans Affairs stand we and other opposition members in the committee did. We took the stand taken by the Canadian Legion at that time, that the act should be amended to eliminate this discrimination. I ask the minister to give that his consideration.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am still of the same
opinion I had then.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We are making these representations in this form because we know the minister is of the same opinion. We just want to back him up to the fullest extent.
I now want to say a word or two about the Veterans' Land Act administration, which has been very successful across this country. A good many veterans in my constituency settled under the provisions of this act, the greater number under the small holdings section of the act, but we also have a number settled on farms. I must say that in my conversations with veterans generally I find they much prefer to come under the jurisdiction, or the administration, of the Veterans' Land Act. It is for that reason that quite recently the national council of the Legion urged an amendment to bring part II of the Veterans' Land Act under the complete control of the Veterans' Land Act administration.
There is no question about it, the veteran does not like being transferred to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. They tell me in good numbers that under the present circumstances their application under part II is made through the Veterans' Land Act administration and is serviced in that way. Then when it comes to later administration, collection, advice, suggestion, and all that sort of thing, they are transferred to the jurisdiction of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. As a result of past experience, and because the departmental officials are sympathetic, they would very much prefer to remain under the Veterans' Land Act.
Mind you, when you read the figures in regard to collections under the Veterans' Land Act you find that the country does not suffer because of any deficiency in this respect. Because of the particular approach of the officials of this department and their knowledge of veterans problems, the veterans in Canada, generally speaking, would like under part II to come under the administration of the Veterans' Land Act. I would like to hear from the minister in this regard when he replies at the conclusion of this debate.
The Legion at a recent council meeting also asked for a reduction of the interest

Supply-Veterans Affairs rate to 3 per cent. In my opinion, and I think in the opinion of members of our group, the small holdings section of the Veterans' Land Act is one of the finest pieces of housing legislation we have in Canada, and we would like to see its principles extended to a much wider section of the population. We believe there is nothing better you can do to lay a sound foundation for good homes and well brought up families than by making provision for good housing.
I also want to make what I was going to say is my annual plea-it is now a perennial plea-for a reduction in the acreage required to qualify under the small holdings section of the Veterans' Land Act. Generally speaking it is ridiculous. If the land is valued at over $500 an acre, then it is 1.6 acres. I would admit that the officials of the Veterans' Land Act administration do everything possible to assist the veterans and make allowances for certain circumstances, and so on, within the terms of the law and the regulations.
As far as our district is concerned-and I know it applies to a good number of other districts in Canada-land for this purpose amounting to 1.6 acres, or three acres in larger areas, is not available because of the topography of the country. Right in my constituency there are still 200 veterans of whom I have knowledge who are being denied the opportunity to build under the small holdings section of the Veterans' Land Act, because they must get at least 1.6 acres which is valued at $500 an acre, or three acres if the land is of lesser value.
I do urge that consideration be given to reducing the acreage to the former half acre. In my district the majority of those men are working for the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, or are working in the mines, in the lumber mills or in the sawmills. I know from experience that if a veteran has a good home and half an acre of good land that is all he can look after. That half acre of good land is of great assistance in reducing the cost of living, particularly for the younger veteran raising a young family. I do urge consideration of a reduction in this acreage.
In conclusion I want to mention one other group which I think is being overlooked. I refer to the approximately 400 members of the Canadian overseas firefighter corps. We had this out in the veterans affairs committee years ago. The minister was very frank in expressing his opinion concerning these matters, along with a good number of others in this group. He was just as indignant as we were that they were not included in and given the benefits of the veterans charter legislation.
[Mr. Herridge.l
We all remember that When evidence was being given to the committee at the time on that particular point we were told, I think on very sound grounds, that these men were promised the benefits of the veterans charter and of the veterans legislation prior to leaving for Canada. At this time there are only approximately 400 of them in Canada. You will find them scattered all over the country. A few of them are serving in various fire brigades.
I do urge that consideration be given to the very reasonable case that has been advanced for the consideration of these men under the legislation provided for veterans in this country.
Those are the particular pieces of unfinished business that I wanted to bring to the attention of the minister and the committee. I will have a few things to say about hospital administration, admissions and things of that sort, and there are also a few other matters I wish to raise, but I will bring those up under the appropriate items.
Finally may I say there is no question that throughout the years there has been a continual improvement in veterans legislation, and we must give great credit to the major veterans organizations, the Canadian Legion and the national council of veterans, for that improvement. Those organizations have constantly paid attention to the needs of veterans and the legislation required to meet those needs. They have brought them to the attention of members of parliament and the veterans affairs committee when they had the opportunity, and have informed us very fully from time to time.
We recognize that we have some of the finest veterans legislation in the world, but I trust the government will give favourable consideration to the suggestions for amendments to remedy certain deficiencies in our legislation which will be brought to the attention of the minister by various members in this debate. We have done so well up to now, and the cost of what we may have to do in the future is very small in relation to the total cost at the present time. We can achieve so much with so little. I am not going to go further into what we should do, because the hon. member for Selkirk will be our second speaker on item 1 and I am going to leave him to deal with that question.


Mr. Quelch:: Mr. Chairman, at the outset of my remarks I want to assure the minister that he will at all times receive the sincere co-operation of the members of this group in his endeavours to improve veterans legislation. I think we are fortunate in having

very fine personnel in the Department of Veterans Affairs but, of course, they can only go as far as the legislation permits them. I also find that when I hear criticisms of the Department of Veterans Affairs they should in reality be criticisms of certain pieces of legislation they have to administer, and I am sure the minister will endeavour to bring down legislation from time to time to improve the operation of the department.
I think the minister has done very well so far. He has brought down amendments to the War Veterans' Allowance Act which have been a substantial improvement. We also have amendments to the Pension Act. I think those amendments should go considerably farther, and I will have something to say on that later.
On November 6 the minister stated that it was his intention to set up a veterans affairs committee at the next session of parliament with power to review all veterans legislation. That is a most pleasant departure from the past practice whereby the veterans affairs committee has been tied down to very narrow terms of reference. We have just been allowed to consider the specific piece of legislation referred to the committee.
I am hoping that when the minister decides to set up the committee on veterans affairs he will set it up as a standing committee. There has been a demand from veterans organizations and members of the house for a number of years that the veterans affairs committee be a standing committee. It would not involve any increase in cost to the government, and it does seem to me that is one of the recommendations of the veterans organizations the minister could very well carry out.
I want to turn now to the Pension Act. The hon. member for Kootenay West stated that we would have an opportunity to discuss the Pension Act when the bill was before us, but the bill has a number of specific amendments in it and as the matters I want to bring up are outside those amendments it would not, strictly speaking, be in order to bring them up when we are discussing the bill on pensions.
Let me make it clear that the criticism I have to make is not in any way a criticism of the pension commission; for, as I have already said, they are tied down by the legislation, and I think certain changes are necessary in order that a wider interpretation may be given in certain matters regarding pensions.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
Supply-Veterans Affairs AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Chairman, the sections of the Pension Act to which I wish to refer are sections 13 and 70. Section 70 used to be section 62. There has been a great deal of discussion concerning these two sections in former veterans affairs committees. The minister and his colleague the Minister of Public Works have been quite eloquent in their pleas to get amendment to these two sections.
Section 13 deals with disabilities of preenlistment origin. We in this group have always taken the stand that a veteran's condition as recorded on his medical sheet at the time of enlistment should be regarded as his true condition, and that no attempt should be made to refuse a pension on the ground that the disability arose from a condition recorded some time prior to enlistment. We might have a case where a veteran was in hospital five or six years before he enlisted, and he was discharged as being cured. Later, when that record is looked up, the stand is taken that the condition for which he is seeking a pension actually arose out of the condition he had at the time he was in hospital and for which he was discharged as being cured.
The Legion has taken a similar stand. I notice that in the brief they presented to the cabinet last fall they recommended that section 13 (1) (a) of the Pension Act be amended so that where a pension applicant who has served in an actual theatre of war is found to have a disability resulting from injury or disease not recorded on his medical examination prior to enlistment, such injury or disease shall be presumed to have incurred or had its inception subsequent to enlistment. All I am going to say is that I hope the minister will give very careful consideration to that section, to see whether or not it might be possible to get a little closer to that principle.
I have often heard people criticize the pension commission for the decisions that they bring down in relation to that section. I would say that in the vast majority of cases it was not the pension commission that were to blame but it was the wording of the section. I do not believe we can hope to have any improvement in that matter unless we have an amendment to section 13 along the lines suggested by the Canadian Legion.
The other section, section 70, is I think far more important. You may say that it is the veteran's last resort in so far as getting a pension is concerned. There has been a lot of discussion about this section in the

Supply-Veterans Affairs veterans committee. I recall that in 1948, I think it was, the late member for Lanark, Dr. Blair, moved an amendment in order to try to get a wider interpretation of the benefit of doubt. His amendment was to strike out the words "is entitled to draw"

perhaps I had better read section 70:
Notwithstanding anything in this act, on any application for pension the applicant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, which means that it is not necessary for him to adduce conclusive proof of his right to the pension applied for. but the body adjudicating on the claim-
Here, I should like to interject that the words used to be "is entitled to draw". Those are the words which the hon. member moved to strike out in committee.
-shall draw from all the circumstances of the case, the evidence adduced and medical opinions, all reasonable inferences and presumptions in favour of the applicant.
The hon. member moved that the words as I say, "is entitled to draw", be struck out. I was very sceptical as to whether or not that would make any difference because the words "shall draw" were in the act before and I could not see how the words "is entitled to draw" could affect the words "shall draw". However, the committee felt that it might be an improvement so the committee voted to strike out the words. The minister expressed approval of that amendment. I still claim section 70 is not wide enough. I am not quarrelling with the interpretation of the pension commission. I claim you will never get satisfaction from section 70 until the pension commission are given wider discretionary powers. The trouble is the pension commission have not the discretionary powers necessary to give a soldier a fair deal.
I am going to cite one case. I do not like citing cases, but in view of the fact this case has received a great deal of publicity through the Veterans' Advocate of November issue, I think it is well to read it. The minister can then say whether or not the explanation in the Veterans' Advocate is fair. Let me read it:
Another matter which needs urgent attention is a confirmation of the obligation to give the veteran always the benefit of the element of doubt. Especially in the case of death by cancer. As we write we have before us the history of a Winnipeg veteran whose widow and children have recently been denied a pension. This man suffered gunshot wounds in his back during world war II. He was discharged with a 30 per cent disability. As the years passed his back began to bother him. After many medical examinations it was finally discovered that a soft-nosed bullet still was embedded near his spine. This was finally removed in 1949. His condition continued to deteriorate until he died in 1956 from cancer, which the autopsy report stated was very widespread. There was no positive proof that this disease was caused by gunshot wounds, but there also is no positive proof that


it was not. There definitely was proof of negligence inasmuch as the bullet in question was not discovered for several years. We realize that should this widow be granted a pension it might pave the way for many other claims. However, we contend that the element of doubt is there and that a pension should be awarded and that the act should be changed to strengthen claims where such doubt is present.
As I say, I do not know whether or not that is a fair description of the case, but if that is a true description then I believe the majority of the members of the house would agree that the widow should receive a pension. It may be that the doctors were of the definite opinion that that man died from cancer, and that his condition had not been affected by the bullet being embedded in the back near the spine for six years, but as I understand it the medical profession is not too certain as to the actual cause of cancer. Is the medical profession in a position to say that the fact the bullet had been embedded in the back for six years could not have had some effect upon that veteran's condition? I doubt it.
But even so, and granting that the medical doctors of the commission were justified in ruling that there was no doubt in this case that the man had died from cancer and the fact he had had a bullet in his back had nothing to do with that cancer, nevertheless I say in the light of all the facts of this case as disclosed in this article, the widow should receive a pension because for six years that man had a bullet in his back and his condition was deteriorating. Surely, the very least we could do as a form of compensation would be to award the widow a pension today. I say, therefore, what we need today is an amendment to section 70 to give the pension commission wider discretion. I am sure if the commission had it in their power to give the widow a pension, they would do so but they feel, under the terms of the section they are not able to do so. I say let us amend section 70 in such a way as to give the pension commission a greater discretion in such matters.
I now want to turn to the Veterans' Land Act. I have been somewhat concerned over the number of veterans who have been settled under the act and who are leaving the land. These veterans are not by any means misfits. They are not men who have failed. I would say that in the majority of cases the veterans who are leaving the land are men who are highly efficient and ambitious but who are not prepared to see their families continue to be obliged to live under the present low standard of living when they know very well that if they leave the farms and go into the cities they can greatly improve their condition.

I have followed a number of these cases through where men who were having a hard struggle on the farms left the farms and went into the city. I find that in the majority of cases those men have done extremely well. In my opinion a person is making a big mistake when he thinks that when a veteran or any other man leaves the farm today it is because he is inefficient or a misfit. That is not the reason. The reason is that they are ambitious, especially for their families. The other day somebody told me, "A man must have a love for the soil to carry on on the farm". I say that a man must have a greater love. His first love should be for his family. If that man knows that by continuing on the farm he is not going to be able to give his family the standard of living they deserve, his love for the soil will have to take second place to his love for his family.
I therefore think the officials of the Veterans' Land Act should do everything they can to help veterans to make the necessary financial arrangements to pay off their land and to leave the farm if they so desire because I do not believe you can ever hope for a soldier settler to be successful on the land once he desires to leave it, once he is no longer satisfied, or once his family is no longer satisfied.
I am suggesting that the officials should not try to stop him from leaving. We have now reached the stage where many veterans are now able to get clear title to their equipment and their livestock and many of them are able to make some financial arrangements whereby the amount remaining owing on the farm can be paid off. In some cases they assign their pension. In other cases they will assign the amount they receive from the farm to the Veterans' Land Act administration. Where satisfactory arrangements of that kind can be made, where a settler is desirous to leave the farm I think it would be a great mistake for the officials to try to put anything in the way of his leaving the farm.
After all, it must be remembered that most of the veterans who settled under the Veterans' Land Act had limited capital. In many cases their operations today are not large enough to give them the type of standard of living which they would be able to obtain if they went into another walk of life. Mind you, I am not criticizing the Veterans' Land Act. I think it is a good act. Unfortunately the situation that exists is that agriculture today is a distressed industry. Whether a man be a returned man or a civilian, if he is on the farm today in the majority of cases he is having a struggle to 96698-107J
Supply-Veterans Affairs keep his head above water and at the same time maintain a standard of living that he deserves.
I want to say a few words with regard to the soldiers who settled under the old soldiers settlement act. It will be remembered that for a number of years the late member for Battle River, Mr. Robert Fair, used to introduce a motion to give clear title to veterans who had settled under the old soldiers settlement board. He received a very sympathetic hearing from the members of this house but no action was taken to give them a clear title, although I think we must agree that the government was quite considerate in cutting down the amount owing by those veterans. After all, the purpose of the soldiers settlement act was to try to re-establish these veterans within a period of 25 years. We find that 50 per cent of those veterans failed to become established. Today, 38 years after the veterans were settled under that act, we find there are still 39 veterans accounts unsettled, with an average debt of $616. I suggest to the minister that we could very well, at this late date, wipe out those accounts entirely. These veterans are getting old. They have not many years to live. They would like to have a clear title to their land. I think the least we could do now is to say to them, "We realize that you have had a struggle; you have stayed on the land and we are going to wipe out what you owe".
The other matter to which I should like to refer is the merchant seamen. As I understand it, today the only merchant seamen who can come under the Veterans' Land Act are those merchant seamen who are in receipt of a pension. I want to refresh the minister's memory with regard to the attitude taken by the veterans' affairs committee in the past during the war in connection with the merchant seamen. I have here a copy of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the special committee on land settlement of veterans of the present war for the sitting on June 23, 1942. We had Mr. Arthur Randles, director of merchant seamen, Department of Transport, before us. This is what he said:
-it is recommended that Canadian merchant seamen be permitted to participate under the land settlement arrangements, provided that their record shows they have served for an appreciable period in dangerous waters or zones during the present hostilities, and I would suggest that a period of three months' service might be taken as a guide to determine their eligibility to participate. This is in line with the general requirements for the issuance of a merchant navy badge. In any case, under circumstances where a Canadian merchant navy badge is not issued, evidence of service in hazardous zones can be provided by the seamen's discharge documents.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
I just want to quote what the minister of veterans affairs at that time had to say with regard to this question. Hon. Ian Mackenzie stated as follows:
My own opinion is that the men of the merchant navy are entitled to any and all of the privileges which anybody else serving in this war overseas or elsewhere gets. As I see it, they are twice as much in the line of fire.
The committee discussed that matter at some length. Later the minister said he thought it would be a mistake to allow the merchant seamen immediately after the war to be eligible to settle under the Veterans' Land Act because he said these men are needed on the sea. But he said at a later date that we might be able to change our decision in that regard. I would ask you to mark well the report that was made with regard to that matter and dated July 7, 1942:
That at a later date this act-
That is the Veterans' Land Act.
-be so amended as to make provision for persons having had service on ships, who are not in receipt of a disability pension.
I do not think anybody can argue today that we should not allow merchant seamen to come under the Veterans' Land Act for the reason that they are needed on the sea. Today we seem to have a number of surplus seamen, especially when we transfer Canadian ships to foreign registry. I think the minister might give that matter consideration and see whether or not it would be possible to make merchant seamen who had service in a danger zone eligible to come under the Veterans' Land Act. I am not suggesting that they should come in as full time farmers, but it would be of tremendous help to these men if they could take advantage of the small holding section of the act and perhaps have a small holding alongside the sea coast and possibly continue with a certain amount of fishing.
I see that my time is nearly up. I hope the minister will also give that matter his careful consideration so that at the next session when the veterans affairs committee meets he may be in a position to recommend some action be taken in that regard.
The only other matter to which I want to refer now-and it is one that I do not think I could raise on any other section-is the question of the aged veteran. I want to commend the Department of Veterans Affairs for their sympathetic attitude toward the aged veteran. I have received from veterans a number of applications or requests to try to find jobs for them. They have said, "We do not want to have to apply for the war veterans allowance; we would like to get

some work. Could you get us a job perhaps with some department?" I have taken the matter up with the Department of . Veterans Affairs. They have sent a counsellor over to interview the man and in the majority of cases they have found ways and means by which that man could be employed. In some cases they have recommended that he make application to the corps of commissionaires. I think it is called the Canadian corps of commissionaires.
In that way they have been able to get employment. There is one thing I would like to ask the minister to explain. I have looked at the report of the Department of Veterans Affairs and there is a reference to this corps; it states it does not receive any subsidy from the government. I wonder if the minister would explain how this corps is financed; how many offices it has across the dominion, and what connection, if any, there is between the Canadian corps of commissionaires and the Department of Veterans Affairs.


Mr. MacRae:: In rising to speak for the first time in this house, Mr. Chairman, I would first like to pay a tribute to the hon. minister who heads the department and whose estimates we are now considering. The hon. minister is spokesman for the province in which we are now living, but he is also a veteran of distinguished service to his country, firstly as an officer in the New Brunswick fighting 26th battalion during world war I; secondly, he has rendered continuous service between the wars in the militia of this country; thirdly, he served throughout the whole of world war II, and now lastly on account of his record as a member of parliament for 22 years. During this period he has been almost continuously a member of the veterans affairs committee. His record is there and it speaks for itself.
It has been said that the Canadian veterans legislation is the best in the world. I think we all agree with that, Mr. Chairman, and it is a tribute to all of those who have served in the previous parliaments of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Chester MacRae: In my opinion it is also a great tribute to those who have served in another organization the name of which I have heard mentioned very often in our deliberations on the War Veterans' Allowance Act. The name of the organization to which I refer, of course, is the Canadian Legion which, for the past 30 years, has played such a vital part in guiding, advising and helping the government in its decisions with respect to veterans legislation. Like many who returned from this last war-and for that matter from the first world war-and being

grateful that I had been spared to come home to my family, I determined that I would try to help those with whom I had served and their dependents. In the Canadian Legion I found the vehicle through which I could work. That organization has given outstanding help to the veterans and in the past score of years the leadership which it has attracted on its top level has been invaluable; I refer to such men as Alex Walker, Basil Price, Lionel Baxter, Alf Watts and Dr. Lumsden. Alex Walker, indeed, spent the full five years of the war here in Ottawa so that he could be near to the government and assist them in their decisions concerning war veterans' welfare. Dr. John Anderson is another man whose name I should mention and now David Burgess. All these men have given service of the highest calibre. The Legion is a big organization of more than a quarter of a million men and women. It is unfortunate that all the veterans of this country do not belong to the organization in order to give it even greater strength but we must not, of course, minimize the fact that there are other veterans' organizations. However, the Canadian Legion is the spokesman and has been the spokesman for the veterans.
In my own work as provincial president for that organization and also as a member of the dominion council I had the opportunity on two occasions to appear before members of the previous government, the government which was headed by the right hon. gentleman who is now the Leader of the Opposition. I would like to say that when we appeared with our briefs no group could have been received more kindly or more courteously. The representations of any group could not have been listened to with more attention than the representations made by the Legion on behalf of the veterans. I just wanted to pay that tribute to the right hon. gentleman and to his former colleagues.
That the work of the Department of Veterans Affairs was of considerable standing and would be projected far into the future was brought home to me very forcibly not very long ago when I read that recently the last pension attributable to the war of 1812 had just been paid in the United States. It seems rather amazing that it would last that long, that there would still be someone who was pensionable from that war. It therefore is likely that the task of the Department of Veterans Affairs will go beyond the time of any of us here today, even taking into account the hope, which I am sure is shared by all of us, that we will never have another war.
I recently had an opportunity to converse with the senior officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs, along with other members of the department, many of whom are
Supply-Veterans Affairs here today with the minister. I was amazed at the scope of the work they are now doing. When we realize there are 190,000 active pension cases coming under the Canadian pension commission, that the war veterans allowance department has over 57,000 active cases; that the Veterans' Land Act deals with over 58,000 cases and that there are over 10,000 men and women in our hospitals under active treatment, we realize the tremendous scope of the work of this department.
I do not wish to take too long because I realize this house wishes to get on with the estimates and not to be held up, but I would like to speak about two or three things in connection with veterans legislation. To my mind, one of the finest acts that was ever passed in this house was that passed in 1953, namely the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act. I say this because that act provided for the children of those men who had given their lives in world war II or who had since died from their wounds. There is, however, one regrettable feature in this respect, in that it took eight years from the end of the war before the act was passed and undoubtedly many youngsters during that period did not have the benefit of this legislation. I particularly recall a case in the city in which I live, the city of Fredericton, where a man who had served as a sergeant in world war I and in world war II was back in the forces because he was determined to be there. He served as a major in the regiment in which I also served and gave his life on D-day on the shores of France. He should not have been there, of course, and they did everything to keep him from going, but he was determined to lead his company on the shores that day and he was killed.
Now this man left two children and by 1953 the children had already received their education with the help of their widowed mother and also with some help from the Legion, from scholarships and bursaries. As I say, it is regrettable that we cannot undo the past; it is regrettable the act was not implemented at the end of the war.
I would like to speak for a moment about the benevolent funds. The story of the canteen fund of the first world war is not a happy one and perhaps through mismanagement or lack of wisdom the fund was rapidly depleted in many provinces. Those who emerged safely from the last war when the funds of the canteens and messes were frozen had the benefit of that experience and the benevolent funds of the army, navy and air force were set up. It seems to me they have been most wisely administered. I can speak from personal experience especially about the army benevolent fund.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
I can well remember at the dominion conference of the Legion in 1946 sitting on a committee that considered very seriously how this fund would be administered. The present deputy minister if I remember correctly was a member of that committee. Over the years the fund which at that time, if I am not mistaken, was something like $7 million has been most wisely administered and has served an extremely useful purpose.
The hon. member who spoke just before I rose referred to the corps of commissionaires and addressed several questions to the minister. I would not attempt to speak for the minister but since I wanted to discuss this question too my remarks may be of assistance with respect to one or two of the problems raised because I have been deeply interested in the corps of commissionaires.
The corps of commissionaires is administered by a board of governors, in the case of our own province a board consisting of 40 men who serve without remuneration of any kind and are the guiding body for the corps. In the case of our province perhaps the most distinguished member is the lieutenant governor of New Brunswick, himself a war amputee as a result of service in the first world war and a man keenly interested in the welfare of his comrades and their dependents. The corps is non-political, nonpartisan and non-profitmaking. It has no connection in that manner with any other organization. The governors arrange employment for the members of the corps. They are suitably uniformed and it seems to me that only the highest calibre of man is attracted to this corps.
I know of a very fine man in my own community who served initially in the Boer war and then in world war I and finally in world war II. The amazing thing is that he was granted his commission in world war II. I do not know just how old he is but it does not matter because he is still a young looking and active gentleman. I believe there is no finer example of a serving commissionaire.
Perhaps I neglected to say that five cents per hour is deducted from the fee which industry pays to the board of governors for the services of the men in the corps and that money is used for administration purposes, uniforms and certain other things. This splendid oragnization provides those men who do not wish to accept charity an opportunity of working and earning a decent living. The government of this country spends many millions of dollars annually in the interests of the Canadian people but I submit there is no group in this great country that is more worthy of consideration than

those who served and the dependents of those who served when Canada was engaged in the terrible conflicts of this century.
It is and has always been a source of great satisfaction to me to be able to express words of commendation to the Department of Veterans Affairs and as a veteran I can say to this department-and as Canadians we all can say this-"Well done, good and faithful servants."


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my general support of the recommendations contained in the brief recently submitted to the government of Canada by the dominion command of the Canadian Legion. I should like in particular to express my unqualified support of their recommendation with respect to Newfoundland veterans which reads as follows:
The Canadian Legion therefore recommends that a change be made in the Pension Act to make clear the status of these Newfoundland veterans in accordance with the spirit of the negotiations leading up to the terms of union and with the intent of the legislators as reflected in the other legislation quoted above.
I was very pleased to find that the brief dealt with the special problem of Newfoundland veterans at some length as found at pages 10, 11 and 12 of their submission. I do not intend to repeat the arguments to be found here which are almost indentical with the statements I made in the house as reported at page 914 of Hansard of November 8. However, I believe it would be useful and convenient, not only to hon. members of this committee but to those of the public who read Hansard if I were to place on the record the relevant sections of the legislation referred to in the Legion brief. The relevant section of the Canadian Pension Act is section 13, subsections 5, 6 and 7 which read as follows:
Section 13-
(5)	For the purposes of sections 50, 51 and 52, domicile in Newfoundland shall be deemed to be domicile in Canada.
(6)	A member of the naval or military forces of Newfoundland in world war I or world war II shall be deemed to be a member of the forces for the purposes of this section.
(7)	A British subject resident and domiciled in Newfoundland at the time of enlistment who served in the naval, army or air forces of His Majesty or in any of the naval, army or air forces of any of the countries allied with His Majesty during world war II shall be deemed to be a member of the forces for the purposes of this section, if the disability in respect of which the application is made is not pensionable by virtue of subsection (5) or (6).
The Canadian pension commission has interpreted these sections to mean that Newfoundland veterans are no different from Canadians who left Canada to enlist in the

Imperial services and therefore they cannot be treated as if they had served in Her Majesty's Canadian forces as stated in the opening paragraph of the terms of union on which it was intended the status of Newfoundland veterans under confederation would be based.
Hon. members will recall that the opening section in the terms of union relating to veterans stated that Newfoundland veterans would be treated on the same basis as if they had served in the Canadian forces. In contrast, when we examine other legislation we find that this interpretation is expressly written into the act. For example the relevant section of the War Veterans' Allowance Act is section 30, subsection 11 (a) which reads as follows:
-for the purposes of this act,
(a)	the expression "Canadian forces" includes any forces raised in Newfoundland and "domicile in Canada" and "residence in Canada" include respectively domicile and residence in Newfoundland, whether before or after the union of Newfoundland with Canada.
The Veterans Rehabilitation Act is even more explicit. The relative section of this act is section 6 (1) which reads as follows:
For the purposes of sections 7, 8, 9 and 11, a Newfoundland veteran who has been discharged shall be deemed to be a veteran as defined in section 2.
Section 2 reads as follows:
In this section the expression "Newfoundland veteran" means a person who served on active service.
(a)	in any of the naval or army forces of Newfoundland or having been recruited in Newfoundland in any of the naval, army or air forces raised in Newfoundland by or on behalf of the United Kingdom; or
(b)	in any other naval, army or air forces of His Majesty and at the time of his enlistment therein was domiciled in Newfoundland; or
(c)	In any of the naval, army or air forces of the nations allied with His Majesty in active operations against the enemy in world war II, if he was domiciled in Newfoundland at the time of his enlistment therein and was domiciled and resident in Newfoundland within two years from the date of his discharge therefrom or the 8th day of May, 1945, whichever is the later.
It will be seen that the status of the Newfoundland veteran is very clear in the definitions set forth in the Veterans Rehabilitation Act and in the War Veterans' Allowance Act, but when it comes to the Canadian Pension Act there is some ambiguity. I should like to join with the hon. member for Acadia in urging that either the Canadian pensions commission be given greater discretionary powers or that the relative sections be amended to clarify the Pension Act to bring it into line with the other two acts and in line also with the intentions of the legislators, as set forth in the terms of union.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
At this time I should also like to support the recommendations of the Canadian Legion with respect to the merchant navy. I have already referred to this group, as can be found in Hansard of November 6 at page 823. Hon. members will have received a further brief from the Canadian merchant navy veterans association, and I should like to join with the other members who have supported the requests contained in this brief.
The basis on which a war veterans allowance is paid is the theory that a veteran who served in His Majesty's forces is burnt out by reason of his services in comparison with those who did not serve. I am sure that this theory can be with equal validity applied to the merchant navy as to any other of the three services. These people suffered severe casualties, as I pointed out before. In some settlements in my district the casualties in the merchant navy, the numbers actually killed, were far in excess of those of any of the other services, and in some instances even in excess of the three services together. These merchant navy veterans underwent all the hazards of war, including gunfire, aerial bombing and torpedoing and, as a result of their misfortunes they often had to suffer the hardships of being left in the sea for hours on end, floating around in cold water, in shark-infested waters, or drifting for days in the ocean in very small boats.
I am sure everyone will agree that hardships of this kind must tend to shorten a man's life and make him age much more rapidly than would normally be the case. I strongly recommend that the minister consider the claims set forth in the brief of the Canadian merchant navy veterans association that the burnt-out pension be extended to veterans of the merchant navy.
I agree with the hon. member for Acadia that there is no good reason now why the merchant navy veterans should not have some of the benefits of the Veterans' Land Act and also civil service preference. I strongly recommend this to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I know that he cannot do a great deal at this moment, but very soon he will be considering his departmental estimates for the coming year, and I do hope he will be able to bring down at the next session the necessary changes in veterans welfare legislation to implement the recommendations of this brief and that he will find it possible to include the necessary provisions in his subsequent estimates.


Mr. Bryce:: My colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay West, dealt with a great many of the problems the veteran has today and I am not going to touch on these. It seems to me that when we begin to talk about veterans affairs the chips drop off everybody's
1682	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs shoulders and everybody is ready to agree with the other fellow because it is something that is really needed.
The hon. member for Kootenay West dealt with some of the amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act. The first one was to benefit certain married women. The second one had to do with residence outside Canada. The third one dealt with certain dependent mothers, and then there was the increase in the ceiling up to $1,200 for single veterans and $2,000 for married veterans. Then, there was the inclusion of the veterans of the merchant navy. He talked about educational assistance, amendments to the Veterans Insurance Act and to the Veterans' Land Act, improved hospital treatment regulations and many minor adjustments. Therefore, I would be taking up a lot of the time unnecessarily if I repeated these things, because I believe in the thoughts that he expressed when he was speaking on this matter.
There is one thing that I do want to ask the minister about and that is this. When a veteran becomes mentally ill and is taken to a hospital and remains there for some considerable time does he get his pension while he is there, or what part of it does he get? Should the veteran get better, does he get what is coming to him when he leaves the hospital? If he dies, does the remainder that is left at the hospital revert to the crown?
I should like answers to these questions because I want to relay the answers to other veterans in Manitoba. I support the hon. member for Acadia in bringing up the soldier settlement problem. I think he said there are only 39 left now. We who farmed through the bad years must realize the hell they went through trying to keep body and soul together. I have a lot of these farms in my constituency and it must have been known from the time these men went on the land that it would never be possible for them to make good. They have not got clear titles yet, and if there are only 39 left I appeal most sincerely to the minister to give them a clear title because they deserve it.
There is another matter that has been brought up repeatedly in past years. I refer to the firefighters. I know that the minister is familiar with the matter because he has been here longer than I have. I feel quite sure he knows the story, that General Lafleche said they would be taken care of, but very little has been done for them. I think that they should get some consideration. I have a letter here from the president of the firefighters association in which he says:
Our overseas firefighters in Winnipeg number 25 and we are in constant touch with members in the other provinces and no doubt you may hear from their respective members of parliament in our favour . . .


That is the other matter I wanted to bring up and I ask the minister to give it some reconsideration. I have also had some correspondence with the minister about some people who wrote me concerning Deer Lodge hospital. The gentleman I spoke to last about it wanted to know if the government was getting so hard up that it had to collect $500 a ward to establish wards. The minister was good enough to take up the matter. However, we have never got to the bottom of it and I should like to get to the bottom of it. Moneys are voted here in parliament for Deer Lodge hospital and why the hospital should need to ask organizations for donations merely so that the organization can have its name given to the ward I do not know. The minister can tell me about that when he is answering all the questions.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is one of the largest departments of the government and is asking for a budget of approximately $250 million this year. I brought in a resolution last year seeking the establishment of a permanent committee on veterans affairs. It was only before the house for one day and 19 members spoke in the debate, 20 including myself. Only two were against the resolution. Everybody else was in favour of it. I think such a committee is just as much needed this year as it was last year.
The argument has always been put up that a special committee of the house can be set up any time it is needed. I have now sat in the house under four ministers of veterans affairs, the late Hon. Ian Mackenzie, the Hon. Milton Gregg, the Hon. Hugues Lapointe and now the present minister. These hon. gentlemen could be classed as professional soldiers who knew as much as any other veteran knew.
Veterans affairs are going to continue to be with us, but the type of man who will head the department will change over the years and that is the reason I am so anxious to see a permanent committee on veterans affairs set up. Some day in the near future the head of the department will be a civil servant but not necessarily a veteran. A minister who has never seen active service can never be expected to understand the problems of the veteran in the same way as one who has had that experience.
May I say here, to make sure that I am understood, that I have nothing whatever against the people holding the various jobs in the department today. Over the years I have been here I have got to know them personally. They have become intimate friends of mine and I have repeatedly gone to them for advice in cases that have been brought to my attention. But the men who are

there today are going to come to the end of the road soon and we are not going to have veterans in these positions. The sooner we get it in black and white that we will have a committee every year the better it will be for everybody.
Our veterans, including those of world war I and world war II, constitute a significant proportion of the total Canadian population. We have only to remind ourselves that 66,651 lost their lives in the first world war and 44,891 in the second world war. Furthermore, such a committee would facilitate the presentation of veterans problems by the Canadian Legion and other recognized organizations in Canada. Often in the past there have been times when there has been no committee on veterans affairs with the result that important problems affecting veterans and their families did not receive the proper airing to which they were entitled.
The Department of Veterans Affairs acts in an administrative capacity in dealing with veterans problems. Competent as the department may be in this role, the fact is that our veterans require additional attention which is beyond the scope of the administrators in the department. If a permanent committee were established and if it sat every session it was required parliament would be in a much better position to determine when changes in veterans legislation were required.
I feel sure that a veterans affairs committee dealing with these matters from year to year would be able to see that the legislation passed for the benefit of veterans was maintained and used for the benefit of veterans. Only by having a permanent veterans affairs committee of the house, which can keep close to the needs of the veteran, are we going to get the kind of administration the veterans should have.
I am pleased to learn from the minister that he is going to set up a permanent veterans affairs committee at the next session of parliament. I want to congratulate the minister on making this decision. I may say to the minister that my resolution is on the order paper and when it comes up for discussion I will let it stand and drop it to the bottom of the list. The minister will make many veterans happy across this broad dominion. The Legion asked for a permanent veterans affairs committee and I have their request here. When the Minister of Public Works spoke last spring he quoted the resolution passed by the Legion at their convention in Vancouver in June, 1956. As found at page 951 of Hansard for Feburary 4, 1957, it is in these words:
Whereas the government has not seen fit to appoint a committee on veterans affairs during the present session of parliament:
Supply-Veterans Affairs
Whereas problems are continually arising concerning the Pension Act, War Veterans' Allowance Act, et cetera:
Be it resolved that this convention make representations for the appointment of a permanent standing committee on veterans affairs to which all such problems would be referred.
I am sure that everyone is going to congratulate the minister for making such a bold move. I know that when he was on this side of the house he gave full support to such legislation as we tried to get passed. It has been an uphill fight to try to get that but I do not for one minute think the minister will go back on me now. He told me he would do this, and I am withdrawing my resolution knowing full well that the minister will keep his word.


Frederick George Hahn: I should like to be associated with those who spoke so kindly of the work of the department and with respect to the operations of the department itself. Certainly the spirit of co-operation we have had has been excellent. I may say that the Legion members in my area are very appreciative of it. I think the veterans are extremely fortunate to have a minister sympathetic to their cause. Those of us who have been on the special committee on veterans affairs and in the house in former years recall so well how frequently he spoke on behalf of the veterans. I am satisfied that if it is at all possible to have certain legislation introduced that would assist the veterans even more, he will do his level best to attain that end.
I speak at this time to give my measure of support to any legislation the minister may propose so that any influence we might have may result in such legislation finally being brought about. The hon. member for Selkirk just mentioned the resolution he had calling for a standing committee on veterans affairs. I hope the minister will be able to carry out his desire and introduce legislation next year to bring about such a committee. Last year when the hon. member for Selkirk introduced his resolution I was one who spoke in favour of it. I certainly have not changed my mind in the meantime. I was very pleased the other day when the minister, in speaking on veterans affairs, indicated that he, too, was going along with the idea.
There are two particular matters about which I want to speak today. One of these matters was touched upon only slightly when we had the bill on war veterans' allowance before us. I refer to the submission in the Canadian Legion brief respecting merchant seamen. At that time I indicated to the house that I could not recall the merchant seamen being represented before the committee, but apparently on June 7 and 8, 1954 a representative of these seamen was before

Supply-Veterans Affairs the committee. He drew their problem to our attention. The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo has spoken on this question on more than one occasion, and I would certainly concur with him and with the hon. member for Acadia and others who have spoken on behalf of the merchant seamen. I feel that their case is deserving of every consideration.
I find I am not alone in my thinking. The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo had a brief from these merchant seamen and I do not know whether or not he has the same information I have but certainly some of us received a copy of the brief. I do have a facsimile of a letter signed by J. G. Diefen-baker. This letter was written on March 2, 1948 and it is addressed to A. J. Heide, secretary-treasurer, Canadian Merchant Na' Veterans' Association, Montreal. It reads:
Dear Mr. Heide,
I thank you and your association for your letter of February 24th.
I will bring the case of you veterans to the attention of the house when the veterans committee is set up.
Those that won the "Battle of the Atlantic" deserve to receive the same treatment as other veterans of our country.
Again thanking you for your letter, I am,
Yours sincerely,
J. G. Diefenbaker.
I realize that the Prime Minister was then a private member of the house, but I feel sure he has not changed his sentiments, at least, I hope he has not. If he felt the merchant seamen were deserving at that time of being included in and given the same rights and status as veterans, then I think their case is just as commendable today and possibly even more so when we see so many of these merchant seamen in the difficulties in which they are today. I find, sir, that this question of assistance for merchant seamen is not a thought that was just brought hastily to the attention of this house at this time, nor is it something about which former governments were not made aware. I have information that the Hon. Brooke Claxton, who was minister of national defence in 1951, received representations from this same association asking for inclusion of merchant seamen in the veterans' legislation. Later Hugues Lapointe, who is not with us now, received such a request. In fact, he gave some recognition to it by introducing the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act, under which the children of merchant seamen were eligible for assistance. Then, the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount, who was minister of transport at the time, came to Vancouver last year and was met by representatives of the seamen's union. They approached him with the same plea. It seems that cabinet


ministers were quite approachable, but they never saw fit to introduce the legislation to which all of us were sympathetic.
I believe Canadians as a whole feel quite badly about the fact that some men who suffered just as grave hardships as anyone else during the war years, and who should be entitled to assistance under the War Veterans' Allowance Act and other veterans' legislation, are denied that opportunity now. I am satisfied quite a number of families and young men gave up their lives in the struggle for the Atlantic. They are memorials to the fact that these people certainly did undergo every hardship that one could picture. For that reason, I would plead with the minister to give them the consideration they warrant.
As recently as June of this year the plight of the merchant seamen was drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister when he was in London. I have here a facsimile of a letter in which he replied to their request for some consideration.
While it was not so straightforward in its reply as was the former one, certainly it would give one hopes that the door was not shut and that the present minister would see fit to do something about it. I recognize that the Minister of Veterans Affairs is sympathetic to their cause. As I said earlier, I mention the matter with the hope that he will draw to the attention of his colleagues in the cabinet the need for the inclusion of these merchant seamen. The fact that so many members of the house support this plea might make it a little bit easier for him to get the inclusion of these merchant seamen past the treasury board so that something could be done to assist them.
The other question that I have in mind is one which I consider is a serious one. In fact, it arises out of a letter to a news editor which appeared in the Western Producer of April 4, 1957. It is signed by Kenneth Winter, Merid, Saskatchewan. The charges in this case, to my mind, are very serious and I believe that they should be given further consideration, possibly with a view to discussing the matter with the officials of the Saskatchewan government in order to see whether something could not be done to assist these people or to prevent what this war veteran charges is actually taking place. I am not going to read the full letter because some of it is not too complimentary to the present C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan. The pertinent part of it reads as follows:
However, in Saskatchewan where they are in control,-
That is the C.C.F.
-their attitude in dealing with their own tanners is slightly different. Saskatchewan crown land

is leased to veterans on long term leases, also to non-veterans. The federal government through the V.L.A. extends assistance to veterans to purchase machinery to break and work this land. The veteran pays a smaller than usual share of crop as rental directly to the Saskatchewan government. Also, contrary to the usual procedure where the landlord pays the taxes, the veteran is responsible for taxes. Thus the taxes are actually part of the rental. If the farmer has a total crop failure, naturally that part of the rental which is crop share would be nothing, but the taxes still are required to be paid.
Thus the veteran really has a cash rental in the form of taxes to pay even if he doesn't harvest a bushel. Last fall, every holder of a veteran's lease on crown land received a letter from the Saskatchewan government (the landlord), stating emphatically that if any rural municipality reported taxes unpaid on a veteran's lease, the government would automatically cancel that lease. This is the most vicious system of merciless collection in existence. I do not believe any other landlord but the C.C.F. government could get away with it-a cash payment on the barrel head every year, crop or no crop. After years of picking rock and clearing and breaking land, a crop failure or delivery restrictions could cause a veteran to fall behind on his taxes-then, wham, the landlord (the C.C.F. government) cancels his lease and unless the unfortunate veteran could get more land to farm, no doubt he would lose his machinery to the V.L.A.
It is much easier for a veteran to lose his lease than for an established farmer to lose his land through the tax enforcement act, by which a tax lien must first be filed. This winter all holders of grazing leases on crown land who owed all or part of the 1956 rental, received a letter stating that as their rental was six weeks overdue, their leases would be cancelled unless the department heard from the renter within 30 days.
It carries on further but that is all it has to say with respect to the veteran and this particular problem. I would urge the minister and the department officials-


Mr. McCullough:: I wonder if I might ask the hon. member from what document he is reading?


Frederick George Hahn: As I said earlier, I am reading from a copy of a letter which was reproduced in the Western Producer open forum, Regina and Ottawa. It is a letter signed by Kenneth Winter, Merid, Saskatchewan and apparently dated April 4, 1957.
I recognize that the municipality must get its taxes as must any government. I am not suggesting for one moment that the Saskatchewan government should necessarily pay the taxes to a municipality for a veteran who is not in a position to do so. There is a definite problem there. But I feel that it is up to our Department of Veterans Affairs which has authority in this matter to discuss it with the officials of the Saskatchewan government in order to see whether we cannot work out a scheme whereby this matter could be settled more amicably.


Mr. MacDonald (Anligonish-Guysborough):: Mr. Chairman, this is going to be a wee speech. May I join with other hon. members
Supply-Veterans Affairs in extending congratulations to the Minister of Veterans Affairs on the excellent manner in which he and his officers are administering the Department of Veterans Affairs.


Mr. Mclvor:: Might I ask the hon. member a question?


John Augustine Macdonald: Yes.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Why does he appear today in the national costume of his youth?


John Augustine Macdonald: What is that again? Why do I appear in the kilt today?


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Yes.


John Augustine Macdonald: I will come to that matter just in a moment or two.


James Sinclair: Will you answer that question "What is a kilt?" That is something we should all like to know.


An hon. Member:: Is it true what they say about Scots in kilts?


John Augustine Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, already today I have had quite a few questions on the kilt, but I cannot let them go into Hansard.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. member who spoke immediately before the hon. member who just sat down and whose speech indicates that he comes from the land of the heather. I refer to the hon. member for Selkirk.
Today is the eve of the feast of St. Andrew, patron saint of Scotland, and of all sons of Scotland throughout the world. Tomorrow Scots everywhere will follow the skirl of the pipes and the swirl of the kilt to partake of the traditional food of our ancestors-the haggis. Then will follow the songs of the immortal Robert Burns and others equally renowned; and the highland fling, sword dance, seann thruibhas, followed by the oft-repeated stories of our ancestors until the wee small hours of the morning.


Mr. Ashbourne:: I would like to add my voice to those who have already given their congratulations to the hon. minister upon his appointment as Minister of Veterans Affairs and I feel sure that under his capable guidance the veterans will be well looked after. I also wish to thank him for the amendments he has already brought before the house, particularly those affecting Newfoundland and to add at this time my support to the arguments made this afternoon by my colleague, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, a veteran who served in world war I and also in world war II.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
I also had a copy of this brief forwarded to me by Mr. W. R. Martin, the provincial secretary, Newfoundland Command of the Canadian Legion, British Empire Service League. I will not go into this in detail as was done by my colleague, but would like to say that it has my heartiest support and that I trust the minister will, either by regulations or if that is not possible, by necessary legislation, satisfy the arguments contained in this brief. I particularly hope that he will introduce before this house such legislation as will put the veterans of Newfoundland on a par with the rest of the Canadian veterans. I know at the time when veterans affairs were considered by those who arranged the terms of confederation with Newfoundland in 1947 and 1948, it was recognized that there would no doubt be certain items which would come up in future years and which would have to be straightened out. I feel sure that the hon. minister, who comes from one of the Atlantic provinces, will recognize the claims of Newfoundlanders in this regard and I think we can rely upon him to do anything necessary in order to solve the problems faced by those in that part of the country.
Before I sit down I would also like to indicate my support with those members who have already spoken on the matter of the merchant marine. Coming as I do from Newfoundland and living close to the Atlantic ocean I feel we are in a position to know the great work those men performed in peacetime, and particularly in wartime, in keeping open the channels of transportation by which we have been able to provide the necessary food to keep our population from starvation. I cannot speak too strongly in support of all necessary measures which can be taken in the interests of the veterans and merchant marine and if the minister feels there is any additional legislation which should be brought before this house I feel sure it will be given very sympathetic consideration.


Mr. Broome:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to join in paying tribute to the hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs. His regard for veterans has been well known over the period of his service in this house and I know his sincerity and good will is unquestioned. I feel sure he has the support and confidence of all veterans organizations.
There are, however, two matters which I would like to bring before the committe which have been spoken to by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo and the hon. member for New Westminster, and which concern nearly all members who come from seaports or from areas adjacent to the seas which


border this land. This first subject to which I refer is the merchant marine.
I do wish the minister would take into consideration those men who in their service have battled a battle with no time out. I refer to the battle of the Atlantic which did not stop; there was pressure all the time and danger all the time. Their casualties in proportion to their numbers were, I believe, as high as those suffered by any of the fighting services in the second world war and his late majesty, King George VI, recognized the courage and devotion of the merchant marine by designating it the merchant navy, and gave it the distinction of being called the fourth arm of the fighting forces. These men received no re-establishment grants, no V.L.A. payments or gratuities but they gave outstanding service. I do not think it is fair to consider them in the same category as the firefighters or to say that the minister will have opened the door for a large number of other groups to receive the benefits of the War Veterans' Allowance Act. I think the merchant seamen could quite rightly be classed in the same way as the veterans of the army, the air force and the navy.
As I said when I commenced to speak, there is a second point about which I would like to say a few words and that is, if you will permit a little pun, rank discrimination. These remarks have to do with that part of the Pension Act which deals with what are called supplementary pensions. As is well known, Canada had no air service before or during the first world war and therefore a Canadian who desired to join a flying service had to join one of the imperial forces either the Royal Naval Air Service or the Royal Flying Corps. If he was an officer in the Canadian forces he was, with the consent of his commanding officer, seconded for duty with either of the above mentioned flying services, retaining the rank he held in the Canadian forces but in all other respects taking a junior position in the new services. He was paid by the Canadian government at a consolidated rate of pay, equal to the rate of pay in the new service. On the return of this officer to Canada he was treated entirely as a Canadian, both for the purposes of gratuity and pension. If pensioned he could draw such either in or out of Canada and he would not come under supplementary pension regulations.
Now if you compare the seconded officer's position as set forth with that which would apply to an individual-not an officer-who was in the ranks of the Canadian army and wished to join the same flying service, this individual would, with the consent of his commanding officer, be discharged from the Canadian army and would then be taken on

by the imperial flying services and commissioned. After his service and on his return to Canada he would be treated as an imperial in regard to gratuity and pension and would be allowed to draw Canadian rates of pension upon proof of residence in Canada at the date of August 4, 1914. He could draw the supplementary pension under the act only if he continued to live in Canada, and not even medical opinion would suffice to allow him to go abroad to live and still receive it.
As 1 said before, that is rank discrimination. The same treatment should be accorded to the non-commissioned officer or the private who joined the Royal Flying Corps or the Royal Naval Air Service as would be accorded to him if he had held a commission and had been seconded to those services. I do wish the minister would take this matter into consideration. I do not believe it would involve a great deal of trouble to recognize the facts; there cannot be too many people concerned but it is not right to leave things in that way.


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Chairman, I am going to be very brief in my remarks. We have a problem which concerns veterans in Medicine Hat and as a matter of fact it is the number one problem there in so far as the veterans and the branch of the Canadian Legion are concerned.
This problem arises out of the offering for sale of houses in what is known as the Medicine Hat project No. 38 which is 100 per cent occupied by veterans. These sale prices were set at an amount almost 100 per cent of the initial cost in spite of the fact that these are frame buildings and are almost 10 years old.
Now the total cost including payments for land and so on, according to information I have received from one of the departments here was, $722,114 and, also according to this information, the anticipated recovery from the sale of these houses is $710,500, or very nearly 100 per cent of the initial cost plus the cost of the land, which of course would have to be paid to municipalities as soon as they are sold. This does not, however, take into consideration the fact that $365,000 has been paid in rentals during the period from 1948 to 1957. Surely any reasonable person would have to agree that there must be some depreciation on a frame building over a ten-year period.
Having had to pay 100 per cent of the initial cost this deal ties the veterans down for the next 25 years at these high prices and with a 6 per cent interest rate.
I will admit, as the veterans do, that the maintenance, appearance and general value
Supply-Veterans Affairs of these buildings has been kept at a high level during these years but I would like the members of this committee to know that the main reason for this is that the veterans have taken money out of their own pockets to pay for interior decorating, landscaping and in fact everything that was necessary in the way of maintenance with the exception of major replacements such as a hot water tank or some other significant purchase.
I do not want to speak on this subject at great length because I intend to bring it up in more detail when the estimates of the Department of Public Works are brought in. Since this is a matter that is of concern only to veterans I would urge the Minister of Veterans Affairs to look into it. I would like him to study the picture, the arrangements for financing over the 25-year period and the other details and then decide if he thinks it is fair to ask these veterans to pay back all the money that was expended to construct the project. They have regularly paid their rent throughout the years and as I said this amounted to $365,000 so it is obvious that there is a substantial profit some place. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation advise me they are not actually making a profit on these buildings but they have not as yet been able to show me what has happened to the $365,000.
On June 11, 1956, an hon. member asked what was the amount of expenditure on the upkeep of this project for painting, repairs, etc. up to March 31, 1956. The answer was $17,995. It was also asked what was the cost of administration up to the same period and the answer was $22,350. This represents only a very small portion of the $365,000. I realize of course there was some interest that had to be paid on the original capital investment but even with a reasonable rate of interest and taking into consideration the maintenance and administration the cost would not come anywhere near the amount that was paid in rent. There must be a profit some place but I do not know where. If Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has not made any money on this project then one can only conclude that some money has been transferred. I do not know where it has been transferred to, but I think a large part of it should be applied to depreciation. If that were done the asking price for these houses could be lowered. This would satisfy the Canadian Legion and the veterans who are living in these houses.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say only a few words at this time but before doing so I wish to express my appreciation to the officials to the Department of Veterans Affairs. In the short time I have been here
1688	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs I have referred a number of problems to them and have been extremely pleased with the kind reception I have received.
I would like to refer for a moment to the work that is being done under the Veterans' Land Act and the amount of information and assistance that is being given to young farmers under this act which is certainly appreciated by the farmers concerned. I think it would be advisable for the department to again take a look at the prices that are being paid for land because in some cases the prices that are being offered by the department are unrealistic in my opinion. However, it may be that revaluations have not been made to date but are in the process of being made.
Another matter the department should keep in mind is one I raised previously regarding insurance for service personnel. I believe we should adopt a system similar to that used in the last war by the United States government of carrying an insurance policy of $20,000 to $25,000 on service personnel so their dependants would receive some assistance in the event of the death of a veteran or one who is hurt or maimed during hours when he is not covered, at the present time, by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Certainly all Canadians are proud of what we were able to give our service personnel following the war in terms of the equality we were able to establish between what they had before giving their service and what they received upon return to civilian life. We would like to constantly improve conditions for our service personnel and this could be done quite effectively if the government would put into the pay structure an amount to cover the premium on a paid-up insurance policy on a term basis of $20,000 to $25,000. For instance, in the case of one of our service personnel serving in a foreign country who was killed in an automobile accident while off duty, the adoption of such a plan would provide his dependants with something to tide them over in that time of need. It may be argued that this is not the responsibility of the government and that the service personnel are aware of such eventualities and should make provision accordingly, but this thought is of small comfort and no compensation to the wife and family of a member of the services who dies in circumstances such as those I have outlined. I urge the minister to give consideration to this suggestion and I would hope that it would be adopted.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister one question. Will the government consider the granting of pensions without a means test at age 60 to veterans who have served in active warfare?


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, I have several observations to make with respect to veterans legislation. I realize the desirability of proceeding as soon as possible with the consideration of the actual estimates. However, I might just mention several matters with respect to veterans legislation. I believe that the veterans across the cor itry are experiencing an increased sense o. satisfaction with the legislation which is being brought in from time to time, much of if to clear up some of the ambiguity that existed. Other measures were introduced to close some of the gaps in the legislative program, and I do know that the veterans are very pleased with the interest taken by members of parliament in these particular matters.
I should like to refer once again to the position in which some of the veterans find themselves when, although they are in receipt of war veterans allowances, they are not able to supplement their income through casual earnings. There are various factors which contribute to this situation. It may be a health factor, or else the economic situation of the area in which they are residing, and they find it impossible to supplement their incomes in any other way. These veterans are still finding themselves in a very serious position economically, and I feel that real consideration should be given to the matter to try to improve the lot of veterans in this category. I believe there is disappointment over the fact that there is no increase in the basic pension; but there are several other factors which I would like to mention in connection with pensions. One was raised by the hon. member for Acadia. It was the Legion's request as follows:
Where a pension applicant who served in an actual theatre of war is found to have a disability resulting from an injury or a disease not recorded on medical examination prior to enlistment, such injury or disease shall be presumed to have occurred or had its inception subsequent to enlistment.
Now, I feel in this particular respect many of the veterans are suffering from a very serious injustice. I believe that the Legion is taking only a very sensible attitude to the situation in making the request that this particular matter be clarified. I am not saying that the pension board would deliberately use this particular loophole to deprive an individual of his right to pension or the benefits that should be his; but I do feel that the legislation should be opened up to the extent that the pension board itself possibly could exercise more initiative and consider the applications on their merits rather than just being held to a strict and severe interpretation of the letter of the law. This is one of

the matters which I would bring once again to the attention of the minister and his department.
In connection with the awarding of pensions, I have been approached by at least one of my constituents not too long ago relative to this very matter. An application has been made but time has slipped by for months, in fact for years, possibly, and then finally the pension board awarded the pension to the individual but there is no provision for a retroactive award. I do not think it is quite fair that a person who qualifies for benefits in this way should be placed in the position where, after a period of months or even years, he loses the benefits because of the fact that the particular application had not been processed satisfactorily up to that time. I do feel that this matter should be given consideration. I know that the Legion in their brief refer to this matter as well. On page 14 of the brief presented to the Prime Minister of Canada and the cabinet by the Canadian Legion we find section 7 dealing with retroactive awards. The Legion says:
We would advocate that it be made mandatory that when a decision is given favourable to the veteran, pension will be paid as of date of application.
The brief goes on to record the possible difficulties of establishing whether or not the person is eligible, but once he is declared to be eligible, then I feel the award should be made retroactive. I believe the Legion is very modest in its request in this regard because, on page 16, it states:
This provision shall not apply to claims granted prior to January 1, 1946, and no retroactive payments shall be made for a period prior to that date.
It just means that the applicants who made their applications back at that time have no means of redress, and apparently they are just out of the benefits. However, I do trust that the minister will give his attention to this matter.
These are the only matters to which I wish to call attention at this time, Mr. Chairman. The rest can be dealt with as we proceed with the estimates.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Chairman, I shall be exceedingly brief this afternoon because two of my colleagues have already spoken at some length in putting before the committee the pleadings of this group in regard to this very important matter. However, I should like to express my feelings in regard to one very important aspect of pensions for veterans. I have had a number of cases brought to my attention having to do with the failure of a veteran to receive a pension Eor service owing to the fact that he could lot prove that his disability occurred during
Supply-Veterans Affairs service. I want to add my voice to that of those hon. members who have already seen fit to bring this matter to, the attention of the minister.
The hon. member for Kootenay West said earlier today that it would not take too much money to give further justice to the veterans of the first and second world wars. Many of the injustices of the past have been cleared up but I think, sir, that one of the most important things is the psychological effect on a veteran who has given service to his country, has come back and is unable to care for himself and his family when he finds that for some reason he is not eligible for a service pension. On occasions it has been pointed out to me that such a veteran, if he is indigent, can apply to the commission and get the war veterans allowance. I think, sir, that justice comes first and if the veteran has served, as have the individuals who have been brought to my attention, and for whom I have been fighting with the commission to try to get some type of eligibility for pension, then he should receive a pension. I do not think it is sufficient to say that that man can get war veterans allowance in lieu of entitlement to a legitimate veterans pension.
The point is this, Mr. Chairman, as is well known by all members in the chamber. If a veteran enlisted in either world war I or world war II, was classified as A-l and then was discharged, not demobilized, with a disability, surely it must be admitted that the disability was due to service and the onus of proof must be on the pension commission to prove that the disability was not in fact caused by his service. That is the point I wish to make.
I have some case histories here and I should like to refer to one. I am not going to use the veteran's name, but this man enlisted and after examination by specialists was given an A-l category. He had service in the first great war. When he was discharged he was in E category. It is well known that with an E category he should have been automatically boarded for his disability, but this veteran has been fighting to try to get a pension for his disability. He was discharged because of arthritis of the spine. His medical case history indicates that the disease or injury was arthritis of the spine, that the place of origin was unknown and the date of origin was unknown.
Surely we as members of the house do not have to continue to fight for justice for such veterans. I hope that the rumours I have heard are true that the government in the future will be more tolerant towards veterans making application for pension. I hope that members will not have to fight interminably

Supply-Veterans Affairs for such veterans. If a veteran had an A-l category when he entered one of the services after inspection by the medical officials and came out with a low category which necessitated his discharge, surely in the name of justice such a veteran should get a pension.
I only hope that very soon all the outstanding cases that come before us and the pension commission will receive justice, that the onus of proof will, if necessary, be placed on the commission rather than on the veteran to prove the disability and that justice will be given to such veterans.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I wish to say a few words in answer to the questions raised by different hon. members. First I want to thank them most sincerely for their very kind remarks with reference to myself and particularly with reference to my staff. I wish to thank the hon. member for Rosthern. I think he was the first to mention this very important matter, and I can assure him that the feelings he expressed regarding my staff are the same as my own and for the same reason.
The hon. member for Kootenay West and the hon. member for Acadia, who have been in the house for many years and have been members of veterans affairs committees with myself, made, along with others, many recommendations. I appreciate very much the recommendations that have been made. They are not new. They have been made many times before. It simply goes to show that veterans problems are always with us and that while we may make amendments to the legislation at one session or in one year there is still unfinished business which has to be dealt with later.
The hon. members mentioned particularly the merchant navy and the firefighters. The hon. member for Kootenay West, the hon. member for Acadia and also the hon. member for Selkirk, who has been in the house for a number of years, will remember that these problems were discussed on numerous occasions in the past. When the veterans charter was being considered we had the advice of many veterans organizations across Canada. The merchant marine representatives and also the representatives of the firefighters appeared before us.
From conversations I have had with some of the new members I am of the opinion that many of them think there is is no legislation dealing with the firefighters and the merchant marine, but I should like to point out to them that in the firefighters act, which they will find in the veterans charter, many benefits have already been bestowed upon the firefighters. The same applies to the merchant marine and a number of other groups which were also considered at the same time.

One of the great problems we have encountered, and which was encountered when I was a member of the committee, is the fact that neither the merchant marine nor the corps of firefighters were considered to be part of the armed forces, and some of the advantages and benefits which they are asking now were denied them and have been denied them throughout the years on that account. That is a problem which still requires considerable attention and discussion. It is one of the matters which should claim the attention of a veterans affairs committee when such a committee is set up.
I want to assure the hon. member for Selkirk that it is my intention to have a veterans affairs committee set up at the next session of parliament. I made that very clear, I thought, when the war veterans allowance amendments were before the house a short time ago. I believe the hon. member for Acadia also mentioned section 13 of the Pension Act which has to do with pre-enlistment disabilities. This is also a subject which has been discussed in the house and in the committee on many occasions and it also requires further study. There is also the matter of the benefit of the doubt. The hon. member for Acadia will remember that we did not spend hours but days discussing this matter when it was before the committee in days gone by, and in his opinion and the opinion of many others it is still a matter that is not settled. Certainly it is not settled to the satisfaction of a great many and will still require attention.
The hon. member for Acadia spoke about the case of the widow in Winnipeg who should, in his opinion, receive a pension. I am sure he will be glad to know that the chairman of the pension commission will be pleased to look into the matter and give it further attention. I was very pleased to hear some hon. members give praise to the administration of the Veterans' Land Act. I have heard considerable praise of the administration of the act and I may say I was very pleased about two weeks ago to have the opportunity to meet the district superintendents from all across Canada, the men who are responsible for the administration of the act throughout the dominion.
Judging by the calibre of the men who came here to Ottawa three weeks ago, I would say that the administration of this act was in good hands all across this country. It is known to me, and I think it is known to hon. members here that the men who have settled under the Veterans' Land Act are taking a very leading part in the communities in which they live. We are very proud of that. They are certainly making a great contribution throughout this country.

There was a question asked regarding the corps of commissionaires by the hon. member for Acadia. The corps of commissionaires is an independent body, with its own board of directors, and it operates within all provinces. The hon. member for York-Sunbury, who was an executive of the Canadian Legion, was quite correct in his explanation. The commissionaires are employees of the corps and not of the government. The government employs some commissionaires, as a matter of fact about 50 per cent of those who are employed. In the case of private employers the rate is set by arrangement between the corps and the employers. When the government employ commissionaires, the rate is set by the treasury board on the basis of the prevailing rate for that area. I believe the rate differs across Canada and in some sections it is lower than in others. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that explains to hon. members the situation with regard to the corps of commissionaires.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo mentioned the Newfoundland problem. This is a problem which is peculiar to Newfoundland, and it is one which is being studied at the present time and one which will have to be very carefully studied when the committee is set up.
The hon. member for Selkirk brought up the question of the mentally sick. He asked if pensions were paid during mental illness. They are paid, and they are used for the benefit of the dependants of the mentally ill person.


William Scottie Bryce: If the patient is receiving a pension when he goes into hospital, does he get the whole of the pension or just a percentage of it?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The whole of the pension is paid.


William Scottie Bryce: He gets the whole pension?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes. The hon. member for New Westminster mentioned the merchant seamen. I might say in that connection that there is no one who appreciates what the merchant seamen suffered and the contribution they made to the winning of the war more than I do. We know of the terrific hardships they experienced, and we know also of the heavy casualties which they suffered. The hon. member for New Westminster asked for a further study of the situation concerning children of the war dead, and I can assure him that will be done. I believe the hon. member for Vancouver South was also interested in the merchant seamen. The hon. member for Medicine Hat mentioned the sale of land under the Veterans' Land Act, and
Supply-Veterans Affairs this is a problem to which we shall have to give careful study before I can make any definite statement.
The hon. member for Timiskaming mentioned the Veterans' Land Act and I wish to thank him for the praise he gave the administrators of that act. He spoke about the information and assistance which was given to young farmers. He thought the price paid for farms was continually rising, and this is a matter, of course, which would have to be looked into. The hon. member also mentioned the insurance on serving personnel. This does not come under the Department of Veterans Affairs, but under the Department of National Defence.
I do not wish to take any more time. The individual items will be considered, and if there are any more questions which hon. gentlemen wish to ask we will do our best to answer them.


Ernest James Broome: The minister did not comment on the question I raised concerning the enlisted men who had been discharged to serve in the royal flying corps as compared with officers who had been seconded.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Will the hon. gentleman be satisfied if we write and give him the full explanation? There is quite a long story to that.


Walter Adam Tucker: It might facilitate the passing of the actual items of the estimates if the minister were to indicate whether or not he is recommending these estimates as they are found in the blue book or whether he is making any changes. If he finds the estimates satisfactory and there is no waste or extravagance, and is recommending them as they were brought in by the previous government and as studied by the estimates committee, then that might facilitate their passage. These estimates are very familiar to the members of that committee.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I might say to the hon. member that I am recommending them as they are set out in the book. So far as waste and extravagance is concerned, at the beginning of his speech the hon. member wanted to know from me whether or not I considered there was waste and extravagance in the department. I might say at once that I have not found any waste or extravagance, but T did not expect to find them in this department. This department deals almost entirely with pensions, war veterans' allowances and many thousands of things which the hon. member mentioned in his speech. There is not any chance for waste and the money spent for our veterans could not in any way be considered waste or extravagance.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
So far as the construction of our buildings is concerned, that is another matter altogether. This is looked after by another department and I have no intention of answering so far as that is concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Treatment services-
500. Operation of hospitals and administration, including authority for payments, during the current and subsequent fiscal years, to canteen funds of departmental hospitals in amounts equal to the amounts of commissions received by or on behalf of Her Majesty from pay telephones in such hospitals, $44,368,445.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I do not intend to delay the committee long but I want to raise a matter that I promised certain patients of Shaugh-nessy hospital to raise, certain veterans I have met, certain dependants who have written to me about this matter and certain Legion members who were at Legion meetings and who discussed it while I was present. I understand that under our regulations certain veterans, other than those who go into hospitals for their war disabilities and those in receipt of war veterans' allowance, are entitled to enter our hospitals provided they make certain satisfactory arrangements in relation to their financial circumstances. I understand if a veteran cannot meet the regulations of the department, then the officials-I know they do their best in this respect-make every effort possible to see they are properly provided for under the auspices of the provincial authorities concerned.
This matter first came to my notice when I was visiting Shaughnessy hospital when a number of patients took strong exception to the fact that they had comrades knocking on the door who could not get in because of the regulations while male immigrants were receiving hospital services, dentures, glasses and all other things that were required and certain female immigrants and children were getting a sort of out-patient service. We know that these people must be cared for but I remember very well when the late Hon. Ian Mackenzie dedicated Shaughnessy hospital and spoke at the opening of the hospital. At that time he said that this hospital was built to serve the needs of the veterans and the men who fought for this country. I am not blaming the minister or the department for these circumstances but I take strong exception, as do a good many Canadians, to the fact that there are veterans who fought for this country who are in needy circumstances and who, under our regulations, can be denied admission to veterans hospitals. I will admit


arrangements will be made with the provincial authorities to care for them. We know that people who are ill must be cared for.
I understand that the department-and I judge this from some conversations that I have had at lower levels-rather reluctantly complies with the wishes of the immigration department. This matter that arose in Shaughnessy hospital came to a head, shall I say, rather as a result of the influx of Hungarians whom I prefer to call on the whole freedom seekers. I met some of the boys in there and they are quite stirred up about the matter. One of them told me that there was actually in the hospital a patient who had fought against this country, while he had a chum who needed treatment but who could not get in under the regulations. I think the situation should be the other way around. I think our immigration department should make arrangements with the provincial authorities and other hospital institutions for the care of those people because they pay for those services and that not a single needy veteran who requires treatment should be denied treatment in a veterans affairs hospital in this country at this time. These hospitals were erected and are maintained for that particular purpose.
I could speak at considerable length on this matter because I have had a good many representations in connection with it. I am rising to bring this matter to the attention of the minister at the request of some of my comrades in British Columbia and in my constituency. I should like the minister to inform the house of the numbers of immigrants who have been admitted to veterans hospitals in Canada during the past year and the numbers of Canadian veterans who have been denied admission under the regulations, and of the arrangements that are made by the immigration department for these free services to immigrants.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am rather surprised to hear of this complaint from Shaughnessy. I think I can assure the hon. member immediately that there were no veterans refused admission to Shaughnessy hospital. That is my information. As to the number of Hungarians admitted, we have not that information before us, but I will get it and see that the hon. member receives it. However, I know that in the Ste-Foy hospital in Quebec a request was made that some of the Hungarian immigrants be admitted to the hospital and I know that every care was taken to see that our veterans were not denied beds in that hospital before any Hungarians or any one else was admitted to the hospital. That is the policy of the department. This is my first information

Supply-Veterans Affairs
that the policy has not always been carried out. However, if the hon. member will supply us with the particulars we will certainly see that there is an investigation in this connection.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask the minister a further question. Do I understand him correctly that no needy veteran- that is needy from a financial point of view -will ever be refused admission to a veterans affairs hospital in Canada?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: No eligible veteran.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Pardon me; a distinction is made. What does the minister mean by the term "eligible"?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Under our treatment regulations provision is made for eligible veterans.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is my point. There are veterans who are not eligible under our regulations, and who can be denied admission at the present time. I suggest that no needy or destitute veteran in Canada, regardless of the present regulations, should be denied admission when we can make provision for other persons.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous payments-
510. To provide for payment to the last post fund: for the payment under regulations of funeral and cemetery charges, including the perpetual care of graves where applicable; for the cost and erection of headstones in Canada; for the maintenance of departmental cemeteries; for the maintenance of Canadian battlefields memorials in France and Belgium and for Canada's share of the expenditures of the Imperial war graves commission, $1,378,800.
William Arnold Peters: May I have from the minister an explanation as to what extent this item 510 applies, the extent of funeral plots under perpetual care, the extent of headstones that are erected across the country and what are the requirements for obtaining those.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Does the hon. member refer to the last post fund?


William Arnold Peters: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The Last Post Fund Incorporated. This vote covers certain expenses incurred by or provided for by the Department of Veterans Affairs in respect of burials and memorials. An explanation of the various administrative functions, cost of which is provided for herein, is as follows. The Last Post Fund Incorporated operates under a dominion charter for the purpose of preventing the burial of a veteran in a pauper's grave. Veteran, for the purpose of the regulations, means a former member of our armed forces. There are certain amounts paid. As to funerals and cemetery charges, under the veterans
burial regulations the department is authorized to arrange and pay for the funeral and burial of certain veterans who died while on treatment strength of the department, but only when no other person or agency will accept final responsibility therefor. For a funeral, the department may pay an amount not exceeding $175 for the services of one funeral director or $225 when the services of two funeral directors are necessary and are provided. In addition to funeral costs the department is authorized to pay certain cemetery charges and to provide a grave. That is the general principle under which we operate. I wonder whether that answers the hon. member's question.


William Arnold Peters: Do I understand that it means that this is applied to those veterans under treatment who are going to come under that pauper section?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If they die under treatment in our hospitals or while on treatment strength they are looked after by our department under this particular vote. If they die outside, they are looked after under the last post fund to which we make contibutions.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
516. To provide for the cost of administration of Veterans' Land Act; soldier settlement and British family settlement, $5,029,545.
Victor Quelch: I wonder whether the minister could give us what is the deadline for applications under the Veterans' Land Act.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: There is no deadline.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether I got the minister's answer correctly. I have had one or two veterans say to me that the expiry date under which they might receive money under the Veterans' Land Act is soon to be reached. I think perhaps this is in relation to re-establishment credit which they might receive and which they might have to pay back. I am not an authority on this bill but veterans have spoken to me and they were under the impression that they had very little time remaining during which they might receive money under the Veterans' Land Act for the purchase of homes. If they are under any misapprehension I am sure they would be very pleased to have reassurance from the minister.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The hon. member has referred to the deadline for the re-establishment credit, that is 1960. There is a deadline there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 29, to incorporate Investors Trust Company-Mr. Morton-Mr. Casselman in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr.	Chairman,	before	clause	1 of
this bill carries there is a question I would like to ask. Is the sponsor in the house?


Mr. Morton:: Mr. Chairman, I have been asked to stand as sponsor in the absence of the hon. member for Winnipeg South.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then I wonder if the hon. member for Davenport could make any statement to the house concerning a line of questioning which was pursued in the committee when this bill was under consideration. I believe it was brought out in the committee on banking and commerce that the position of this company is affected by recent changes in the Income Tax Act having to do with moneys put into annuities. I believe as a result of that questioning the point had been reached where the superintendent of insurance was asked whether anyone on behalf of the government inspects or examines the forms of application completed by individuals; a request, as I read the report of the committee, directed to making sure that individuals are protected under the changed situation. I would like the hon. member to say whether that matter was pursued and whether anything has been learned since the committee met as to what is being done with respect to making sure that this kind of protection is offered.


Mr.   Morion@: Mr. Chairman, as I understood the answer in committee, it was that while the government did not take upon itself the duty of being responsible for the contracts between the individual and the company as such, because of the procedure and the close scrutiny actually given each and every application by some governmental agency-I believe the Department of National Revenue -the net result is that the individual is well protected. As I say, this is in view of the answers to questions and the varied information which has to be supplied to the Department of National Revenue which insures that the individual is, in fact, protected.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 18, respecting the British Columbia Telephone Company-Mr. Jung-Mr. Casselman in the chair.
On clause 1-Repeal.
Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to discuss this bill at length in the committee of the whole. The standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, of course, was the scene of some detailed discussion. In view of the rather complicated nature of some of the evidence given by the officials of the company in the standing committee it is perhaps unfortunate that the proceedings of that committee reached the mail boxes of hon. members of the house only today which means we have not had an opportunity to properly study and analyse the verbal representations made in the standing committee by the officers of the company.
As far as those members of that committee who sit in the C.C.F. corner of the house are concerned we did recognize and were satisfied as a result of the evidence given by the officials in the committee that there is need for a considerable capital expansion program in the telephone services in the province of British Columbia. Certainly many of us who represent constituencies in that province and who are receiving constant information from our constituents about their desire and need for an extension of the existing telephone facilities hardly needed to be told that by the officials of the company.
The position of the C.C.F. group in respect to the British Columbia Telephone Company has been well known over the years in the province of British Columbia. We feel that this being a monopoly public utility in our province it should more properly come under public ownership and that if steps were taken to bring that about substantial savings to the telephone users of the province of British Columbia could result.
As I say, much of the evidence which was given by the company officials in the committee was rather complicated, at least as far as a layman like myself-in matters of high finance-is concerned, but I think there were one or two facts which became generally apparent as a result of that discussion. One was the fact that this company which in the province of British Columbia is known as the British Columbia Telephone Company is in fact not a British Columbia telephone company at all but it is a company which is in part owned and in fact controlled by United States financial interests. That information given by the company's officers as

a result of a little prodding here and there during the course of the questioning coupled with the facts relating to the interrelationship between the parent company and the British Columbia Telephone Company and some of the concerns which are engaged in supplying telephone equipment does reveal that there is a great possibility that under various arrangements unnecessary costs are entering into the picture in the province of British Columbia as far as telephone rates are concerned. That is to say, when the board of transport commissioners reviews the applications of the company, because of this very complicated corporate structure that lies behind the carrying out of their operations there are as far as I was able to judge from the evidence given in the committee a good many possibilities that hidden costs and charges which of course have to be passed on to the users of telephone services within the province of British Columbia will not be revealed.
As I said when I rose, Mr. Chairman, it is not my desire to discuss this matter at length but I did feel I should report to the committee of the whole at least those conclusions I arrived at after having sat in the committee meetings during the presentation of the evidence by the company. I can assure the committee of the whole and possibly also the British Columbia Telephone Company that those of us who come from the province of British Columbia and are elected to this house under the banner of the C.C.F. certainly intend to continue to pay a great deal of attention to the operation of this company.
In a province such as British Columbia where many of the communities are separated by long distances and where modes of travel in many cases are limited the type of telephone service that is provided is a very vital concern to the people who live there. Certainly this is true in respect to many of the people who live in the more isolated areas along the coast, a large part of which falls within the boundaries of the constituency of Comox-Alberni. I know that many af the people who live in those areas are not satisfied with the service they are getting at the present time. Rightly or wrongly they nave the feeling that this telephone company whose primary concern is the making of profits for its shareholders has been inclined '.o concentrate upon the richest fields of en-ieavour, that is the more heavily populated areas in the lower mainland of the province. They feel that because of the primary concern of this privately owned utility in the naking of profits for its shareholders services are not as good as they might otherwise be.
On the other hand from suggestions I have leard made by some of my colleagues who
Private Bills
live in the more heavily populated areas I understand that some of their constituents also feel there is room for improvement in the service provided by this company and that in many cases they feel the rates they are paying for the service are higher than they think they should be paying.
As we indicated at the second reading stage of this bill, we realize that basically the bill is not concerned with the form or type of ownership of our telephone system in the province of British Columbia and the passage or otherwise of this bill is not going to give us an opportunity to bring about the changes we would like to see made. I think we made it clear that we had no desire in any way to prevent the British Columbia Telephone Company from being able to finance the carrying out of the services that are needed in many of the growing areas of the province and after having heard the evidence given in the committee I think I can say we hold substantially the same views we expressed on second reading and we are not at all happy about some of the indications that were revealed as a result of the questions we asked in the committee.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon. member on presenting his bill and I hope he will be successful in piloting it through the house. I would like to ask him one or two questions. Are there any independent, provincial or municipal telephone systems in the province of British Columbia?


Mr. Jung:: Mr. Chairman, I believe there is one, the Okanagan Telephone Company. There have been other telephone companies that have since been absorbed by the B.C. Telephone Company. The B.C. Telephone Company purchased the Mission Telephone Company Limited in 1952, and with that purchase the company expanded its territories by the addition of operations in the Fraser valley north of the Fraser river. Then, in 1953, the B.C. Telephone Company purchased the Kootenay Telephone Company Limited and that completed the expansion to the east Kootenay section of British Columbia. In the following year, 1954, the Chilliwack Telephone Company Limited was also purchased and in 1954 the government telephone and telegraph service was also taken over by the B.C. Telephone Company. Since taking over the government service substantial improvements have been made. There have been major conversions from magneto to battery sets, pending the installation of new equipment, which will enable automatic dial telephones to be put in. New offices have been installed and improvements of the distribution plant; that is, pole lines have been

Private Bills
rebuilt and extended. It is proposed that hundreds of thousands of dollars will be going into that area.


George Hugh Castleden: Can the hon. member tell us something about the comparative rates, say for a private phone of the independent company in the Okanagan which is, I believe, a municipal phone system, and those charged in similar areas by the B.C. Telephone Company?


Douglas Jung: That question, I think, was asked in committee but I do not see the answer printed in the proceedings.


Ernest James Broome: It is not a municipal system; it is a privately owned system. Its rates are above those of the B.C. Telephone Company for equivalent service. I have a telephone in the Okanagan and a telephone in Vancouver and therefore I know.


George Hugh Castleden: I was not questioning th'~ information at all. Does the B.C. Telephone Company have to apply to the board of transport commissioners for permission to increase rates?


Douglas Jung: Yes, it does.


George Hugh Castleden: What is the history of its applications in the past?


Douglas Jung: They have all been subjected to most searching and exhaustive inquiry and they have always been granted. The board of transport commissioners does not, I believe, have any control over the type of service, but it does exercise indirect control through asking questions about its rate structure and the price of the equipmen which it purchases. It indirectly controls the service extended to the subscribers in that area.


George Hugh Castleden: How many applications
have there been for an increase in rates, say, over the past 15 years?


Douglas Jung: I am sorry, I cannot answer that question but I can secure the information for my hon. friend.


George Hugh Castleden: What is the basis upon which the board of transport commissioners grant the increase? In case an application is made, what do they take into consideration, costs and so forth?


Douglas Jung: I am sorry I cannot answer that question because I am not a member of the board of transport commissioners and I am afraid it is outside my sphere of knowledge.


George Hugh Castleden: What about the value of the stock of this private company on the market? Has it been on the increase or has it been increasing lately? I believe their shares are of a par value of $25?


Douglas Jung: I am sorry, I also cannot answer that question but I am quite sure if the hon. member will refer to the financial page of any of the newspapers he will find that information will be available.


George Hugh Castleden: What I want to know is whether or not the board of transport commissioners would take into consideration, when they were asked for an increase in rates, the amount of dividends which were being paid on the shares of this company?


Douglas Jung: Mr. Chairman, I am quite sure they would. I understand the reason why the hon. member is asking these questions but it does not fall within the report of this committee. I am quite sure the board of transport commissioners will inquire into all phases of the company's activities if an application is made.


George Hugh Castleden: I know they would inquire into it. They would probably have the information already. I was just wondering whether or not they would want to know what considerations went into it, as to whether the company was making sufficient profit on its stock as it is today and as to whether or not it requires some increase in its rates, based on the profits it was making. The other question I would like to ask the sponsor of the bill is whether or not there has ever been a provincial telephone company established in the province of British Columbia to carry on this public service under provincial control and thus any profits accruing out of the operation of this public service would go to the people of the province rather than into the hands of a private company?


Douglas Jung: As far as I know, Mr. Chairman, the answer is no.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, I think we all appreciate the great expansion that is required in telephone service in British Columbia. Because the B.C. Telephone Company controls over 90 per cent of the telephone business in British Columbia we understand its requirements in coming before this House of Commons at this time and asking for an increase in its capitalization. I feel sure, Mr. Chairman, because of the requirements of service and assistance in employment, no member in this house will place any obstacle in the way of this bill going through.
However, along with the statement that the telephone service and employment situation in British Columbia are such that this bill must go through, we also have the responsibility of drawing to the attention of the committee the situation which has developed in British Columbia, and also

throughout Canada, in so far as a communication monopoly is concerned. We also must raise the question, perhaps not for decision now but for investigation later, as to the intricacies and complications in the company's management and in its method of financing.
I do not raise the question in order to block this bill, but I do believe that hon. members and the public should take note of the information given in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines to the effect that it is the declared intention of the B.C. Telephone Company to issue new capital to be authorized by this bill to the present shareholders of the B.C. Telephone Company.
It will be done at a cost to present holders of shares between 5 per cent and 6 per cent less than the market value of British Columbia Telephony Company shares. If you sell at less than the market value somebody has got to pay and in the long run it can only be the consumer. I think it is wrong in principle that privileged persons or companies should have the right to buy shares at 5 per cent to 6 per cent less than the market price and then be in the privileged position of not having to pay any income tax because we have no such thing as a capital gains tax in our country.
I was most interested, Mr. Chairman, in reading a remarkable speech made by a member of the other place not on this bill but on one of a similar nature. In a speech that must have taken him over half an hour he pointed out the dangers of monopoly in communications services and made a suggestion which I believe should be repeated on the floor of the house so I am going to do so now. He suggested that there should be a joint committee of the other place and the House of Commons to make a thorough investigation of the set-up, in all its intricacies and machinations, of companies in the communications field.
It was clearly apparent from the evidence given before the standing committee of the house with respect to the British Columbia Telephone Company that there are terrific intricacies and machinations. For example, it is correct that the B. C. Telephone Company is mostly owned in Canada but there is one block of shares amounting to about 35J per cent, I believe, owned by the Anglo-Canadian Telephone Company with headquarters in Montreal. Who controls Anglo-Canadian? It is controlled in the United States. It was honestly admitted in the evidence before the committee that the B.C. Telephone Company does not do its own purchasing or installing. It uses a company that is owned wholly by
Private Bills
Anglo-Canadian Telephone Company and one-third of its purchases are from a company which is owned in the United States and again owned by the same company that indirectly controls the B.C. Telephone Company.
Here we have the situation of a company that has almost a virtual monopoly of the communications system in British Columbia, or 90 per cent of it, which, in the words of its own president, is controlled in the United States, does its purchasing and installation through a company owned wholly by Anglo-Canadian and controlled in the United States, and buys one-third of its equipment from a company which is owned in the United States which company is in turn owned by the same octopus. From the manufacturing to the purchasing, installing and service end we have a vicious circle, a circle which I honestly believe is of such a nature that if investigated thoroughly would show that the cream from the profits of the B.C. Telephone Company is being drained off by these other companies and that the people of British Columbia are paying rates for telephone service which the company can prove on the basis of its own operations but which are unfair because the public utilities commission does not take into account the draining off of profits by subsidiary companies.
I say, Mr. Chairman, that we are aware of the need of extension of service in British Columbia. We know that it requires money. We are not going to block the passage of the bill in any way but we do think very seriously that in accordance with the suggestion made the other day by a member of the other place it is high time that a thorough examination was made of all the intricacies and manipulations of communications companies, the tie-up of interlocking directorates and operations through subsidiary companies in order to be able to assure the people of British Columbia and Canada that they are not being, as I honestly believe they are, rooked by monopoly corporations in the communications field, the British Columbia Telephone Company in my own province and other telephone companies in other parts of Canada.


Ernest James Broome: I should like to speak for two or three minutes on the bill. I was a member of the committee which considered it and what we have just heard shows how people can take different interpretations from the evidence put before them. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni said that under prodding he got certain information. It seemed to me that it was freely and factually given. So far as financing is concerned, the hon. member for Vancouver East talked about a 5 per cent to 6 per cent lower price through the use of rights. It was explained that it was not 5

Private Bills
per cent to 6 per cent but was three or lour that is, the Okanagan Telephone Company points. It was also explained that the cost of and the British Columbia Telephone Cornfinancing .a major issue like this is consider- pany?
able and that what the company does is to Mr. Jung. There are other smalier ones, offer shares to its shareholders at a price but tjjejr activities are confined more to the which takes into account the cost of financing. interior Qf Britigh Columbia.


Harold Edward Winch: On what page of the evidence is that? Come on.


Ernest James Broome: I cannot give the page.


Harold Edward Winch: I will call you on that.


Ernest James Broome: When the president of the
company was asked I believe he said four to six points.


Harold Edward Winch: Five to six.


Ernest James Broome: It was points, not percentage. Secondly, any fair comparison would be a comparison of rates charged in cities of equivalent size. In that regard I may say that the rates charged are equivalent to those charged in other places across Canada. I was just trying to get the record straight for the members who were not in the committee.


Harold Edward Winch: So am I, so give page references in the committee evidence.


Ernest James Broome: It seemed as though C.C.F. members were trying to drag out something which was pretty bad. This company pays Anglo-Canadian supply company about three-quarters of one per cent, I believe, to do their purchasing. They pay the installation costs.
Now, a great deal was said about United States control. Yes, it is controlled from the United States but the staff is 100 per cent Canadian and that is a lot more than can be said about other companies which are controlled from the United States. The company is operated for the good of the province and it is operated by Canadians. I believe it is operated in a right and proper manner.


Douglas Jung: The hon. member for Yorkton earlier asked a question as to the number of times applications had been made to the board of transport commissioners for an increase in tariff rates. My information is that the last increase was made in 1953. There have been no applications since that time. I believe that in the last ten years that has been the only application. I say that subject to confirmation from the head office in Vancouver.


George Hugh Castleden: What was the amount of the increase in 1953?


Douglas Jung: I shall include that in my reply.


Mr. Stanton:: Are there any more than two telephone companies in British Columbia,


Hayden Stanton: Far be it from me to anticipate the time when all independent telephone companies will be out of existence, yet I believe the committee fully realizes that these independent telephone companies which we have across Canada form the only competition which the larger companies have. I believe also that we are of the opinion we should not put anything in the way of assisting these different companies, both the larger ones such as the British Columbia Telephone Company and the smaller independent companies, in furthering their services to the people. British Columbia is a rapidly expanding province. We have to realize fully the service the telephone company is required to give. I am sure it is not the desire of any member in this house to block this bill because I am sure its passage will contribute much to the services rendered to the people of British Columbia. In addition, the passage of the bill will contribute much to employment across that province. I am sure that when this bill is passed the company will immediately promote the installations which will give better service to the residents of that province.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 31, respecting the Rio de Janeiro Tramway, Light and Power Company, Limited-Mr. Morton- Mr. Casselman in the chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On clause 2-
Thomas Miller Bell: Section 2 contains a provision requiring the change of head office of the company to be sanctioned by the unanimous vote of all the shareholders present in person or represented by proxy at a special general meeting of shareholders duly called for the purpose at which at least 99 per cent of all the issued and outstanding shares in the capital stock of the company are represented. It seems to me that this constitutes a rather extraordinary provision to require, for any corporate action, the unanimous vote

of the shareholders. There may be some special reason for such provision in this bill and the companion bills, and I wonder if the sponsor could tell us what the reason may be.


Murray Douglas Morton: Perhaps it may sound rather a stringent regulation, but under the circumstances, since this company and the two other subsidiary companies mentioned in the other bills are solely owned by the Brazilian Traction, Light and Power Company Limited, there is no practical problem that arises. This company owns all the shares and therefore, I presume, they have the complete say. I suppose if there were circumstances where there were a number of shareholders we should perhaps look into the principle involved to see if it were too stringent.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
On the preamble-
George Hugh Castleden: Before the preamble carries, would the hon. member state when this company was incorporated in Canada, and whether or not the shareholders of the stock in Canada are protected under the new regulation or does complete control of this company now transfer to Brazil?


Mr.   Morion@: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might explain again that the three companies referred to in the first three bills are subsidiaries of the Brazilian Traction Light and Power Company Limited. They are completely owned by this company. There are no other Canadian shareholders except the head office in Toronto. The other shareholders indirectly concerned would be the shareholders of the parent company. Does that answer the question?


George Hugh Castleden: Yes. I should like to know about the holders of these shares. Are these shareholders now living in Canada, and how are their interests protected in case the company's head office is moved to Brazil?


Mr.   Morion@: I presume the hon. gentleman is referring to the shareholders of the parent company?


George Hugh Castleden: That is right.


Mr.   Morion@: The only thing I can say in that respect is that in the past the complete assets of the company have been in Brazil. There is no change in respect to the assets. The only difference is that for the purpose of financing in Brazil the three subsidiaries have had to change their head office to Brazil. There is no practical difference, as a result of that, as to the security of the assets of the company than there is at the present time. If, for instance, the Brazilian
Private Bills
government were to expropriate or take some action in respect of the assets now, there would be no difference so far as the parent company is concerned and its shareholders than if that had happened before this transfer.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 32, respecting Sao Paulo Electric Company, Limited-Mr. Morton-Mr. Casselman in the chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On clause 2-
George Hugh Castleden: I have a question I should like to ask the sponsor of this bill. Is this company the same as the one that is referred to in the explanatory note of the previous bill? The explanatory note says:
The head offices of two of the companies associated with this company in operations in Brazil have already been transferred from Canada to Brazil pursuant to legislative authority given in Canada by chapter 74 of the statutes of 1953-54 relating to Brazilian Telephone Company and chapter 126 of the Statutes of Ontario, 1954, relating to The Sao Paulo Light and Power Company. Limited-
Is the Sao Paulo Light and Power Company, Limited referred to the same as the Sao Paulo Electric Company Limited?


Mr.   Morion@: No. That is another subsidiary which already had been transferred at the date mentioned. I believe that company was a provincial company of Ontario.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The Depuiy Chairman: There are a considerable number of divorce bills. I think it is customary that they be called in a group. Does that meet the wishes of the committee?
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Hugh Castleden: What is the request, Mr. Chairman? Is the request that these bills be approved together?


The Deputy Chairman:: Yes. That is what
I asked the committee.

Private Bills-Divorce


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to have these bills called individually, if possible.


Arza Clair Casselman: Very well.



CLAUDINE YVETTE FELICITE CAVALLERO NEELY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 37, for the relief of Claudine Yvette Felicite Caval-lero Neely-Mr. Rea-Mr. Casselman in the chair.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
On the preamble:
George Hugh Castleden: I wonder whether the
sponsor of this bill can tell us whether any children are involved in this family and what provision has been made for them.


Mr. Rea:: I do not know what provision has been made for the children.


George Hugh Castleden: I beg the hon. member's pardon?


Charles Edward Rea: I do not know what provision has been made.


George Hugh Castleden: The hon. member does not know that. Would he know whether or not any children were involved in this case?


Charles Edward Rea: I would have to get that particular bill and look at it.


George Hugh Castleden: The hon. member has no information on that matter?


Charles Edward Rea: 1 saw it when I read the bill but I cannot remember the particulars of every individual bill. I am sure the hon. member must realize that.


George Hugh Castleden: Since the hon. member is sponsoring so many of them I thought perhaps he might be able to inform us. It is a matter of considerable importance.


Charles Edward Rea: If you give me time to look into the matter I can tell you. I have checked every one.


George Hugh Castleden: Can the hon. member assure us that no children are involved?


Charles Edward Rea: I cannot assure the committee of that.


George Hugh Castleden: And if there are any, can he tell us what provision has been made for them?


Charles Edward Rea: I do not know.


George Hugh Castleden: You are not aware of that?


Charles Edward Rea: No. I have not the bill in front of me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No
reference will be made to that matter in the bill; it would be in the evidence.
[The Deputy Chairman.]


Charles Edward Rea: I say that I do not know. I have not the bill in front of me. It is in my office.


George Hugh Castleden: You are just sponsoring it.
The Depuly Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 39, for the relief of Ronald Victor Turner- Mr. Rea-Mr. Casselman in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May
I ask the hon. member for Spadina whether any of these 64 bills which are now being put through the committee of the house was considered separately in the committee on miscellaneous private bills?


Charles Edward Rea: These bills were considered en bloc in the committee. Three of us read them all individually. Of these bills that are now in the committee, none was contested. That is why they were passed en bloc in the committee; none of them was contested.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When we were at second reading of divorce bills a week ago today, one of the members on the government side of the house suggested that there was a piece of fraud in connection with one of the bills. Was that matter looked into by the committee?


Charles Edward Rea: It was never brought up at the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The committee does not seem to be working very hard on this matter.


Charles Edward Rea: I did not hear that remark.


Mr. Hansell:: I happen to be a member of the miscellaneous private bills committee, and I can assure my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the committee has worked fairly hard. When we met the other day we had several other bills to consider and we jointly agreed that since there was no particular difference between any of these bills, we could save time by taking them all together. In fact, I think we could save time this afternoon by doing the same thing. The hon. member for Yorkton and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre have asked a few questions. I do not like to be mean to anyone or to any party, but I would suggest that perhaps they could save time if

they asked their members who were on the miscellaneous private bills committee exactly what happened in the committee. I would suggest that they do that, if they care to do it. Then they would find out a great deal more than they are asking here. I am just making that suggestion to them.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Would the hon. member tell the committee how many members of the C.C.F. party attended that committee?


Ernest George Hansell: I try not to be mean and I put the matter in another way. I think if you look at the minutes you will find that information given. I am sorry; there are no written minutes kept for that meeting. But I am sure if you telephone the clerk of the committee he will give you the names of those who were present.


Arza Clair Casselman: In view of the plea made by the hon. member for Macleod, is it the wish of the committee, by unanimous consent, that all of these divorce bills be taken together?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Hugh Castleden: No. In view of the very kind remarks of the hon. member for Macleod, I should like to point out to him that for a good many years we have objected to the procedure of having divorces dealt with in this house in this manner. It is not good for the house and I do not think it is good for parliament, and we have said so on a number of occasions. We can only continue to voice our objections. We can only continue to say that we dislike this procedure and that we think it would be a good thing to have divorces taken away from parliament altogether. We have revealed on a number of occasions that collusion and other corrupt practices occurred in divorce cases.


An hon. Member:: What corrupt practices?


George Hugh Castleden: Such as, for instance,
evidence that has been given by persons who are scarcely qualified to give it. In a number of cases we have been able to stop what I think was a very grave injustice or what would have proved to be a very grave injustice when we blocked this kind of thing and stopped certain of the bills going through the house. Some day the house will take this matter under consideration and perhaps will take this procedure with respect to divorce away entirely from the parliament of Canada. The parliament of Canada is not constituted to act as a court.
But the evidence over the years has shown that these things are wrong and we are merely making a further objection. I would like to say for the benefit of the hon. member who is sponsoring some 150 of these 96698-108}
Private Bills-Divorce
bills that sometimes people get wrong impressions, even about members of parliament. I was talking to a person who wanted to know whether the sponsor of the bills was paid for the sponsoring thereof in the house. He was under the impression that somebody was presenting a-


Charles Edward Rea: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I want to make this quite clear. As chairman of the private bills committee, I have acted as sponsor of these bills, for which function I have not been paid. I cannot answer for the other chairmen although I am sure that they have not received payment either. I am sure the hon. member for Yorkton already knows this, but if he does not, let me once again make it clear that I am not being paid, and I am sure the other chairmen of this committee before me were not paid. They were doing this strictly as a matter of convenience for people in these two provinces who could not get relief in their own provinces. We felt that there should not be a penalty to them because they happened to live in a province where they could not get such relief.


George Hugh Castleden: I am very glad to have that information. As a matter of fact this is something which needed clearing up and it does show how things can get tangled and how a wrong impression can be gained of this house through the actions of the committee. People are under that impression; as a matter of fact, the person I mentioned received a bill from the lawyer for the carrying out of this divorce, and among the items in the statement appeared an item, in this case I think for $50, for the sponsoring of the bill in the house. I think discussion of this kind would be well advised in order to clear up this kind of misunderstanding and I feel that the hon. member's statement today has been a valuable service in order to make it known that no such payments are made in respect of sponsoring these bills, in so far as he is concerned. For these reasons I feel a debate on the divorce bills is a good thing. In this case we are passing, as I say, about 150 cases appearing on the order paper and I do not think it is good for parliament to have them passed en bloc. Furthermore I do not think it is good fpr parliament to have them here at all.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2
Alexander Bell Patterson: I would like to say a word with respect to the remarks just made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. The hon. member states that sometimes people get the wrong impression, even of

Private Bills
members of parliament. I think perhaps a contribution has been made to such misunderstandings this afternoon by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he suggested that it did not look as though the members of the committee had worked very hard on some of these things.
I would just like to say that I am a member of this committee, and it is the first time I have served on this particular committee.
I thought the members did apply themselves but I would like to make this observation: Those who have raised this issue are hardly in a position to say whether or not the members of the committee did perform their work well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member for Fraser Valley tell us how many minutes the committee spent in dealing with these 64 cases?


James Sinclair: That is a good question.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, but I would, through you, assure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that a considerable amount of time was devoted to the discussion of the bills and the procedure which was followed. Furthermore, had some other members been present at the time they could have relayed this information to the hon. member who is asking the question.
Section 2 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
George Hugh Castleden: I would like to ask the sponsor of these bills whether or not he can find out by the time when the house next sits on these private bills if provision is being made to take care of the children who might be involved in any of these cases.


Charles Edward Rea: In answer to the question of the hon. member I would like to say that that is a provincial matter and if he will read the bills he will find out whether or not there are any children involved.


James Sinclair: Oh, they are learning fast over there.


Charles Edward Rea: I do not sponsor these bills so much as I am being used as a vehicle for the benefit of all members in facilitating their passage through this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 33, respecting Brazilian Hydro Electric Company, Limited.-Mr. Morton.

Bill No. 34, respecting Brazilian Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited.-Mr. Morton.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Joseph Alfred Victor Tasse.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Evelyn Thelma Passineau Uyeda.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 40, for the relief of Charles Frederick Church.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 41, for the relief of Sarah Sally Abramovici Schor.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of Eunice Kennedy Standeven.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Kathleen Louise Blaylock Hall Dunning.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Mary Hilbert Madge.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Marthe Helene Le Bel Champion.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Elizabeth Dermer Boyd.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Clarice Men-dell Uditsky.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Dorothy Elizabeth Allen Bellenger.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Mildred Weiner Gordon.

Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of Theresa Mary Moran Redmond Cooke.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Siegmund Paul Fritz Matthes.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Lillian Boyce Suttner.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Helen May Verner Joyce.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Lila Redmond McCorriston.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Phyllis Freda Sabbath Isaacson.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Marguerite Lavoie Jolin.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Margaret Lillian Mackenzie Smallwood.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Edith Elizabeth Altherr Thompson.-Mr Rea.
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Jean Marc Marceau.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Moe Boxerman. -Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Marilyn Joan O'Bryan Watson.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Irene Elsa Rubin Cohen.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 63, for the relief of Sally Baker Golding Rohrlich.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 64, for the relief of Jerzy Dzynaw. -Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 65, for relief of Pauline Mechanik Winterfeld.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 66, for the relief of Gennie Loza Jarvis.-Mr. Rea.

Bill No. 67, for the relief of James Keith. -Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Michal Rybi-kowski.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Beverley Joan Abbott Reid.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Mark Astman. -Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Karl Schubert. -Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 73, respecting Mexico Tramways Company.-Mr. Vivian.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Norma Leibo-vitch Ryer.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Manola Main-ville Lefebvre.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 76, for the relief of Anne Marie Fontaine Brien.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 77, for the relief of Joyce Hahn Maiste.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Joseph Fabien Marcel Perras.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Elizabeth Geroux Touchette.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 80, for the relief of Conrad Donat Joseph Bouffard.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 81, for the relief of Claire Lenoff Schecter.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 82, for the relief of Gun Elsa-Maria Stridh Zukrowski.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 83, for the relief of Dorothy Maureen Allan Cybuliak.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 84, for the relief of Lita Eleanor Ciceri Desrochers.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Gwendoline Georgina Adelaide McNamee Phillips.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 86, for the relief of Robert James Beakes.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Elizabeth Ann Vedder Chadwick.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 88, for the relief of Osbourne Denzil St. Martin.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 89, for the relief of Elizabeth Janet Davidson Blacklock.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Mary Isabel Bristow Livingston.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Zelda King Neuss.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Lena Therese Dean Lauzon.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Sydney Wagner. -Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Margaret Williams Mullins.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 95, for the relief of Donald Ernest Lamont.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 96, for the relief of Margo Jean Thornton Savard.-Mr. Rea.
Business of the House
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Marie Reina Pauline Duquette Cottier.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Molly Gloria Goldman Mencher.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Marie Marguerite Eugenie Lucie Prevost Dorfman.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Florence Hewitt Scribner Hartt.-Mr. Rea.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Mona Areta Emsley Forbes.-Mr. Rea.

Mr. Marler:: What business will the house be taking up on Monday?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, Monday will be private members' day and on Tuesday we propose to take legislation including the following: No. 11 on today's order paper which is a resolution preceding a bill to provide for the construction of a branch line of the Canadian National Railway Company. The intention is to send that bill to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. We shall try to make copies of the bill available to the leaders of the three opposition parties on Monday in the hope that it could get second reading on Tuesday and be referred to the committee. Then the resolution which is order No. 14 on today's order paper. That has to do with a bill to provide for loans to the Hamilton harbour commissioners and the remarks I made with regard to the first resolution also apply to this second one.
We then propose taking the bill which is No. 5 on today's order paper, the second reading of a bill to amend the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act. That bill is particularly complicated and the intention is to refer it to the same standing committee. Then, second reading of the bill which is order No. 4 on today's order paper, an act to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act.


George Carlyle Marler: That is not No. 4, is it?


Howard Charles Green: I am sorry; it is order No. 6 on today's order paper. It is No. 4 on my list. The proposal is to refer it to the standing committee on banking and commerce.
We then propose taking four resolutions on the order paper. I am not sure in which order they would be taken but they include item No. 12 on today's order paper, a resolution dealing with the Export Credits Insurance Act; No. 16 on today's order paper, dealing with the National Housing Act; No. 9 which is the resolution in which the hon. member for Assiniboia has been so interested-

Business of the House


James Sinclair: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: -and then the resolution
which appears on today's Votes and Proceedings providing for a loan to the province of New Brunswick in respect of the Beechwood project.


George Carlyle Marler: It seems to me there is a certain amount of optimism in the mind of the leader of the house.


Mr. Nowlan:: It characterizes every house leader at this stage.


Howard Charles Green: I am a little afraid of that myself.


George Carlyle Marler: Would the hon. gentleman say which of these resolutions he would wish to take up first because they cover quite a lot of ground and I think a number of hon. members would be interested in one but not necessarily in the others.


Howard Charles Green: I think in the order in which I called them but I cannot be sure with regard to the last four resolutions to which I referred.
On Wednesday we propose to move to go into interim supply and then carry on to finish off those items to which I referred earlier. On Thursday we propose to take estimates commencing with the estimates of the Department of National Defence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to say a word in view of the line-up of business for next week which has been announced by the house leader. I think it is appropriate for me to say that through the usual channels there have been negotiations about the business of the house and as the house leader knows there is a definite change in this lineup for next week from what I thought we had agreed to. I refer in particular to the announcement for Tuesday. I thought it had been understood that next week and the week after, like the week we have just had, would be marked by private members' day on Monday and a supply motion on Tuesday. Now if the government has decided not to move a supply motion on Tuesday as wa! planned and if it is not made up in some other way later on, we may have to reconsider our position as to the basis of agreement on which we have been trying to work.
I do not make any definitive statement to the minister just now but I thought it should be clear that this does represent a change, as the minister knows, and we may have to give further consideration to our attitude toward the plans for the business of the house in the weeks that lie ahead.


Howard Charles Green: There has been this difficulty arise in connection with next week, that we must get interim supply, and I did not want to be put in the position that we would spend Tuesday on a supply motion and then on Wednesday ask for interim supply with the result that none of these legislative measures to which I have referred could be considered next week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be kept clear that there is a difference between a supply motion such as we counted on for Tuesday and interim supply. None of us of course can speak for the entire house but I doubt very much whether there will be any extended debate-perhaps there will be no debate at all-on the motion for interim supply. As a matter of fact there will not be a motion to go into committee for interim supply; that is done without the question put; but the other matter, the supply motion, is one of the rights spelled out in the rules of this house. We are entitled to six of these motions in a session of parliament and the debate is to consist of two days on each of those six motions. We have already agreed to cut down the number from six to something less. We have already agreed to take only one day rather than two for some of those motions. We are a bit concerned at unilateral changes that seem to detract still further from our rights in this session.


Howard Charles Green: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think there has been very good co-operation between the parties thus far.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right, Mr. Speaker, and we would like to keep it that way.


Howard Charles Green: I am sure that will continue for the rest of the session.


Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East):: I think that for this group we would be very anxious to have the resolution that is No. 9 on today's order paper considered and the bill that will follow it made available for consideration at an early date. I think that would probably also suit the convenience of hon. members of other groups because there have been requests or suggestions from them with respect to this bill that is to be provided for by the resolution that is No. 9 on the order paper of today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition says is quite correct and if the house leader in proposing the legislation for Tuesday had suggested that order No. 9 would come first rather than seventh the remarks I have just made might have been a little different.


Howard Charles Green: I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre must still leave us the responsibility of deciding in what order we will call government business.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As
the house leader has said there has been a
Business of the House
high degree of co-operation and agreement among the parties as to the order of business and I hope we can keep it that way.


[Stage Direction]
It being twelve minutes after 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:

Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Has any settlement been reached with the government of Ontario regarding the financing of Hungarian refugees?
2.	If so, what is the basis of such settlement and how does it compare with the agreement with the government of Saskatchewan?
3.	If not, have there been any discussions with the government of Ontario since June 21, 1957, looking toward such a settlement?
Answer by: Hon. E. D. Fulton (Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):
1.	No.
2.	See answer to question No. 1.
3.	Yes.


WHEAT DELIVERIES TO U.S.S.R.
Mr. Tucker: 1.	How much wheat has been taken delivery of by the U.S.S.R. since the trade agreement made between Canada and the U.S.S.R.?
2.	How much was taken in each year since the signing of said agreement by the U.S.S.R.?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):
1.	The total exported to the U.S.S.R. up to and including November 21, 1957, is 16,805,886 bushels.
2.	Under the terms of the agreement, the U.S.S.R. undertook to purchase from Canada
between 1,200,000 and 1,500,000 metric tons of wheat in annual amounts between 400,000 and 500,000 metric tons. The first year of the agreement commenced on February 29, 1956, the second year on February 28, 1957 and the third year of the agreement will commence on February 28, 1958. During the first year of the agreement, U.S.S.R. took delivery from Canada of 14,790,447 bushels (402,530.0 metric tons). During the second year of the agreement U.S.S.R. has taken delivery to date of 2,015,439 bushels (54,851.2 metric tons).


FEDERAL BUILDING, THETFORD MINES, QUE.
Mr. Lafontaine: 1.	Has the Department of Public Works called public tenders for the extension and addition work to the public building at Thetford Mines, Quebec?
2.	If so, on what date were tenders called and on what date were they opened?
3.	What are the names of those who tendered, their respective addresses, and what amount was submitted by each one for carrying out of such work?
4.	Was the contract awarded?
5.	If so, to whom and on what date?
Answer by:	Mr. Hodgson, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
1.	Yes.
2.	Tenders called on May 31, 1957. Tenders opened on July 10, 1957.
3.	The only tender received was from: Amedee Laflamme and L. W. Lafleur, Thetford Mines, P.Q. The amount of tender- $118,365.
4.	Yes.
5.	Contract awarded to Amedee Laflamme and L. W. Lafleur on November 4, 1957.

[The following items were passed in committee of supply!:


DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
497.	Departmental administration, $2,304,705.
498.	District services-administration, $3,030,973.
499.	Veterans' welfare services, $3,299,325. Treatment services-
500.	Operation of hospitals and administration, including authority for payments, during the current and subsequent fiscal years, to canteen funds of departmental hospitals in amounts equal to amounts of commissions received by or on behalf of Her Majesty from pay telephones in such hospitals, $44,368,445.
501.	Medical research and education, $400,000.
502.	Hospital construction, improvements, equipment and acquisition of land, $4,652,500.
503.	Prosthetic services-supply, manufacture and administration, $1,129,114.
504.	Veterans' bureau, $569,682.
505.	War veterans allowance board-administration, $136,054.
506.	Veterans insurance, $76,100.
War veterans allowances and other benefits-
507.	War veterans allowances, $45,376,000.
508.	Assistance fund (war veterans allowances). $775,000.
509.	Treatment and other allowances, $2,700,000. Miscellaneous payments-
510.	To provide for payments to the Last Post fund: for the payment under regulations of funeral and cemetery charges, including the perpetual care of graves where applicable; for the cost and erection of headstones in Canada: for the maintenance of departmental cemeteries: for the maintenance of Canadian battlefields memorials in France and Belgium and for Canada's share of the expenditures of the Imperial War Graves Commission, $1,378,800.
511.	Grant to army benevolent fund, $8,000.
512.	Grant to Canadian Legion. $9,000.
Canadian pension commission-
513.	Administration expenses, $2,427,282.
514.	Pensions for disability and death, including pensions granted under the authority of the Civilian Government Employees (War) Compensation Order, P.C. 45/8848 of November 22, 1944, which shall be subject to the Pension Act; and including Newfoundland special awards, $131,033,000.
515.	Gallantry awards-world war II and special force, $21,500.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
516.	To provide for the cost of administration of Veterans' Land Act; soldier settlement and British family settlement, $5,029,545.
517.	To provide for the upkeep of property, Veterans' Land Act, including engineering and other investigational planning expenses that do not add tangible value to real property; taxes, insurance and maintenance of public utilities, $63,000.
518.	To provide for the payment of grants to veterans settled on provincial lands in accordance with agreements with provincial governments under section 38 of the Veterans' Land Act and payment of grants to veterans settled on dominion lands, in accordance with an agreement with the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources under section 38 of the Veterans' Land Act, $200,000.
519.	To provide for the payment of grants to Indian veterans settled on Indian reserve lands under section 39 of the Veterans' Land Act, $100,000.
520.	To provide for the reduction of indebtedness to the director of soldier settlement of a settler in respect of a property in his possession, the title of which is held by the director, or such soldier settler loans which are administered by the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, by an amount which will reduce his
Supply-Items Passed
indebtedness to an amount in keeping with the productive capacity of the property or his ability to repay his indebtedness under regulations approved by the governor in council, $2,500.
521.	To authorize and provide, subject to the approval of the governor in council, for necessary remedial work on properties constructed under individual firm price contracts and sold under the Veterans' Land Act to correct defects for which neither the veteran nor the contractor can be held financially responsible and for such other work on other properties as may be required to protect the interest of the director therein, $5,000.
Terminable services-
522.	Veterans benefits, including assistance and the training of certain pensioners under regulations approved by the governor in council, $1,252,845.
523.	To provide for the repayment in such amounts as the Minister of Veterans Affairs determines, not exceeding the whole of an amount equivalent to the compensating adjustment made under subsection (1) of section 13 of the War Service Grants Act or the payment made pursuant to paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of section 12 of the Veterans Rehabilitation Act, where the person who made the compensating adjustment or payment does not receive benefits under the Veterans' Land Act or where, having had financial assistance under that act, he is deemed by the minister on termination of his contract or agreement under that act to have derived thereunder either no benefit or a benefit that is less than the amount of the compensating adjustment or payment made, $225,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
536.	To provide for protection of security-soldier settlement, and refunds of surplus to veterans $7,300.
537.	To provide for purchase of land and permanent improvements; cost of permanent improvements to be effected; removal of encumbrances; stock and equipment; and for protection of security under the Veterans' Land Act, $18,152,300.
War veterans allowances and other benefits__
669.	To provide, effective the 1st day of July, 1957, that the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952, is amended by repealing schedules A and B to the said act and substituting therefor the schedules A and B set out in the details of the estimates and the rates mentioned in section 5 of the said act are amended on the same basis, $4,350,000.
Canadian pension commission-
670.	To provide, effective the 1st day of July, 1957, that the Pension Act is amended as follows: (a) in subsection (1) of section 30 thereof, the words "fourteen hundred" are struck out and the words "eighteen hundred'' are substituted therefor-and (b) schedules A and B to the said act are repealed and the schedules A and B set out in the details of the estimates are substituted therefor $14,900,000.
Treatment services-
772.	Operation of hospitals and administration- further amount required, $700,000.
War veterans allowances and other benefits__
773.	Assistance fund (war veterans allowances) - further amount required, $425,000.
Miscellaneous payments-
774.	To provide for payments to the Last Post fund; for the payment under regulations of funeral and cemetery charges, including the perpetual care of graves where applicable; for the cost and erection of headstones in Canada; for the maintenance of departmental cemeteries; for the maintenance of
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
Canadian battlefields memorials in France and Belgium and for Canada's share of the expenditures of the imperial war graves commission-further amount required to provide for production of hooks of remembance, $10,000.
Canadian pension commission-
775.	Administation expenses-further amount required, $25,000.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
776.	To provide for the payment of grants to veterans settled on provincial lands in accordance with agreements with provincial governments under section 38 of the Veterans' Land Act and payment of grants to veterans settled on dominion lands in accordance with an agreement with the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources under section 38 of the Veterans' Land Act-further amount required, $40,000.
Terminable services-
777.	To provide for the repayment in such amounts as the Minister of Veterans Affairs determines, not exceeding the whole of an amount equivalent to the compensating adjustment made under subsection (1) of section 13 of the War
Service Grants Act or the payment made pursuant to paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of section 12 of the Veterans Rehabilitation Act, where the person who made the compensating adjustment or payment does not receive benefits under the Veterans' Land Act or where, having had financial assistance under that act, he is deemed by the minister on termination of his contract or agreement under that act to have derived thereunder either no benefit or a benefit that is less than the amount of the compensating adjustment or payment made-further amount required, $40,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
Veterans affairs-
780. To authorize the making of a loan by the Minister of Veterans Affairs to William J. Edwards, a veteran of world war I, in the amount of $1,000, such loan to be repayable on demand by the minister and to be made on the security of a mortgage acceptable to him, executed by the veteran and his wife and registered as a first charge on a parcel of land held by the veteran and his wife as joint tenants and described in the land registry office, New Westminster, British Columbia, as lot 13, block 14, northwest quarter of section 11, township 1, plan 14124, New Westminster district, $1,000.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, December 2, 1957