1961-02-08

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Hon. members are aware that the chief of state of Cambodia, Prince Norodom Sihanouk, recently addressed messages to 12 heads of governments, including the Prime Minister of Canada, concerning the situation in Laos. Since the texts of the prince's message and of my reply have been made public in Phnom-Penh, I should like, for the convenience of hon. members and by leave of the house, to table the texts of both messages, in the original French and in the English translation.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Prime Minister suggest that the documents which he has tabled be printed in Hansard?


John George Diefenbaker: I really had not suggested that; I would think not.



PARLIAMENTARY NURSE


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) moved:: That the report of the civil service commission concerning the class parliamentary nurse, House of Commons, laid upon the table of the house, Friday, February 3, 1961, be now approved.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay Wesf):: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is approved I wish to say on behalf of this group that we are very pleased to see this improvement in the salary for our parliamentary nurse who takes such good care of us all.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. J. A. McBain (Elgin) moved:: That the first report of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, presented to the house on Monday, February 6,	1961, be now
concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Pickersgill: What was the number of unemployed for each year, 1931 to 1935 inclusive, measured as an average percentage of the civilian labour force?


Mr. E. L. Morris (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The answer to this question is, 1931, June, 11.6 per cent; 1932, June, 17.6 per cent; 1933, June, 19.3 per cent; 1934, June, 14.5 per cent; 1935, June, 14.2 per cent.

On the orders of the day:


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gate):: I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he could supplement the answer he gave to my starred question in the same way that he supplemented the answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Norfolk last week for the years 1936 to 1940, with the figures that would have applied under the present definition of unemployed. In this way the information would be parallel in all respects for the whole period.


Edmund Leverett Morris: If the present definition of unemployed had been used, the figures would have been higher. There has never been any official estimate made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman believe it would be more difficult to make an estimate for the first half of the 1930's than for the second half?



OPIUM AND NARCOTIC DRUG ACT PROSECUTIONS, EDMONTON  LEGAL SERVICES

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 90
Mr. Howard:: With respect to the payments to the law firm of Main, Nugent and Forbes of Edmonton, Alberta, for prosecutions for offences committed under the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, what was (a) the full name and address of each of the partners in the said firm; (b) the full name and address of the payee of each cheque for each such payment?


Hon. G. E. Halpenny (Minister without Portfolio):: (a) and (b). There were four payments only to the firm of Main, Nugent and Forbes as listed below. The four cheques

Starred Questions
bear the endorsement "for deposit only to the credit of Main, Nugent and Forbes trust
account":
February, 1958	 $ 26.00
May,	1958	
295.00May,	1958	
35.00June,	1958	
103.00
The names of the partners in the firm of Main, Nugent and Forbes are Sidney Gif-fard Main, Q.C., Terence James Nugent and George Forbes, and the business address is 209 Qu'Appelle building, Edmonton, Alberta. The remainder of the payments were to Mr. Giffard Main, Q.C., and as there are quite a number of them I would ask that they be printed in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to have the remainder of the answer printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The information referred to above is as follows: 1
1958	$
July	 390.75
August	 33.00
December	 339.25
December	 319.50
December	 566.75
January January February April ... April ... June .... August .. October . December December
January March .. March ... August .. August . August . October October . October . October .

163.00 80.00
171.00 66.00
89.00
70.00
75.00 287.35
453.00 1,328.00

36.75
85.00
62.00
196.00
213.00
824.00 501.50
40.00 77.50
65.00



CAPE BRETON


Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Has the Prime Minister received a resolution from the Cape Breton joint expenditure board petitioning the government that no coal mine in Cape Breton be closed unless and until alternative employment is provided for the people in the area?
2.	If so, has a reply been made, and what was its nature?


John George Diefenbaker: 1.	Yes.
2.	No. An announcement was made on January 9 regarding the payment of a special subsidy to keep these mines in operation until
EMr. Halpenny.]
May 31, 1961. In the meantime the problems of the coal mining area are being kept under active review, and if any changes of policy are made they will be announced.



CLOSING OF CAPE BRETON COAL MINES

Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Has the government received a resolution from the Cape Breton district command of the Canadian Legion requesting that a meeting be arranged of government, union, and coal company representatives to deal with the closure of three mines in Cape Breton?
2.	If so, have any steps been taken to arrange such a meeting?


John George Diefenbaker: 1.	Yes.
2.	The answer to question No. 92 covers this question.



WHEAT SHIPMENTS UNDER COLOMBO PLAN

Mr. Argue: 1.	Has any wheat, provided as economic assistance under the Colombo plan, been shipped from any (a) Canadian, (b) American, port since January 1, 1960?
2.	If so, on what dates, from what port, what was port of destination and country consigned to, how many tons of wheat was contained in each shipment, the dollar value, and what was the name and type of ship, and its registry?
3.	Were any of these ships oil tankers?
4.	If so, which ones, what shipments were made and when?
5.	On what date had each unloaded its oil cargo before taking on its wheat shipment?
6.	What steps were taken to cleanse and prepare each tanker prior to taking on wheat?
7.	Who pays the cost of transporting such wheat?
8.	Have any complaints been received regarding the condition of the wheat after arriving at its country of destination?
9.	If so, from whom were they received, on what dates, for what shipments, what was the content of each, and what action was taken?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: 1(a) yes; (b) no.
2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The Canadian government provides wheat for Colombo plan countries free at seaboard. Since ocean shipping arrangements are the responsibility of the recipient countries, the information requested is not available.
7.	The recipient country.
8.	Not by the Canadian government.
9.	See answer to No. 8.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Roberge: 1. How many claimants for benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act in Canada have had their contributions cancelled:	(a) from July 1,
1957 to March 31, 1958? (b) during the fiscal year 1958-59? (c) during the fiscal year 1959-60?	(d)
during the current fiscal year?

2.	For each period, how many claimants were relatives of the employer?
3.	For each period, how many claimants were considered not to have a contract of service with an employer?


Mr. R. D. Thrasher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour):: The answers are as follows:
1.	No record is kept of the number of claimants in respect of whom contributions were cancelled. However, the following are the number of persons whose benefit entitlements were cancelled as a result of cancellation of contributions found to have been not bona fide.
(a)	July 1, 1957, to March 31, 1958, 296, (b) fiscal year 1958-59, 830, (c) fiscal year 1959-60, 3,156, (d) April 1, 1960, to December 31, 1960, 4,325.
2.	No record.
3.	No record.



POST OFFICE BUILDING, ST. LEONARD, QUE.

Mr. Boulanger: 1.	Since December 21, 1960, has the contract for the construction of a post office at St. Leonard, county of Nicolet, been awarded?
2.	If so: (a) was the contract awarded to the lowest tenderer? (b) to whom was it awarded, and for what price?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: The answers are as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) No. The company which submitted the lowest tender requested and received permission to withdraw its bid.
(b)	The contract was awarded to the second lowest tenderer, Jacques Montplaisir Inc., of St. Leonard d'Aston, P.Q. for $19,000.



UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES

Mr. Granger: 1.	What was the total amount paid to the provincial governments for unemployment assistance in the fiscal year 1959-1960?
2.	How much of this amount is attributable to the abolition of the so-called threshold provided for in the original act?
3.	What was the total amount paid to each provincial government in respect of the fiscal year 1959-1960?


George Ernest Halpenny: The answers are as follows:
1. The total amount paid to the provincial governments for unemployment assistance in the fiscal year 1959-60 was $40,166,426. This included federal contributions in respect of the fiscal years 1959-60 and 1958-59, and of the retroactive period of one year prior to the signing of agreements, for which claims may be submitted at any time. The total amount paid to the provinces in respect of the fiscal year 1959-60 was $36,579,658.
Starred Questions
2. It is only possible to make an estimate of the proportion of the amount paid by the federal government. It is estimated that this amount approximates $12 million. In making this estimate it is assumed that all provinces would have been participating in agreements during the fiscal year 1959-60 even if the threshold had not been removed.
In so far as part 3 is concerned, Mr. Speaker, federal payments to each province with respect to the months in the fiscal year 195960 are set out in the following table. Again, Mr. Speaker, there are quite a number of figures, and may I ask that they be printed in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister consent to have the balance of his answer printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table referred to above
is as follows:]
Newfoundland	 $3,529,898
Prince Edward Island	 113,912
Nova Scotia	 664,878
New Brunswick	 360,559
Quebec	 6,085,922
Ontario	 11,669,544
Manitoba	 2,868,333
Saskatchewan	 1,723,968
Alberta	 2,098,350
British Columbia	 7,305,454
Yukon	 32,642
Northwest Territories	 26,197
Total	 $36,579,658



RECIPIENTS OF UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE

Mr. Granger: 1.	How many persons, In each province, were beneficiaries of unemployment assistance at the latest available date?
2.	What was the corresponding number of beneficiaries in each province for the corresponding date in the years 1956 and 1957?


George Ernest Halpenny: Under the terms of the unemployment assistance agreements, provinces may submit claims up to six months after the end of the month to which they relate. As a result the latest month for which complete figures are available is June 1960, The number of persons assisted, by provinces, for that month is as follows; and again, Mr. Speaker, may I have permission to have these figures printed in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister the requested consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Starred Questions
[Editor's note: The table referred to is as follows:]
Newfoundland	 52,422
Prince Edward Island	 1,515
Nova Scotia	 18,917
New Brunswick	 17,849
Quebec	 67,948
Ontario	 78,580
Manitoba	 19,632
Saskatchewan	 16,722
Alberta	 18,844
British Columbia	 47,230
Yukon	 127
Northwest Territories	 132
Total 339,918


George Ernest Halpenny: In so far as part 2 is concerned, the number of persons assisted in each province in June, 1956 and June, 1957 is indicated in the following table. It should be noted that in June, 1956 only six provinces, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, were participating in agreements under the Unemployment Assistance Act. In June, 1957, Ontario also was participating but Nova Scotia, Quebec and Alberta were not.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I have quite a number of figures to read and I wonder if I may have permission to have them printed in Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table referred to is as follows:]
June,	June,
1956	1957
Newfoundland	30,781	33,199Prince Edward Island . .	797	1,312New Brunswick	2,532	3,005Ontario 	-	36,567Manitoba 	8,407	8,508Saskatchewan	8,099	8,754British Columbia	18,495	19,104Total	69,111	110,449



ABBOTSFORD AIRPORT, B.C.

Mr. Hicks: 1.	What are the lengths of the three runways of the Abbotsford airport?
2.	Can the large DC-8's and Trans-Canada Air Lines super constellations land and take off successfully from this field?
3.	During recent foggy weather at Vancouver and Seattle, what was the greatest number of scheduled flights in one day into this field, and what was the revenue?
4.	What were the total flights for January, 1961, as compared to the corresponding month, 1960?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: The answer to part 1 is 7,000 feet, 5,271 feet and 5,272 feet.

Regarding part 2, the answer is yes, but both types of aircraft would be limited in the load they could carry depending upon the runway used. DC-8 aircraft would be reduced to a gross weight of approximately 270,000 pounds from its 310,000 pounds maximum on the 7,000 foot runway and could not use the shorter runways. The super constellation is not limited on the 7,000 foot runway but would be limited on the shorter runways to
128.500	pounds gross in a 15 knot headwind as against a maximum permissible gross of
137.500	pounds.
The answer to part 3 is that during the fog period January 19 to 28, the heaviest traffic into Abbotsford occurred on January 27 when 25 commercial aircraft, including three DC-8's, two Britannias and six DC-6's, used the airport. Revenue on that day totalled $918.20.
As to part 4, the answer is that total traffic for January, 1961, all types of aircraft, was 541 aircraft against a total of 483, all types of aircraft, in January, 1960.



HAINES CUT-OFF SURVEY

Mr. Howard: 1.	Is a survey presently being conducted into the feasibility of keeping the Haines cut-off open on a year-round basis?
2.	If so, when is it expected that the survey will be completed, and will it be made available to parliament?


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: The answer to the first question is yes.
In answer to the second question, I may say it is expected that a report on this matter will be completed within approximately six weeks. A survey is being carried on by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources as part of an over-all appraisal of Pacific coast transportation problems. As this report is being prepared for an interdepartmental committee, it would not be tabled in parliament.



REMOVAL OF C.N.R. FACILITIES, SMITHERS, B.C.

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 101
Frank Howard: 1.	Is the Canadian National Railways planning to move any of its facilities or works from Smithers, British Columbia?
2.	If so, what facilities or works, to which other community, at what reduction in staff, how many personnel will be obliged to move, and when will the changes take place?


Léon Balcer: I wonder if this question could stand, since the Canadian National Railway management has not been able to get the information at this time.
Question stands.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY    RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS

Mr. Argue: 1.	Have any (a) processing reports (b) recommendations, with respect to settlement of contractors' claims against the St. Lawrence seaway authority, been made to any government official by (i) Mr. D. Forgan (ii) Mr. W. B. Crombie (iii) any other person, since construction work began on the seaway?
2.	If so: (a) who made them, on what date and to whom? (b) what was the contract number on the claim being dealt with, the name of the contractor, the amount claimed, and the amount of settlement recommended in each case? (c) what was the nature of each report or recommendation?


Léon Balcer: The answer to this question is as follows: The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises that the answer to part 1 is yes.
As to part 2, a number of contractors' claims were reported upon by Messrs. D. Forgan and W. B. Crombie, who were retained by the authority as consulting engineers for that purpose, and by other persons. All reports dealing with claims by contractors were made to the authority through the chief engineer. Such reports are departmental documents and are clearly privileged under the established practice of the house. As the reports themselves are privileged, it follows that details contained in them should not be produced.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Winch: What amount was paid by the Department of National Defence in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1960, for the following (a) pay and allowances for band personnel (i) active forces (ii) reserve forces? (b) travel expenses for band personnel (i) active forces (ii) reserve forces? (c) purchase of musical instruments (i) active forces (ii) reserve forces?


Mr. Egan Chambers (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question, as closely as it could be computed, is as follows:
(a)	(i) $4,224,553, (ii) $1,054,538.
(b)	(i) $401,338, (ii) $5,918.
(c)	(i) $25,533, (ii) $13,470.



WINTER WORKS PROJECTS


Mr. Racine: How many persons, not registered as unemployed with the placement offices, have succeeded in obtaining employment through the winter works projects carried out during 1960-61, as at January 31, 1961?


Richard Devere Thrasher: Mr. Speaker, this information is not available. Figures supplied by the municipalities indicate an
Starred Questions
estimated total employment on municipal works projects as of last night of 95,245 persons.




Mr. Racine: How many unemployed persons, registered as such with the placement offices, have succeeded In obtaining employment through the winter works projects carried out during 1960-1961, as at January 31, 1961?


Richard Devere Thrasher: Mr. Speaker, the number of persons who were placed in employment on approved municipal winter works projects through referral by national employment service offices in the period October 1, 1960, to December 31, 1960, was 30,583. Placement figures for the month of January, 1961, are not yet available.
It should be noted that while recruitment is carried out as far as possible through national employment service offices to ensure that unemployed local residents are referred to employers on these projects, this is not feasible in the case of those municipalities located some distance from a local national employment service office.
The unemployment insurance commission operates some 200 offices across Canada. Some 1,750 municipalities have to date engaged in municipal winter works projects. Figures supplied by the municipalites indicate an approximate total employment to date of 95,245 persons on winter works projects.



EMPLOYMENT IN MANUFACTURING, SASK.

Mr. Carter: According to dominion bureau of statistics figures, how many people were engaged in manufacturing in Saskatchewan, in the months of October, in the years 1944 to 1960 inclusive?


Edmund Leverett Morris: Mr. Speaker, since the answer to this question requires 45 statistical figures and three footnotes, I wonder whether we might have the consent of the hon. member and of the house to having it printed in today's Hansard at this point.


Mr. Carter:: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I agree.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo agrees. Does the house agree to the suggestion of the parliamentary secretary?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to above is as follows:1

Starred Questions
Number of employees in the manufacturing industries in Saskatchewan, broken down into: "Production Workers"1 and "Salaried Employees"2 for the months of October, 1944-19583.
Number	Number
1944	Production workers1 	
Salaried employees2	
7,974 	
3,054	1944	Total employees	
11,0281945	Production workers1 	
Salaried employees2	
8,139 	
2,740	1945	Total employees	
10,8791946	Production workers1 	
Salaried employees2	
8,658 	
2,823	1946	Total employees	
11,4811947	Production workers1 	
Salaried employees2	
8,366 	
2,912	1947	Total employees	
11,2781948	Production workers1 	
Salaried employees2	
7,921 	
2,818	1948	Total employees	
10,7391949	Production workers1 	
Salaried employees2	
7,901 	
3,037	1949	Total employees	
10,9381950	Production workers1 	
Salaried employees2 	
7,483 	
2,985	1950	
10,4681951	Production workers1 	
Salaried employees2	
7,985 	
2,996	1951	Total employees	
10,9811952	Production workers1 	
Salaried employees2	
8,310 	
3,129	1952	Total employees	
11,4391953	Production workers1 	
Salaried employees2	
8,411 	
3,166	1953	Total employees	
11,5671954	Production workers1 	
Salaried employees2	
8,052 	
3,203	1954	Total employees	
11,2551955	Production workers1 	
Salaried employees2	
8,062 	
3,254	1955	Total employees	
11,3161956	Production workers1 	
Salaried employees2	
8,537 	
3,118	1956	Total employees	
11,6551957	Production workers1 	
Salaried employees2	
8,572 	
3,304	1957	Total employees	
11,8761958	Production workers1 	
Salaried employees2	
8,804 	
3,491	1958	Total employees	
12,2951	Number employed last week in October.2	Annual average. Salaried employees cover Administrative and Office Employees.3	Not yet available for 1959 and 1960.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE   CALCULATION OF GROWTH

Mr. Pickersgill: What is the basis of the calculation of the growth factor in the equalization formula referred to in the letter addressed by the Prime Minister to the provinces, proposing a resumption of the federal-provincial conference?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the replies that I have received from the provincial premiers I can announce that the meeting of the dominion-provincial conference will commence on February 23 and continue on February 24. Until the government's proposals are placed before the provincial premiers I feel that it would be inappropriate to give the detailed answer for which the hon. gentleman is asking.



NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT SERVICE


Mr. Deschalelels: 1.	What Is the total number of offers of employment received in Canada by all the national employment service offices of the unemployment insurance commission for the following years: 1953-54-55-56-57-58-59-60?
2.	How many persons have obtained employment in Canada through the national employment service offices of the unemployment insurance commission for the same years?


Richard Devere Thrasher: Mr. Speaker, in view of the detailed information requested I suggest that the answer might be taken as read.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member agreeable to that procedure?


Mr. Deschalelels:: I agree.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The answer referred to above is as follows:]
1. The total number of vacancies notified through all national employment service offices of the unemployment insurance commission for the years 1953-1960:
1953		 1,289,162
1954		 1,088,320
1955		 1,232,973
1956		 1,425,620
1957		 1,119,538
1958		 994,639
1959		 1,175,831
1960		 1,128,922
2. Placement in employment effected by national employment service offices of the unemployment insurance commission for the same years are as follows:
1953		 993,406
1954		 861,588
1955		 953,576
1956		 1,046,979
1957		 877,704
1958		 840,129
1959		 986,073
1960		 958,300



PROVINCIAL ROAD PROJECTS, NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the government received any requests, queries, or suggestions from the province of Ontario, regarding the sharing under any federal program of the road location surveys or roadbuilding in northwestern Ontario, for projects which would link Geraldton and Manitouwadge; Hornepayne and Manitouwadge; Ignace and Savant lake?
2.	If so, when, and with what results?


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this question be made an order for return.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, whether a question should be made an order for return or be published in Hansard is something that makes a considerable difference from the point of view of persons placing questions on the order paper. I should prefer to see this question answered on the Hansard record rather than made an order for return. The same comment applies to the next question.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is limited by the rule. Standing order 39, section 5, says:
If a question is of such a nature that, in the opinion of the minister who is to furnish the
Motions for Papers
reply, such reply should be in the form of a return, and, during the question period on Wednesday, the minister states that he has no objection to laying such return upon the table of the house, his statement shall, unless otherwise ordered by the house, be deemed an order of the house to that effect and the same shall be entered in the Votes and Proceedings as such.
If the hon. member wishes to object, of course the matter is in the discretion of the house and I will call for those who are in favour of the matter being ordered for return.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to make this particular question an issue, but there seems to have grown up a practice, when information comes from more than one department, for the Secretary of State to make it an order for return. In this particular case there is nothing complex about the question or the information that would justify it going one way or another, and I think it is unfair-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Unless the minister wishes to alter his decision, he is complying with the rule in requesting that the answer be made an order for return. Unless the house otherwise directs, it will be so ordered.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the government received any requests, queries, or suggestions from the province of Ontario, regarding the sharing under any federal program of the road location surveys or road building in northwestern Ontario, for projects which would link Geraldton and Manitouwadge; Hornepayne and Manitouwadge; Ignace and Savant lake?
2.	If so, when, and with what results?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 42-Mr. Regier:
For a copy of all correspondence and instructions issued by the Department of Labour to the regional offices of the unemployment insurance commission having to do with displaced persons since January 1, 1957.
Hon. Michael Slarr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is not present in the house I would ask that this notice of motion for the production of papers stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.

Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS



CAPE BRETON


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance as suggested by a resolution of the Cape Breton labour council asking that Cape Breton be declared a distressed area or, as the minister said in the budget speech, a chronic unemployment area.
Can the minister say whether Cape Breton has been so designated and, at the same time, what other designated areas are in the government's mind?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, this will be done, of course, in due course; but as I pointed out when I was last asked a similar question, this is a matter in which some expediting of the budget resolutions would assist very much.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister, does he not realize that now over six weeks have elapsed-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -does he not realize that over six weeks have elapsed-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -since the
minister announced-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, these gentlemen here apparently do not want to assist the unemployed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have taken no exception to the hon. member drawing to the attention of the minister the lapse of time, and I think the house should hear the
question.
Mr. Martin Essex East): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise the question of unemployment; that is the subject matter. I regret hon. members opposite do not want to hear it. Does the Minister of Finance not realize that over six weeks have elapsed since he announced in this house that the government proposed in part to deal with unemployment in this country by applying the principle of double depreciation to distressed areas? That being the case-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question is of course an argumentative one, presenting an argument in the form of a question. I think he would be within his


rights in asking the ministry for an explanation of a delay, but not to go on to reinforce that with argument.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the time that has expired-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Just a minute-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I take it the hon. member has completed his question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am well aware of the time that has expired. I do keep track of the calendar. Perhaps we may have some progress some day soon on these budget resolutions. We spent three days on one very short resolution last week. I hope we will have more co-operation from the opposition from this point on.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Finance now announce the areas to be covered by this measure so that municipalities can take the necessary preparatory steps? If the government is serious about its attempt to deal with unemployment-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is tacking on something which is improper to a question which I would be prepared to admit.


Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am prepared to admit the hon. member's question, but I tried to prevent him from attaching a rider. It is now open to the minister to reply.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member attempt to disentangle his little question from that mass of verbiage with which he clothed it, full of statements and misstatements?


Peter Francis Martin: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad to try and clarify a very simple question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the government's announced policy regarding double depreciation, and in view of the desirability of municipalities being prepared to take advantage of this provision, will the minister without further delay announce the distressed areas to be covered by the application of this proposed principle of double depreciation?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I take issue at once with the hon. member's reference to distressed areas. That expressions has been employed by the hon. member with deliberate purpose. It was employed by another hon. gentleman opposite who asked a similar question not long ago. I did not refer to distressed areas in the budget speech at all. If the hon. member would amend his

inquiries I think they would be more appropriate. Announcement of this subject will be made at the appropriate time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: At the end of the
session.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, no; not under the dictation of the dictatorial hon. member for Essex East, but at the proper time.


William Moore Benidickson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance referred to items in the budget resolutions. Which item in the budget resolutions has in any way deterred action on the part of the government with respect to accelerated depreciation to business people dealing with the depressed areas?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think we should anticipate the debate which will take place on the budget resolutions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting all hon. members. The Minister of Finance suggested that the reason he was not in a position to answer the question of the hon. member for Essex East was that the budget resolutions had not been dealt with. My friend the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is asking which of the budget resolutions refers to this matter, and I think for good reason; because none of them does.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is not one seeking for information but for making a point. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is not satisfied with the answer which has been given and wishes to argue the point. I think the appropriate time would be when the budget resolutions are under discussion.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether it is the policy of the government not to designate any areas of chronic unemployment until all the budget resolutions have been dealt with?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not put it
that way, Mr. Speaker. If the Leader of the Opposition will look at the answers I gave to the hon. member for Laurier when he first asked a similar question about a week ago, the hon. gentleman will find that I pointed out that I thought the house should pass on the budget before we attempted to deal piecemeal with some of the matters that I dealt with in the budget.
Since that time the house has resolved itself into committee of ways and means on the budget resolutions, but we do not seem to be making very rapid headway in the committee.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, this is now the second time the Minister of Finance has referred in the same manner as he did earlier to the so-called delaying tactics of the opposition in connection with this measure. The leader of the house has now had two opportunities to call the budget resolutions if he wanted to but has seen fit not to do so. We are ready to proceed with these, and the Minister of Finance should know that we are ready, without pointing his finger in our direction and accusing us of employing delaying tactics.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have noted from time to time that hon. members on both sides of the house have commented on the conduct of other hon. members with respect to the progress of business. I doubt if that is a matter of privilege unless there is some imputation of personal misconduct in any accusation of that kind. I do not think the hon. member for Laurier has a proper question of privilege.


Lionel Chevrier: Let us have an answer to the question, at least, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Laurier knows that while he may ask questions he cannot insist on an answer of any particular kind. The minister concerned is free to make such answer as he sees fit.



REQUEST THAT RAILWAY UNIONS AND MANAGEMENT REOPEN NEGOTIATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a reply from the railway brotherhoods to his request to them and to the railways to renegotiate their difficulties in connection with wages?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what is the nature of the reply?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I can table it tomorrow.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. Has May 16 or any other date been set by the government as the date upon which the freezing of railway freight rates will be lifted?


John George Diefenbaker: When a determination has been reached on that question it will be brought to the attention of the house.

Inquiries of the Ministry INQUIRY FOR RETURN



FEDERAL PAYMENTS TO SASKATCHEWAN, 1960

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Noël Dorion: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Welland asked me about the answer to be given to his starred question No. 57, made an order for return, having to do with the contributions made by the federal treasury to the provincial treasury of Saskatchewan in the calendar year 1960. In reply I am pleased to inform the hon. member that a number of departments authorize payments from the federal treasury to the provincial treasury of Saskatchewan, that all departments have been circularized for information on these payments, and that the return will be tabled as soon as all the information is available.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, now that the flurry from the opposition benches is over I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister with all due and proper respect for parliamentary procedure.
In view of the most significant peacetime announcement by Right Hon. Harold Macmillan, Prime Minister of Great Britain, that he intends to attempt to organize a commonwealth policy on disarmament at the commonwealth conference of prime ministers to be held in London next month, can the Prime Minister inform the house whether the government has given consideration to this announcement and its response to the same?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have received no indication that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, to use the words of the hon. gentleman, "intends to organize a commonwealth policy on disarmament". Such a course, I think, would be foreign to the relationship among the countries of the commonwealth. However, it is the practice of these conferences to endeavour to arrive at a consensus of opinion on various issues that are of importance to the various nations comprising the commonwealth family.
One of these issues is the question of disarmament, which I know will receive full attention from those in attendance at that conference. As I said the other day-I believe on February 3-in answer to the hon. member for Essex East, in our discussions I do not think it would be appropriate to attempt to arrive at a common policy applicable to


all parts of the commonwealth. We will discuss, consider, and I am sure agree on the need of furthering every effort toward disarmament. That has been the purpose of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom throughout the last several years, particularly evidenced by the fact that he has sought the closest relationships between east and west consistent with the maintenance and preservation of freedom. That has been the attitude of this government, as I stated the other day, and that is the attitude of the other governments of the commonwealth. My hope is that in the discussions to be held all of us will be able to attain a unity in our objectives without in any way interfering with the basic principles of the commonwealth.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if it is still his intention to visit Ireland when he is in the United Kingdom attending the commonwealth conference.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I received an invitation from both governments on the island of Ireland and I am going to accept, because I am eager to visit that island in view of the relationship that prevails between their governments and Canada and in view of the wonderful contribution those of Irish origin have made in Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister, as a question of privilege, whether in his visit to Northern Ireland he will take up with the publisher of the Belfast Weekly Telegraph an article which appeared in the edition of Friday, January 13 and, with what I can only describe as brilliant anticipation, referred to the Canadian Prime Minister as a former Canadian prime minister?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, everybody knows the present and the continuing Prime Minister.


WASHINGTON
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Will the Prime Minister tell us whether the press report stating that he intends to visit Washington before attending the commonwealth conference is correct?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. gentleman I would advise that I received an invitation from the President of the United States to be in Washington on the 20th of this month. It is an invitation I am glad to accept to enable a discussion to take place between the President and myself regarding such international problems as are of general interest to both our countries.
The announcement was made in Washington by the President at his press conference this morning. It would have been made in the House of Commons at the same time if it had been possible to do so. The reason it was not made in the house was that it was agreed that the announcement would be made on Wednesday, and I think it is only fair to advise the house accordingly.
Incidentally, the President said this morning that it was a good thing internationally for old friends to get together. I am looking forward to this meeting, which will be an informal one, free from any formal connotations. I think it is desirable that, as one of the representatives of Canada at the prime ministers' conference, I should be enabled to have at first hand the views of our close and highly regarded neighbour on the many questions which will be coming before the conference.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think all members of the house, indeed all Canadians, will welcome the announcement the Prime Minister has just made, will wish him well in the discussions he is about to have with the President of the United States, and will agree that it is most appropriate that he should have these discussions before the forthcoming commonwealth prime ministers' meeting. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom will be visiting Ottawa in conjunction with his forthcoming visit to Washington?


John George Diefenbaker: First I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his generous words. So far as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is concerned, I hope it will be possible for him to come to Ottawa if arrangements can be made on his part following the meeting in Washington. I know he is desirous of coming here. I hope he will be able to arrange to do so and that he will be accompanied by his great helpmate, Lady Dorothy.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of his forthcoming visit to Washington. Would he ask the new administration through 90205-6-117
Inquiries of the Ministry the President to reconsider the United States attitude toward uranium purchases from Canada, especially in view of the fact that the United States atomic energy commission has asked domestic suppliers to increase their production?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this subject has been discussed between both governments, and I think a full report has been given on the question. If the facts are as stated by the Leader of the Opposition, naturally it is a matter that should continue to be discussed between our countries. However, within the time limit available to me on this occasion I am not certain that this will be one of the subjects discussed.
There are, however, meetings from time to time, not only regular meetings between the ministers of both governments but meetings between civil servants. This is a matter that naturally, now that the hon. gentleman has asked the question, comes to the attention of the government of the United States. As he knows, agreements were entered into some five or six years ago. Unfortunately those agreements were open at both ends in so far as the assurance of continuous purchases of uranium by the United States were concerned. The result of these open end agreements, of course, has been that the Canadian uranium industry has found itself in a difficult position. I am sure I do not need to tell the hon. gentleman this, but continuing representations are made on this subject.


STATEMENT ON REPORTED IMPORTS OF VEGETABLES FROM CUBA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Yesterday a question was asked by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska with respect to imports of tomatoes from Cuba. My department is aware of the current movement of Cuban tomatoes into Canada. However, the movement from Florida is by rail rather than by truck. These tomatoes do not compete with the production of Ontario growers, since there are no Canadian tomatoes on the market at present and marketing in commercial volume is not expected prior to the latter part of March.
Starting April 1, all imported tomatoes will be subject to a duty of 10 per cent ad valorem. This will continue until the seasonal specific duty of 1% cents per pound is applied for a period of 32 weeks, usually starting in the latter part of June in Ontario.
In regard to the supplementary question, I would inform the house that these shipments have conformed to the provisions of section 56 of the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act.

Inquiries of the Ministry


REPORTED LOSS OF TRACTOR SALE TO CHINA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of a disturbing report in yesterday's Globe and Mail that Canada has lost the sale of 400 tractors to China because United States law prevented the Massey-Harris-Ferguson Company in Canada from making this sale. Would the minister care to comment on the report, and can he tell the house what action he is prepared to take to protect Canadian sovereignty and to assure that United States laws shall not interfere with employment in Canadian industries by preventing the sale of Canadian goods?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. I presume that no consideration was given by Massey-Ferguson Limited to exporting tractors from Canada because I am informed they do not make tractors in their Canadian plants and do not have tractor manufacturing capacity in Canada.
There was no discussion between the company and the Canadian government with respect to any effect of United States foreign assets control, or any need of relief from the effect of this United States control under the arrangements which exist between the Canadian and United States governments.
There would appear to be no interference with employment in Canadian industries as suggested by the hon. member.
(Translation):


AIRPORTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Is the minister in a position to tell the house when the Charlevoix airport will be in operation?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, according to the information I have received from my department it will be towards the end of July.
(Text):



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter Pitman (Peterborough):: A press report indicates that the United States administration disarmament experts are considering the admission of China into any

proposed disarmament scheme. Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs in a position to tell the house whether the Canadian government would favour the admission of China to such proposed disarmament talks?


Howard Charles Green: I suggest that this is a question to be discussed in the debate on external affairs, or on consideration of the estimates.



QUEBEC CITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Bourbonnais (Vaudreuil-Sou-langes):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Could the minister investigate to find out whether the fire that took place at the provincial parliament buildings in Quebec last Monday destroyed the plans and specifications for the future He aux Vaches location of the trans-Canada highway passing through Vau-dreuil-Soulanges?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member seems to have gone a long way round about to bring this matter under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
(Translation):



THE CENSUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State.
On Saturday February 4, it was reported in Le Devoir that the amended census form was about to be printed. My question is this: Does not the minister think that it would be appropriate to table the new proposed form before having it printed?


Noël Dorion: I am
sorry, Mr. Speaker, but that question does not lie within my jurisdiction.
(Text):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It has to do with the new census questionnaire that is about to be printed. Does the minister not think that the new questionnaire should be submitted to all members of parliament before its printing is proceeded with?


George Harris Hees: 
Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Can the
Minister of Trade and Commerce tell the house whether the new census form to be printed is an improvement over the one used in 1951 under a Liberal government?


George Harris Hees: I would think the house would agree it is.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Questions of fact and opinion sometimes get mixed.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Has the minister had discussions recently with representatives of the workers at Canadian Car, Fort William, in regard to possible defence contracts and, if so, to what effect?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: I had the pleasure of meeting the representatives from local 1075 of the workers of the Canadian Car plant in Fort William. I am happy to say that because of the pressure we have put on- although we like to see industry absolutely free from government interference-they have kept this plant running for the last two years. When I met the representatives of the local I made several suggestions. Among others I offered at their disposal the representative of my department in Detroit in production sharing and other work that we were trying to secure, with the consent of their management, for the Fort William plant.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of the hardship recently caused C.N.R. passengers when a C.N.R. train lacking dining car facilities was trapped in the Fraser canyon for several days. In view of representations made by 90205-6-117 J
Inquiries of the Ministry railway employees, would the minister discuss with the C.N.R. management the desirability of providing some dining facilities on all transcontinental trains?


Léon Balcer: I will be very pleased to take up the matter with the management of the C.N.R.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, notice of which I have sent him. Has the minister received a telegram from the city of Prince Rupert inquiring as to the position of Canada regarding the maintenance of the Haines cut-off on a year-round basis and, if so, can the minister tell the house what reply was given in answer thereto?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I received the telegram on February 6, and I replied to it in the following terms:
Re your wire of February 6. Firm decisions must await results of the survey now under way and formal approaches from the United States.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Skeena of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In view of the fact that the economic development of the Yukon, including an existing mining operation wishing to ship high grade copper ore over the road from Haines junction in the Yukon to the tidewater port of Haines in the state of Alaska, is being seriously retarded due to the continued closure of the Haines road during the winter months, would the minister recommend the urgent need for the all-weather maintenance of the Haines road?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, it was the interest of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources in the continuing development of the north that precipitated the study and survey now under way. I can assure the hon. member that I have requested that the study be completed as expeditiously as possible, and that the matter also be considered within the frame of reference of Canadian interests as well as the international aspect.

Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



REPORTED INTENTION TO DISBAND CERTAIN CF-100 SQUADRONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of National Defence would care to comment on a press report based on a statement attributed to senior officials of his department to the effect that certain CF-100 squadrons will be disbanded in the current year, and that those that are retained will be used mainly for warning and identification purposes.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would not care to comment on this particular story, which I have not seen. However, I think the Leader of the Opposition will remember that my predecessor stated on two or three occasions last year both in the house and in the committee on defence expenditures, I believe, that the CF-100 squadrons would begin to be phased out in 1961.


Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, in view of what the Minister of National Defence has just said about the phasing out of the CF-100, can he say whether they will be replaced as this process takes place and with what?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Speaker.


John Richard Garland: No, they will not; or no, he cannot say with what?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say-TRANSPORT



CHIGNECTO CANAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Michaud (Kent, N.B.):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Did the minister receive notification last week from the acting premier of New Brunswick that two departmental engineers have been named by the provincial government to act with federal engineers on a survey of the Chignecto canal? If so, can the minister tell the house whether a decision has been reached as to when the survey will get under way and when a meeting of the federal-provincial engineering group will be held?
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): Yes, Mr. Speaker. After waiting since last summer for the new premier of New Brunswick to give us the names of engineers to co-operate with us in investigating the
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
feasibility of the Chignecto canal, we finally received the names a few days ago. I can assure the hon. member that even at the present time the preliminaries to the study are getting under way, and a meeting between the engineers of the federal domain and those of the province will take place very shortly, we hope.



REPORTED CONSIDERATION OF FEDERAL INQUIRY INTO HIGH COSTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the great interest in the question of the high cost of drugs in this country, would the Prime Minister care to comment on the report in today's Ottawa Journal that the federal government is considering a public inquiry into the cost of drugs?


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Speaker.



FEED MILL PURCHASES FROM FARMERS, SASKATCHEWAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a question of the Minister of Agriculture based on complaints that have been received that feed mills in the Saskatoon area are purchasing No. 1 feed barley for 39 cents a bushel at the farm or 55 cents a bushel at the mill. Will the minister comment on these prices, and particularly will he indicate whether he thinks they are consistent with the objectives of the wheat board?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Before I answer that question, would the hon. member give me the name of the feed mill in Saskatoon?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Several complaints have come in and I have not the names directly in front of me, but I would be glad to give them to him. I have one here-well, I had better make sure of that. However, since the minister asks, perhaps I might read a letter that I have in this connection.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He has asked for it.


Mr. Speaker:: The question and answer procedure is directed to those who are responsible for the administration. I think

the hon. member was asked for a name, but I do not believe he needs to supplement his answer by reading a letter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister asked for some information, and this is a matter of great concern. I shall be very glad to read this letter.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member would not be in order in reading the letter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Then perhaps the minister will give me an answer, since I cannot give him the source of my information. Will he give us an answer to this very important question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It is very important to me to end all these misrepresentations that go on concerning this feed mill issue, so I asked the hon. gentleman to name the mill because to use the indefinite expression "feed mill in Saskatoon" means nothing to me. I happen to know the name of the feed mill in Saskatoon, and I wanted to know whether the information came from an authentic or a non-authentic source.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister has certainly made a very serious allegation either against an hon. member of this house or against one of the farmers in western Canada. He has referred to this as misrepresentation. I hold in my hand now a letter from a farmer in Saskatchewan on this question, and the minister says that correspondent is guilty of misrepresentation.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I feel we ought to be able to put this on the record. In any event, the refusal of the minister to answer this question is a further indication of the lack of concern of this government.


Mr. Brunsden:: Is the minister aware of the fact that the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Assiniboia have been talking together lately?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



PENSION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 7, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Churchill-Mr. Flynn in the chair:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Pension Act to provide for increases to disabled veterans and their dependents; to permit payment of supplementary pensions in certain cases; to permit appeals from decisions of the former board of pension commissioners; and to provide for certain further changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Pension Act
Mr. Rogers:: Mr. Chairman, prior to the adjournment of the house last night I had been referring to pension advocates. I may say I brought this matter up as a member of the standing committee on veterans affairs. My opinion is that throughout all the years these pension advocates have never been brought together for a refresher course.
I submit the minister should look into this aspect of the matter. If the pension advocates were brought in for a refresher course, they could brush up on pension law, and I believe that it would help a great deal in the work. This would be following a practice that most organizations find helpful. I think this is most important, because it means a lot to the veteran in the preparation and presentation of his claim. In general, the pension advocates are doing a good job, but if they were brought together and given the opportunity to exchange ideas they would go back to work with new confidence and new ideas and do a better job.
My final observation is in connection with the proposed legislation. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that at the outset I said that the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act were complementary one to the other. I would hope that certain amendments would be made to the War Veterans Allowance Act in order to conform with the increase in disability pensions. I have in mind a recipient who, for instance, is receiving a 10 per cent disability pension and at the same time is receiving war veterans allowance. Under the proposed amendment this recipient will receive an increase in the disability pension and under present regulations he will have his war veterans allowance decreased, a procedure which will in effect nullify the proposed increase. I hope provision will be made so that the recipients referred to will enjoy the proposed increases.
I do not suppose any provision is made in the proposed legislation or in the bill to come before the house, but I should hope that this matter will receive attention shortly so the recipients may enjoy the increase. If we do not do this, I think a great deal of confusion is going to be caused, and certainly a great deal of disappointment.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Chairman, as a member of the committee on veterans affairs I wish to say a word of commendation on the introduction of amendments to the act which will provide for pension increases to disabled veterans and their dependents. I also wish to join with those who preceded me in this debate in extending to the minister congratulations on his appointment to one of the less controversial departments of the government. When I say this, I do not mean to convey the impression that there is always

Pension Act
agreement. However, on the whole the humanitarian aspect of the Department of Veterans Affairs is such that it does not offer the same area of conflict in ideas, because the subject is protected by a universal appeal to the better instincts of the members.
During the last two sessions of parliament I had the privilege of serving on the committee on veterans affairs, and at the numerous committee meetings which were held during those two sessions delegations were heard and many recommendations relating to the Pension Act were placed before the committee. This was, of course, to be expected. ft is only natural that the most important subject of discussion at these committee meetings had to do with compensation for disabilities suffered by men in the service of the country. Throughout the course of the deliberations the then minister-he is now a member of the other place-who was indeed friendly, patient and even sympathetic to the problems of veterans, made it clear then that the Pension Act would not be up for amendment, but he intimated that in 1961 the act would come under review. I am therefore pleased that at last the amendments are being made in a revision which I hope will result in a fair increase in the pensions of veterans in order to enable them to meet the present-day cost of living.
As a matter of justice these pensions should be under constant review, and should not be allowed to be dormant or fixed for years. The Canadian Legion and the war veterans associations have recommended an increase in pensions across the board. We on this side of the house feel that this recommendation should be considered along with the pension for the disabled veterans.
Then there is the question of the Hong Kong veterans. A delegation of this organization appeared before the committee and renewed their appeal for special compensation. It is a problem which should be well known to the government and which also merits special consideration.
One of the matters that illustrates the crying need for revision of the act is certainly the ceiling on a veterans income, which is $145 a month for a married man. I have in my constituency several cases in which veterans are being penalized because they have been able to supplement their meagre allowance with odd jobs, and in some instances because their wives are working part time, something they do only because it is their only means of meeting expenses and providing not luxuries but bare necessities. I could give details with regard to individuals who are sometimes compelled by circumstances to seek city relief, as outlined in letters which I have received. I have two

letters, as a matter of fact, one is dated October 4, 1960, and from it I wish to quote as follows-


Mr. Churchill:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. gentleman, who is dealing seriously with a serious subject. However, his earlier remarks dealt with an act which is not at present under review, namely the War Veterans Allowance Act under which a ceiling is placed on income. We are dealing here with the Pension Act, which has in it no such provision. I hope the hon. member is not going to get into a prolonged discussion with regard to the War Veterans Allowance Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must confess, Mr. Chairman, that I have not been able to be present during a good part of the debate. However, I understand that hon. members who have spoken previously have ranged fairly widely over the whole field of veterans affairs. I would hope that my friend the hon. member for Fort William would have extended to him by the Chair the same tolerance that has been extended to other hon. members.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I just say that I agree that there has been a wide ranging debate to which I do not object. However, while the other members who have taken part in the debate have made reference to the War Veterans Allowance Act they have not gone into details by talking about the ceiling and giving actual examples of people who perhaps have some objection to the way in which that act operates. I think we should restrict such references.


The Chairman:: I agree that the debate has been rather wide but only references have been made to the other acts concerning veterans. I would think the hon. member for Fort William is going a bit too far in discussing in detail an act which is not the subject matter of the resolution before the committee.


Hubert Badanai: Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I shall omit reading the communication which I intended to read. However, I should like to point out one single phase which I think is pertinent to the discussion of this subject. This particular veteran at one point, in view of his eyesight not being good, applied to the Department of Veterans Affairs at Winnipeg. This man lives in Fort William. He wanted to get a pair of glasses which cost $28 in Fort William. He received from the veterans welfare officer a communication which in effect said this:
Our Winnipeg office advises me that you wrote to the director general, treatment services, regarding glasses. I understand that you have been advised that these cannot be provided unless you are prepared to go to Winnipeg at your own expense.

It would cost at least $100 for a man to travel from Fort William to Winnipeg, wait probably two or three days to obtain a pair of free glasses, and return to Fort William. He could buy these glasses in Fort William for only about $28. I am merely pointing out the seeming lack of liaison among the various offices of the D.V.A.
Of course no Canadian war veteran should have to apply for charity for himself or his family, and I express the hope that the resolution we are debating today and which has been debated during the past few days will precede the enactment of legislation which will make unnecessary the humiliating recourse to public welfare. I think this is important.
The recommendations placed before the committee during both the 1959 and 1960 sessions of parliament by several veterans organizations have been most helpful to the members of the committee. I can also say that these submissions were made with dignity and restraint. There was, for example, the resolution submitted by the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada which had been approved at their 1960 dominion convention. I wish to quote the resolution; surely this would not be out of order:
Whereas the Pension Act states that in any application for pension, the applicant shall be entitled to the benefit of the doubt and the adjudicating body is directed to draw all reasonably inference in favour of the applicant; and
Whereas the pension commission, the pension appeal board and medical authorities acting on their behalf, are not in many cases giving the veteran the benefit of the doubt;
Therefore be it resolved by the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada, in dominion convention assembled, that this obvious violation of the Pension Act be again called to the attention of the various bodies who adjudicate upon pension applications and be duly reminded of their statutory duty to give to the applicant the benefit of the doubt according to the clear and specific terms of the section above mentioned;
I commend to the minister the suggestions contained in this resolution and express the hope that they will receive favourable consideration. They are suggestions which should be considered by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
During the course of the debate on this bill we will have another opportunity to review the exact amendments which are proposed by the government. At the present time we can only speak in generalities, and that is one of the reasons I have pointed out the complaints and suggestions which I have received from many of my constituents. We hope that the considerations mentioned in this house during the passage of the bill will meet with the approval and approbation of our veterans, especially those who are in need of assistance.
Pension Act


Mr. Kennedy:: Mr. Chairman, in rising this afternoon to say a few brief words on this resolution I should first like to join previous speakers in expressing my compliments to the new Minister of Veterans Affairs. He is a man who has rendered great service to his country in two wars. He is well known for his interest in veterans affairs throughout his public life and even in his private life. Since taking over this important portfolio he has demonstrated that he has the interest of veterans at heart, and I am sure they can expect him to give very great consideration to the many problems which still face those who served our country in time of war.
I should also like to pay tribute to my old friend the immediate past minister in this portfolio, Hon. Alfred J. Brooks. He also gave great service to his country and throughout his public lifetime displayed a very personal interest in the problems of those comrades with whom he served and who fought for their country in the first and second world wars.
It is hard for me, as a pensioner myself, to define the term "disability pension". I would rather refer to it as an earnest desire by a grateful people to compensate others for a part of their physical being given up in service to the country.
The proposed increase which is before the house will be welcomed not only by pensioners but by their comrades the other veterans, and by all people in this country who take some pride in the fact that we still live in a free country. Not all pensioners will definitely need this increased financial assistance, in the sense of a necessity to put daily bread on the table. But I would point out that everyone in this country has a responsibility, including those who suffer from disability.
The pensioner, like anyone else, has obligations to his family, to his friends and to the community at large. A disabled person does not have the same chance to fulfil these obligations; therefore he or she must do other things to compensate for that deficiency. With an increase in remuneration, this money can go some way toward filling this gap. Not only will this proposal today benefit the pensioner himself, but it will bring great benefit to those around him and to the community at large.
There is one aspect of the resolution as explained by the minister which is very commendable. This legislation seeks to plug some gaps in the set-up. No matter how well things are set up to provide for the many, there are always the few who seem to be on the fringe and who are called upon to suffer under certain circumstances. I am very pleased to see that this resolution at

Pension Act
least tends to plug some of those gaps. I would recommend that the minister and all those who are concerned with this or other veterans' legislation look into the many other gaps which still exist.
On other occasions in this house I have expressed my concern regarding the older veterans, the veterans of wars prior to 1939. These men have now reached the eve of their lives. Many of them do not have too many years to look forward to. Many are drawing small disability pensions supplemented by war veterans allowances. The implementation of this increased pension will not bring any fuller benefit to many of these people. I would therefore urge the minister to give every consideration to an early review of the War Veterans Allowance Act in order that some additional benefit may accrue to these people who because of age and infirmity are deserving of some comfort in their few remaining years.
I do not intend to take any more of the time of the committee at this stage. I am anxious as I am sure are all hon. members and the people of Canada to see what is contained in this bill. I will now resume my place and if there is anything further I have to say I shall bring it up when the bill is before us.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, this is legislation to increase pensions for disabled veterans and their dependents. The resolution further aims at adding new provisions and introducing certain amendments to the act.
At this time, we are being asked to approve the principle of those increases, without knowing their scope. When we have the bill before us, we will be in a better position to appreciate its scope and, if necessary, to criticize the bill if we find it inadequate to meet the veterans' present needs.
There is no doubt that, in principle, the resolution is welcomed by all hon. members in this house. We all have, in our respective constituencies, veterans of the two world wars, and of the Korean war. We are so much indebted to them that we should never miss an opportunity to provide the greatest possible security for them and their dependents.
In this respect, I would like to take the opportunity of this resolution to say a word or two on the present position of our veterans, a great number of whom-and I know 
the present minister is quite familiar with the situation-have had great difficulty in readjusting to civilian life and are in a sad plight because of present economic conditions and prevailing unemployment.
In that light, I think the government is not giving the veterans the help and support required to meet their needs and those of their families.
I followed yesterday with great interest and some curiosity the highly emotional speech made by the Associate Minister of National Defence. It was a fine piece of oratory, but I am trying in vain to find anything which might be of practical assistance to our veterans in dealing with their problems. It is certainly not with such speeches that their position will be improved.
The Associate Minister of National Defence was very cautious. He referred only briefly to the economic angle, as can be seen on page 1809 of Hansard, where he is quoted as saying:
This increase will stave off the destitution which unfortunately threatens quite a few of our veterans.
We would have liked the Associate Minister of National Defence to elaborate on that point, because he himself is a veteran with a very distinguished record in the last war, of which he can rightly be proud. But that is not the point. Our responsibility as legislators is rather a question of enacting practical legislation to help a class of people-in this case the veterans-who are given a privileged position, and rightly so, with regard to employment in the civil service. However, when it comes to awarding jobs, it does not seem that we are doing enough at this time to help a class of citizens to whom we are so greatly indebted.
The Associate Minister of National Defence, as well as other members on the government side, rather skipped over the political aspect in yesterday's speeches. Indeed, on the basis of their statements, one might think the world only started in 1957. Now, with all due respect to the present Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill) and to the former minister (Mr. Brooks), there have also been other ministers of veterans affairs in the past few years. There was the Hon. Milton Gregg who, if I remember correctly, was not only a veteran, but a recipient of the Victoria Cross. There was the Hon. Ian Mackenzie and the Hon. Hugues Lapointe.

They were all veterans, and today, it is simply a matter of amending a piece of Liberal legislation. Indeed, we took such good care of our veterans in the years preceding 1957, that the Associate Minister of National Defence, in his address, unconsciously recognized it when he said, and I quote from page 1809 of Hansard:
When I came back from the war in 1945, I was fairly discouraged, and if it had not been for the good care and encouragement I received in veterans hospitals, I wonder whether my convalescence would have been as short, and if I could have made such rapid progress as I did.
He was thus paying tribute to former Liberal ministers of veterans affairs, and I am delighted to have this opportunity today to put the record straight.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in our constituencies we are very often visited by veterans. They are usually in trying and distressing circumstances, and we refer them to the veterans' office on McGill street in Montreal. Now, everyone knows that the staff of that office cannot do a thing to help them at the present time, for all their good intentions. So without minimizing the good effects of this legislation, I would have liked the many Conservative members who took the floor to laud the government for introducing this legislation, to soft-pedal their praise and recognize the hard fact that the first thing our veterans want is jobs. That is what they want. And they are the first to suffer from the situation in which the government has placed them for the last two or three years. That is what I should like the government, and particularly the Minister of Veterans Affairs, to keep in mind in introducing the bill which will follow this resolution.
Under present conditions, veterans' preference, as applied under the provisions of the existing legislation, does not mean a thing, because there are no jobs. Again, without minimizing the possible importance of this bill I say it does not go far enough, and that very special consideration should be given our veterans who are the first to suffer from the unemployment problem facing us today.
I hope that before introducing his bill, the Minister of Veterans Affairs will take these remarks into consideration.
(Text):


Mr. O'Leary:: Mr. Chairman, from the year 1920 until 1957 veterans pensions have been increased on but three different occasions. Let me quote single rates. The first increase came
90205-6-118
Pension Act
in 1947 when the amount for a single 100 per cent disability pensioner was increased from $900 yearly to $1,128. Then in 1951 this amount was raised to $1,500 yearly, and finally, in 1957, it was raised from $1,500 to $1,800. Thus we see that over a period of some 37 years only three increases have been granted, or an average of one increase for approximately every 12 years.
If we take the increase of 1957 and the one proposed in the resolution before us we note that we shall have had two increases in a little over three years, or an average of approximately one increase for every one and a half years since 1957. I give these averages merely to indicate that the interest of the government on behalf of our veterans is steadily and rapidly increasing rather than diminishing as the years pass.
As further testimony of this fact we need only to mention the emergence of the veterans charter following world war II, the setting up of the standing committee on veterans affairs in 1958, and the work undertaken by that committee since its inception. Its review of some four pieces of legislation and subsequent amendment and improvement by this house all bear witness to the ever growing interest in the affairs of our Canadian veterans.
The present resolution before us and what it will mean for our disabled veterans are very warmly welcomed on all sides of this house and across the country generally. Like others who have spoken on this resolution, I warmly congratulate and commend the minister on having introduced it. Since I am mindful of the keen and broad interest which such a subject arouses and realize that every constituency in Canada will experience the favourable results, my words will be brief in order to assure time for many others who I know would like to make their comments.
Of the approximately 20 members who have already spoken on this resolution I have noted that the majority expressed some dissatisfaction with the pensions commission application of section 70, or the benefit of the doubt clause. I, too, very strongly feel that the commission is not carrying out the intent of parliament in many of its decisions which adversely affect our veterans. The purpose or intent of section 70, as set out by parliament, permits, if not instructs, that body to give the veteran the benefit of the doubt when further or more conclusive medical evidence is desirable before award. In many instances, as has already been pointed out, it would appear that instead of such interpretation the board has taken the view that sufficient and conclusive evidence

Pension Act
should be presented to the degree that there can be no element of doubt in their minds that an award is justified. I sincerely hope that in the future the original and actual intent of parliament will be more carefully observed and that as a result a greater and a completely justified leniency will be shown the claimants.
I realize that at times the veteran, or the person or persons preparing and compiling his evidence, may be partially at fault in not doing a more thorough job. This necessitates appeals and abhorrent delays. Here I wish to pay a special word of tribute to the service officers at dominion command here in Ottawa for their efficient and excellent work on behalf of veterans of this country, and more particularly on behalf of veterans in my constituency, of which I have a firsthand knowledge. Identical words of praise go also to our district pensions advocate in the Halifax office.
I should like to devote some time to what I feel would be a consideration of desirable and timely changes in our war veterans allowances legislation. However, since it is the Pension Act which is before us, and with the hope that an opportunity will be provided us in the veterans affairs committee to consider this matter which is so closely and directly allied with pensions themselves, I will desist at this time.
In conclusion, I merely wish to say that as a veteran, as a member of the standing committee on veterans affairs and as a backbencher from a very important constituency I wish to thank the government and the minister sincerely for having introduced this resolution.
(Translation):


Mr. Parizeau:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to join with previous speakers in expressing my best wishes to our new Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill). Because of his military reputation and because he took part in the last two wars, we are sure that the minister will give consideration to our veterans' problems and solve them by meeting their requests, which are justified since these people sacrificed their lives to protect the freedoms we hold dear.
At the same time, I want to thank the former minister of veterans affairs, Colonel Brooks, who, with the government, amended the legislation to give the veterans part of their due.
I heard the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) say earlier that before we came to office, veterans had been well taken care of. Let me tell the hon. member that as soon as the Conservative party came into power, one of the first acts to be adopted was that which increased veterans allowances by 17 per cent, while during their three last years in power, our friends had granted them only an increase of a mere 3 per cent.
I will go further and say that during 1956 and 1957 their government spent only $130 million on that score, while in 1959 and 1960 our veterans and their dependents have received an increase of $149 million. We of the Conservative party are devoted to the cause of our veterans; I would even say that we are the first government of Canada to have in our ranks so many veterans.
The Hon. Mr. Brooks and his government have amended the act to allow the benefits to be paid from the special fund provided by the War Veterans Allowance Act, which means an increase of 410 per cent under our administration.
So, may I point out again to the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont that we did more during the three years we have been in office than the government of which he was a member did during the period from 1945 to 1956. Besides, by this resolution, we intend to increase further the allowances and benefits paid to those who fought for us during the last two wars. In fact, I notice that we want to authorize the payment of additional pensions in certain cases and permit appeals from decisions of the former pension board.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out to the minister that on several occasions veterans have come to me with their case. I am really surprised that the Canadian pension commission should refuse either an increase or a pension to certain veterans. The decision is always based on the famous section-I think it is section 7-concerning marginal cases. I think that a man who served in the Canadian army either during the 1914-18 war or during the 1939-45 war, who underwent intense training, who fought in France and Italy, certainly lost part of his health there even if he was not wounded. Therefore I repeat that I am surprised that the commission should never give those veterans the benefit of the doubt.
I should like to draw the minister's attention to one particular case. A certain Mr. Bergeron, a resident of my constituency,

served six years in the army, that is, from 1939 to 1945; he served in France and in Germany, and during his period of service he was treated for rheumatism and was confined for 15 days. Now, the Canadian pension commission refuses to recognize that this man had to leave his job because he could not continue to fulfil his duties on account of his health, and the commission will not award him a certain percentage of pension although he contracted that disease while serving in the army.
I have another case, that of a certain Mr. Grandisson concerning whom a letter dated February 3 was addressed to me. This man receives a 40 per cent disability pension. He lost a lung as a result of a wound suffered in action and his doctors will not let him work because he cannot even handle a shovel. The pension commission refuses to award him an increase or find him a job at the veterans hospital.
I should like through you, Mr. Chairman, to draw the minister's attention to those two cases I have just mentioned, so that the Canadian pension commission would forget sometimes that the veteran making an application has no intention of obtaining money to which he is not entitled, but merely what is due to him for his sacrifices during the war as a compensation for losing his health while serving his country.
There is another point that I should like to raise. There are in our ranks and outside our party today people who fought in the last two world wars, the first from 1914 to 1918, and the second from 1939 to 1945. On their discharge, they were enjoying perfect health, but today, at the age of 55, 60 or 65, they are afflicted with certain illnesses. I am not asking for a pension on their behalf, because they do not want any. But those veterans should at least get free hospital care.
I am sure that after five or ten years of war service, the incapacities afflicting those veterans today are due in great part to their military service.
Speaking of hospitals, I should like to point out to you that several veterans who are friends of mine come and tell me that there is certainly room for improvement in the Ste. Foy hospital services in Quebec. If I did not shy from it, I would recite a case which concerns me personally, since I am a pensioned veteran, and which would show how we are sometimes treated by the authorities of the Quebec Ste. Foy hospital.
90205-6-1184
Pension Act
I therefore ask the minister to inquire into the matter for the betterment of the hospital services provided in the Quebec area for our veterans.
Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying that 1,250,000 veterans will surely be happy to see our government enact this new legislation. For my part, I support this resolution.
I am sure that under the command-I can use that word-of the minister, our veterans will be proud of the present and will continue in the future to enjoy any new legislation he will introduce.
If we can express ourselves freely today and if we can look forward to the future with confidence, we owe that privilege to those who fought in the Canadian forces, to those disabled veterans who suffered the horrors of war, but who, thanks to their sacrifice did enable us to preserve the liberties which we so dearly cherish.
(Text):


Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief in my remarks. May I begin by stating, as other members have stated, that the veterans of Canada will indeed be very proud of this legislation and happy to know that their situation and circumstances have been recognized by the government. I congratulate the minister on bringing in this legislation at this time and also on the assumption of the portfolio in which he now finds himself where I am sure he will be as successful as he was in his former portfolio.
In a previous session I brought to the attention of the house the fact that certain inequities exist in the administration of pensions, and that is my reason for speaking today. I did so on July 10, 1959, and therefore I wish to put before the committee a couple of points I have in my mind. In order that I may be clearly understood in the beginning and not called to order as I probably could be, may I say that I trust the minister-and I am sure he will in the not too distant future-introduce similar amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act.
It was indeed somewhat of a disappointment to me to hear the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont make a political argument by way of interjection in the debate, and under the circumstances I think he should have been called to order as another member was for being out of order in the remarks he was making. This is a

Pension Act
matter that concerns veterans and the Pension Act and certainly it has nothing to do with the subject matter that he was placing before the house. I might refer the hon. member to the discussion that took place in the house in 1946 when the minister and his parliamentary secretary were presenting legislation at that time comprising the veterans charter. On that occasion the minister particularly said that he appreciated the cooperation of the members of the Conservative opposition in making their views known in a non-partisan way. The interjection made by the hon. member this afternoon was anything but the type of co-operation that was sought at that time by his party when legislation and amendments were before the house.
The points I wish to bring to the attention of the house are simple and I will be very brief. The increase envisaged in the present amendment is certainly one that will be well received and I am sure it will raise the standard of living of those receiving medical pensions to a level which they justly deserve. In particular I hope that some consideration will be given in the legislation to the interpretation of the benefit of doubt clause, to which reference has already been made. I believe this matter was made very clear back in 1945. It has been pointed out to me on several occasions that the benefit of doubt clause was included for the clarification of particular cases in the minds of the pension commissioners. I do not believe that this is so. I think it was made very clear in the house on August 1, 1946 by Mr. Tucker, who was at that time the parliamentary assistant to the minister. He made these observations, as recorded at page 4179 of Hansard for that date, and I should like to repeat them now for the benefit of the committee:
Mr. Chairman, just to put it as briefly as possible, the Pension Act provides that if a disability is due to service it is pensionable; if it arises during service it is pensionable; if there is an aggravation of a condition which a man had when he went into the service, and he has had service in a theatre of actual war, and the disability was not obvious, wilfully concealed, or recorded on medical examination prior to enlistment, he not only gets pension for the disability in respect of the aggravation but he gets it in respect of the entire disability. Of course that does not apply in respect of service in Canada only. If he did not serve in a theatre of actual war he gets the pension in respect of the disability, or the aggravation of the disability, as the case may be, to the extent that there is an aggravation. That is putting it, I think, as simply as I can.
Now, in interpreting whether the disability arose during service or was due to service, we have the section which is in dispute today. The way it was worded before was:
"Notwithstanding anything in this act, on any application for pension the applicant shall be

entitled to the benefit of the doubt, which shall mean that it shall not be necessary for him to adduce conclusive proof of his right to the pension applied for, but the body adjudicating on the claim shall be entitled to draw and shall draw from all the circumstances of the case, the evidence adduced and medical opinions, all reasonable inferences in favour of the applicant."
That made the language as explicit, perhaps, as the English language could make it, that if there was any doubt whether this disability was incurred during service or was due to service, or the aggravation was incurred during service or was due to service, the applicant was to get the benefit of the doubt. I really do not see how it could have been made much plainer; but in deference to the committee and in accordance with what the hon. member for Vancouver South-
This indicates very clearly how the benefit of the doubt clause is to be interpreted. As a previous speaker mentioned, it may be time now to discuss again with the members of the pension commission their interpretation of the legislation that has been- brought down in the house.
I knew of one case in which a veteran was released from the service at the end of the first world war with a valvular heart condition. His own physician treated him for the entire period until he died in 1958 of a coronary. His widow did not receive any pension, so was advised to take the case before the appeal board. She did so and produced evidence from her husband's personal physician, but was again turned down by the appeal board. At this hearing before the board the man's personal physician stated, without any doubt, that the condition which the veteran had at the time of his discharge from the Canadian army resulted finally in his death. As a result of his ailment this man had been receiving a 49 per cent or 50 per cent pension, but on his death the board did not see fit to grant his widow any assistance. I feel this is an obvious case in which the benefit of the doubt clause was not used in its proper sense.
I feel, too, that it would be advantageous in considering the welfare of the dependents of pensioners in particular categories, possibly those with 50 per cent pensions or more, to study the possibility of granting the wife and the children under the age of 16 entitlement to hospitalization. If we are to accept the responsibility for the veteran in this particular category, and for his infirmities and disabilities, then I think we should be prepared to provide support in this way in so far as his dependents are concerned. I am sure some arrangement could be made by the Department of Veterans Affairs with the provincial governments to take care of the cost.
I should like to discuss other points that I had in mind, but most of them have been

discussed by other members. I shall, therefore, wait until the second reading of the bill to make any further remarks.


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Chairman, this is the first occasion on which I have had the opportunity, in my present capacity, of speaking on veterans affairs. I should like to say, first, what a pleasure it is to me to have been given the opportunity to serve this particular minister in this capacity. The record of the Minister of Veterans Affairs in service to his country, particularly in service to the military forces, is most outstanding as anyone can see by referring to his biography. He has had 26 years of service in the military forces and brings to his portfolio a thorough knowledge of veterans and their problems. He has a warm heart and a sympathetic understanding, which I believe are prerequisites of the minister of this department.
In so far as his predecessor Colonel Brooks is concerned, I should like to say how much all members of the house appreciated the efforts he made on behalf of the veterans. We wish him well in his career in the other place. May I say in regard to my own predecessor, who is now the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, that we extend our congratulations to him. I think I have the honour of being the first parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs who has a veteran for a wife.
The legislation which will follow this resolution, in addition to the increases in the pensions which have been referred to by the minister, will include provision for pensions on behalf of dependent children being continued until the end of the month in which the child reaches 16 or 17 and they will not stop on the day after the child's birthday, as is the case now. Then when the widow dies her pension and that of the children may continue to be paid to any person who is capable of assuming or has assumed the care of the children. Under the old legislation it could only be continued to a daughter. I am rather surprised that this amendment has not been introduced before now. I am glad to see it is being recommended to the committee.
If this legislation passes, additional pension may be paid to the woman who lives with a man for at least seven years and has been publicly represented as his wife. She may also receive the widow's pension upon his death, if she is otherwise qualified. This provision only applies in cases where the marriage cannot take place because of a previous undissolved marriage on the part of either party. I might point out that this provision has been contained in the War Veterans Allowance Act for some years.
Pension Act
Another of the resolutions which have been brought to the attention of the government by the Legion is that increases have been made in the last illness and burial expenses so that the maximum amount under this act may be available as under the veterans burial regulations.
I should like to say a few words about some of the resolutions which were drawn to the attention of the government by the Canadian Legion, particularly those that had been referred to hon. members in the course of the debate on this resolution. One of the resolutions put forward by the Canadian Legion is as follows:
Therefore be it resolved that we continue to press our demands that the government increase the rates payable under Schedules A and B of the Pension Act to bring them more in line with the wage index and standard of living.
I am extremely pleased, as I am sure are all hon. members, that it has been possible for the minister to give assent to that request. In dealing with the Legion resolution might I say at this time what a happy and fortuitous event it has been that the president of the Canadian Legion happens to come from my own constituency, namely Saskatoon. Professor Mervin Woods, who has had a distinguished career in law and in the teaching of law and long service in the armed forces and in the ranks of the Legion will bring to his task the wisdom, energy and ability which that great post demands.
If I may do so I should now like to say a few words with regard to the Legion resolution relating to special problems involving Newfoundland. Several of the Newfoundland members have spoken in support of the resolution put forward by the Canadian Legion to the effect that a change be made in the Pension Act in order to make clear the status of Newfoundland veterans in accordance with the spirit of negotiations leading up to the terms of union.
Every since the union of Newfoundland and Canada in 1949, under article 38 of the terms of union a Newfoundlander who served not in the armed forces of Canada but in those forces raised by Newfoundland and the United Kingdom has been required if he sought pension to apply first of all to the United Kingdom. Then, after having done that, he could apply to the Canadian pension commission for supplementation which would bring the total he received up to the Canadian pension standards, the same as any other Canadian. At this point I might perhaps just refer to the article in the terms of union to which I have made reference, namely term 38. It reads as follows:
38. Canada will make available to Newfoundland veterans the following benefits, on the same

Pension Act
basis as they are from time to time available to Canadian veterans, as if the Newfoundland veterans had served in His Majesty's Canadian forces, namely,-
I will skip paragraph (a) and go on to paragraph (b) which is the pertinent subparagraph, and which reads as follows:
(b) Canada will assume as from the date of union the Newfoundland pension liability in respect of the first world war, and in respect of the second world war Canada will assume as from the date of union the cost of supplementing disability and dependents' pension paid by the government of the United Kingdom or an allied country to Newfoundland veterans up to the level of the Canadian rates of pensions, and, in addition Canada will pay pensions arising from disabilities that are pensionable under Canadian law but not pensionable either under the laws of the United Kingdom or under the laws of an allied country;-
Hence the position of Newfoundland veterans was that if they were rejected for pensions by the United Kingdom they could still apply to the Canadian pension commission. This latter was a right which was not granted to Canadians who served in the allied forces up to the date of the introduction, and we hope eventual passage, of this particular resolution and bill. Up to the present time Canadians who served in the forces of the United Kingdom or in other allied forces could not apply to the Canadian pension commission unless the allied government granted them at least some pension. Once they obtained an award, they could apply to the Canadian pension commission to have that pension brought up to Canadian standards. However, if they were unable to qualify for a pension under the conditions laid down by the allied government those Canadians, unlike the Newfoundlanders, were precluded from applying to the Canadian pension commission for entitlement on Canadian grounds.
As was mentioned by the minister on December 12, as reported in Hansard on page 735, this form of discrimination will be removed by the proposed amendment. On that occasion the minister stated as follows:
Then with regard to Canadian citizens who served in allied forces during either of the wars, it is proposed to bring in an amendment so that they may claim entitlement from the Canadian pension commission when their claims have been rejected by the government of the allied force in which they served.
The Legion suggests in effect that article 38 of the terms of union be looked at in order to see whether Newfoundland veterans are entitled to go straight to the Canadian pension commission for a pension without reference to the United Kingdom at all and in effect to absolve the United Kingdom from any contribution at all to the pensions of Newfoundlanders who served in the United Kingdom forces-that is to say any

of the new pensions-or alternatively, although I do not think this was suggested by any of the hon. members who have spoken, that some sort of financial arrangement be worked out with the United Kingdom so that in the event that the Canadian pension commission awarded a pension in the first instance, to which normally the United Kingdom would have made a contribution, that contribution would still be made by the United Kingdom to the Canadian treasury in compensation.
The nub of the matter in so far as the Newfoundland veterans are concerned is simply this and no more than this. It is simply that they wish to avoid the time it takes in first making application to the government of the United Kingdom. I want to assure the Newfoundland veterans that their problems, just as are those of veterans in any other part of Canada, are of vital concern to me personally and to the Department of Veterans Affairs. I have had friendly relations with Newfoundlanders for many years. During the last war on many occasions I had the good fortune to stop in Newfoundland while going to and from Europe. I always looked forward to and enjoyed those stops and I have kept up some of the contacts I made on those occasions.
As a matter of fact, on first coming to the House of Commons in 1957 I had the pleasure of rooming with the hon. member for St. John's East and immediately struck up a lasting friendship with him which carried forward into work. He and I started a research project into the possibility of establishing transshipment ports in Newfoundland in order that grain could be kept stored in marketable position. The research that we started at that time is still going forward and as a matter of fact is broadening in order to provide marketable storage positions for grain in other places as well.
Therefore my relations with Newfoundlanders have always been warm and cordial, and may I say to the Newfoundland members that they may be assured that I intend to ask at the earliest possible opportunity for a study to be made of term 38 both by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Justice, in order that the fullest consideration may be given to the representations which have been made both by the Canadian Legion and by hon. members of this house.
The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, in a very thoughtful address, mentioned the problem of conditions not recorded on enlistment. He referred to the Canadian Legion resolution on this matter, to the effect that section 13 (1) (a) of the Pension Act be amended so that where a pension applicant who served in an actual theatre of

war is found to have a disability resulting from an injury or disease not recorded on medical examination prior to enlistment, such injury or disease shall be presumed to have occurred or have its inception subsequent to enlistment.
This particular point was referred to by other members in the course of their addresses. I think some question has been in the minds of the Canadian pension commissioners as to whether or not this particular proposal would in fact result in facilitating more generous awards. But I think this particular problem affords us a good opportunity for review in this house and in the veterans affairs committee and to bring this matter to the attention of the Canadian pension commission in order to have as full an explanation as possible of their attitude in regard to this matter.
Many hon. members spoke about the benefit of the doubt clause, and indeed the Canadian Legion had a resolution on that particular point also. Their resolution reads:
That the government take action to ensure that the benefit of the doubt as set forth in section 70 is in fact extended to all applicants under that act.
As hon. members know, the Canadian pension commission is an independent body and is in no way responsible to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, although it reports through him and although he is charged with the responsibility of bringing before cabinet recommendations for changes in any legislation affecting that commission. He is but the spokesman for the commission. The Canadian pension commission is responsible directly to parliament. Because of this it is very helpful to have the suggestions of hon. members expressed here and in the veterans affairs committee for the continued improvement in the way it functions.
Many members have made very useful and thoughtful suggestions in the course of this debate which I am sure will be of great help to the Canadian pension commission when it considers the report of this debate. Particularly, as I have mentioned, hon. members have made reference and many suggestions in regard to the operation of this benefit of the doubt clause.
One question I myself have heard on many occasions over the years, and upon which I would like to have some comment, is whether, in awarding pensions for nervous conditions or mental illness resulting from war service, sufficient weight is given by the pension commission to section 70 in dealing with these matters. Argument is made that mental conditions are with one from birth and if such conditions be considered for pensionable purposes at all they should be considered as to
Pension Act
the extent of aggravation of the nervous condition or mental illness due to war service. However, I would like to point out that my information is that this premise is not proved by any means. Much doubt exists as to the prime cause of mental illness, as well as some doubt as to the precise factors which increase its severity.
I would be very happy if the Canadian pension commission would reassess its stand in regard to this matter, giving full weight to sound, modern psychiatric knowledge and practices and to the benefit of the doubt clause. No veteran suffering from mental illness resulting from or aggravated by war service should be denied pension treatment unless there is no doubt that his illness did not in fact result from war service.
Another matter which might be considered in the committee is the resolution of the Canadian Legion to the effect that the additional allowances in respect of wife and dependents being paid to those pensioned at less than 50 per cent at the time of death be continued to the widow and such dependents so long as they remain eligible as otherwise provided under the act. Many members of the house have raised this question. It has been one of concern and one which I think would be capable of solution only by joining the experience of the members of the house and members of the committee with the experience of the Canadian pension commission.
The suggestion that allowances be continued to the widow and children after the death of the pensioner receiving less than 50 per cent pension is a new one in that particular term. It is of course closely akin to earlier suggestions that the widow and children receive pensions in cases where the pensioner is in receipt of less than 50 per cent disability pension and does not die of his pensionable disability. Might I suggest that this particular resolution receive, if it is considered appropriate by the veterans affairs committee, its attention for recommendation and suggestion.
The hon. member for York-Sunbury made a suggestion as to the composition of appeal boards. The Canadian Legion, too, had a resolution about this particular problem. The Canadian Legion urged the pension commission to ensure that all appeal boards are composed of one lawyer, one doctor and one layman, and if necessary reconstitute the board to make this possible. I understand that every attempt is made to follow the request contained in this particular resolution when appeal boards are being convened. The composition of appeal boards is, however, dependant upon a number of factors, including the composition of the commission

Pension Act
itself. Under existing circumstances I am advised that it is not possible to abide by the request contained in this resolution at all times, but that, as I point out, the commission does try to follow the request wherever possible.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo made some reference to earlier pension commissions. I gathered from the remarks the hon. member made that what he wanted was a brief review of the history of the various bodies which have been clothed with jurisdiction in pension matters during recent times. I have here a brief list indicating the various bodies which have had that jurisdiction from 1916 to date, and if it would be helpful to hon. members and the members of the veterans affairs committee I should like to place this list on the record at this time.
Order in council P.C. 1334 dated June 3, 1916 created the first organization to deal solely with war pensions. It was called the board of pension commissioners and consisted of a chairman and two members. It was expressly provided that there would be no appeals from decisions of the commission, but dissatisfied applicants could present their cases either personally or by counsel before the full commission sitting for the purpose of hearing the complaints of those who may have been dissatisfied with decisions given in the ordinary course of administration.
The next change occurred in 1919 by way of chapter 43, 9-10 George V. Statutory provision was made for a commission to be known as the board of pension commissioners, consisting again of a chairman and two members. I will not go into the duties of that commission other than to say that provision was made for two or more commissioners to sit for the purpose of hearing the appeals of dissatisfied applicants or pensioners. This provision was repealed when the federal appeal board was created in 1923.
In 1923, by way of chapter 62, 13-14 George V, the federal appeal board was created, consisting of a chairman and not less than four nor more than six members. This was abolished in 1930 by way of chapter 35, 20-21, George V. In that year a pension tribunal was created consisting of a chairman and eight members as well as a pension appeal court consisting of a president and two members.
In 1931, by way of chapter 44, 21-22 George V, the pension tribunal was increased to a maximum of 12 members with a minimum of 9 members, one of whom was to be chairman.
In 1933, by way of chapter 45, 23-24 George V, the board of pension commissioners and the pension tribunal were abolished and the Canadian pension commission was created consisting of a chairman and not less than

7 members nor more than 11 members. I believe this is the point about which the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo was inquiring. Provision was also made in 1933 for the hearing of dissatisfied applicants by quorums of the commission holding public hearings at convenient places throughout Canada. The pension appeal court continued as the final court of appeal.
In 1936, by way of chapter 44, 1 Edward VIII, provision was made for the appointment of ad hoc commissioners if and as required and not to exceed five. The procedure was amended to first hearing, second hearing, personal appearance and appeal. The quorums were continued and the pension appeal court remained as the final court of appeal.
In 1939, by way of chapter 32, 3 George VI, quorums were abolished and the pension appeal court was abolished and its power of final decision transferred to appeal boards of the commission to consist of three members of the commission holding sittings at convenient places throughout Canada. The procedure established consisted of first hearing, second hearing and appeal. Perhaps that summary may be of some use to hon. members in relation to this matter.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt but I must advise the parliamentary secretary that his time has expired. Although I have recognized the hon. member for Lincoln, perhaps he would yield the floor to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I will not long detain the hon. member for Lincoln, but I could not fail to rise after the parliamentary secretary spoke to express my disappointment at what he had to say about the Newfoundland veterans. As my friend the hon. member for Humber-St. George's indicated last night when I was unable to be in the chamber, I concur fully in. the representations made in their speeches by the other four hon. members on this side of the house from the province of Newfoundland. Our hopes were raised by the previous minister in 1957, the last time the act was opened. The then minister promised a study at that time and now the parliamentary secretary promises a study at this time of the same question. One wonders what has happened in the three-year interval.
Moreover, the parliamentary secretary did not say anything whatever about what, after all, is the largest single group of Newfoundland veterans who have what we think is a legitimate grievance. I refer to the forestry corps in Newfoundland. The mere fact that they were not enlisted men and did not wear a uniform in world war II, although they did

in world war I, has created the curious anomaly that although the Canadian forestry corps in both wars and the Newfoundland forestry corps in the first war are pensionable, the Newfoundland forestry corps in the second war are not, notwithstanding the fact that in the United Kingdom they worked side by side with the Canadians, did exactly the same kind of work and were subject to exactly the same sort of hazards.
It may well be asked what right have I to get up and say anything on this subject because from 1953 to 1957 I was a member of the government and was the representative in the government of the province of Newfoundland. While I admit all that, as my friend the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo pointed out, this problem was not brought to our attention at that time by these people. I am not saying it would necessarily have been dealt with if it had been but if we did not do what was right then that can be no excuse for not doing what is right now. I appeal to the government. Instead of giving the stock answer "Why didn't you do it?" the government should do it and get the credit that we might have got if we had done as we should have.


Mr. Phillips:: At least the hon. member is honest.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman expresses great surprise that a member of parliament should be honest.


Orville H. Phillips: It is nice to see the hon. gentleman being honest.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Honesty on the part of members of parliament does not surprise me. I think most hon. members on both sides of the house are honest. I was saying that this is an anomaly. It is something that is impossible to explain, except-as my friend the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo reminded me a moment ago before I rose to speak-by reason of the fact that the commission of government did not recognize these forestry veterans before confederation. It should also be remembered that the commission of government was not elected by the people of Newfoundland but was a government imposed on them. It was not a government representative of Newfoundland that failed to give this recognition.
I think it was unfortunate that it was not included in the terms of union. I am not saying there is any repudiation of the terms of union in not recognizing these forestry veterans. I am saying it is a matter of natural justice, of treating them on the same basis as they would have been if confederation had been in 1939 instead of 1949.
I am glad to see what the government is proposing to do for these older Canadians
Pension Act
who enlisted in the United Kingdom and allied forces in putting them on a level with the Newfoundlanders but one must remember that the Newfoundlander's position is quite different. The United Kingdom forces were the Newfoundlander's forces between 1939 and 1945. They were the only forces they could be expected to serve in, particularly in the air force and the navy. There was no Newfoundland navy or air force. A lot of Newfoundlanders had the good judgment to serve in the Canadian forces, but many of them did what was in Newfoundland the natural thing to do which was to enlist in the British forces.
And when they became Canadians on March 31, 1949 they were supposed to have all the rights of other Canadians presumably right back to the time of their birth because, in the Citizenship Act, they are described as being born in Canada. Therefore their position, it seems to me, should be assimilated in every way that it is legislatively and administratively possible to do it to the position that they would have had if they had been Canadians at the time they served in the forces. That is all we are suggesting, and I do hope that three years from now, or two years from now, we will not be told that still another study of this problem is going to be undertaken, because it really does not need any further study as the facts are all very simple, what it needs and all it needs is action.
Having said this, that is all I wish to say on this resolution. In fact, it strikes me that this resolution has been talked pretty threadbare already and I would suggest that if the Minister of Finance is as anxious to get on with his budget resolutions as he professed to be earlier today we stop this debate and get this resolution through and get back to the budget resolutions which we are ready to debate.


Mr. Smith (Lincoln):: Mr. Chairman, like other hon. members I do not wish to delay the passage of this resolution so that we might get along with the discussion of the bill and find out what the minister is going to bring forward in the way of amendments to the Canadian Pension Act. For these reasons, I will be rather brief. However, I would be remiss in my duty if I did not at this time on behalf of the many veterans organizations in my riding extend to the minister and all members of his department our most sincere thanks and appreciation for the consideration that they are giving to the many briefs that have been presented by the Canadian Legion and other organizations.

Pension Act
In my riding we have many veterans organizations. We have some eight branches of the Canadian Legion, including two Ukrainian and one Polish branch. We also have a branch of the Canadian corps and a branch of the good old British Imperial veterans. I am pleased that this year I will be able to become a member of the veterans affairs committee and I am looking forward to some very interesting sessions as a member of that committee. I might repeat what has often been said, namely that the Canadian Pension Act and the Canadian veterans charter are the most generous of any in the world today.
At this time, on behalf of the British Imperial veterans may I extend to the minister and his department their appreciation of the many benefits they receive from the Canadian government, which in many ways are equal to those of Canadian veterans. However, there is always room for adjustments and improvements and the draft resolution which the minister has submitted seems to open the door to many ways in which improvements can be made to the act. I will mention several of them which have come to me during my dealings with veterans in recent months.
There is the subject of section 36, subsection 3, of the Pension Act, which has been mentioned in this debate, and which I am sure has been reviewed on many occasions by the Department of Veterans Affairs. However, I do feel that it should be considered again. In its present form it does cause some hardship and sorrow when the veteran with a pension of less than 50 per cent dies and his pension stops; in other words, is not made available to his widow, which is the way the regulations read at the present time. I notice that this matter has been mentioned by other members and I trust the minister will give it serious consideration.
There is also the question of distribution of drugs and medicines to veterans receiving home treatment. In recent years it has become the practice in the department in some areas to have those drugs distributed through regional branches of the Department of Veterans Affairs. This often causes delay and in some instances the type of drug prescribed by the local physician is not always available at the veterans affairs branch dispensary. This is a matter which might be given some consideration.
Then there is the matter of borderline pension entitlement cases, especially those veterans who served long periods in the theatres of actual warfare. They should always get the benefit of the doubt. Even though there is too little evidence to substantiate a claim for pension it always brings much more satisfaction to a veteran who saw a lot of hard

warfare to get a pension for his disability rather than a veterans allowance.
I know that veterans allowances do not come under the Pension Act. Nevertheless, pensions for disabilities and for wounds and the veterans allowance for the burnt-out pensioner seem to go hand in hand. I trust that this part of the veterans charter will also be given consideration for amendment at this session of the house.
The matter of the British Imperial veterans who fought on the Afghanistan frontier in 1914 to 1919 and did not get victory medals and therefore are not entitled to veterans allowance might, I hope, be given further consideration by the veterans affairs committee during this session of the house.
I know that several other hon. members would like to follow me and I have quite a bit more that I should like to say. However, in order that they may be given an opportunity to voice their opinions at this time I am going to say that I appreciate the opportunity of speaking on behalf of all veterans and I am looking forward to learning more about the amendments to the Pension Act when the bill comes before the house.


Mr. Soulham:: Mr. Chairman, I take great pleasure at this time in rising to make a few remarks in regard to the resolution to amend the war veterans' Pension Act. First of all I should like to associate myself with our many colleagues who have formally spoken on this amendment to congratulate the present Minister of Veterans Affairs. I am sure that if he carries on and creates the enviable reputation in his new portfolio that he did when he was the minister of trade and commerce he will make a very great contribution to this department.
I should also like to express my congratulations on behalf of my constituency and the great number of war veterans in it to the Hon. Alfred Brooks, the present minister's predecessor. I am sure they join with me in wishing him many happy years of contribution and benefits to the welfare of Canadians while he is in the other place.
I represent the constituency of Moose Mountain which has many active branches of the Canadian Legion. I feel it is my humble duty to support this very timely resolution before the house, even though it is widely recognized that the legislation on the statute books at the present time to assist war veterans, their widows and dependants, is the best in the world. Nevertheless, there is still room for certain improvements and these new proposals will certainly be appreciated by the million and a quarter war veterans in Canada today.

Pension Act
I suggest that since we are increasing the war veterans disability pension under the proposed legislation we should also, as soon as it is possible, endeavour to increase war veterans allowances by the same amount. Otherwise, as has already been pointed out by a large number of our veterans now receiving pensions, they would not benefit as they should under the proposed amendments to the legislation. I have had a number of representations from branches of the Canadian Legion in my riding emphasizing this point, and for the record I should like to quote one recently received from the Gainsborough branch No. 170. It is under date of January 23, 1961, and reads as follows:
Whereas the hon. Minister for Veterans Affairs has stated in the House of Commons it is the intention of government to make a substantial increase in the war veterans disability pensioners' pension at this session of parliament; and whereas any increase in the war pensioners' pension will not benefit to the extent of one cent any disability pensioner who is also in receipt of a war veterans allowance unless the war veterans allowance is also increased by the same amount as the war disability pensions;
Therefore be it resolved that the hon. Minister for Veterans Affairs be petitioned to ask parliament to increase the amount to war veterans allowance recipients as, if and when the promised substantial increase in war disability pensions is instituted and brought into force.
This resolution was moved by G. Meredith and seconded by J. W. Plumb and the communication is signed by their secretary, Mr. W. A. Slade. I cite this as an example of the representations made by a number of our Legion branches.
I should also like to say that like other hon. members I have had complaints from war veterans with respect to how the pension commission interprets what is commonly referred as the benefit of doubt clause. It would appear that at times the pension commission may be placing too much emphasis on or showing too much concern for treasury board rather than the needs of the war veteran applicant. I feel that the commission should try to get closer to the intent of the legislation than would appear to be the case in some instances now. In other words, the emphasis with regard to the benefit of the doubt clause should be transferred from the saving of money for treasury board to the needs of the war veteran applicant himself.
I could cover other suggestions that have been made by other hon. members but I feel that they made their points very effectively and that anything I might say would be superfluous. I should like to congratulate the new Minister of Veterans Affairs on introducing these amendments to the Pension Act. I am sure all Canadians will welcome this action of the government.


Mr. Thomas:: Mr. Chairman, this resolution has been anticipated by the veterans of Canada for some time. While increases in income have been granted to other groups in our economy, our veterans have been waiting patiently for their turn to come. It will be remembered that the former minister, the Hon. Alfred Brooks, hoped to have this legislation reviewed at the last session but it was found necessary to defer that review until now.
May I take this opportunity to join with other hon. members who have extended congratulations to the former minister, the Hon. Alfred Brooks on his elevation to a new sphere of responsibility and to wish him every success and happiness in his new work.
I would also join with other hon. members in their congratulations to the new Minister of Veterans Affairs on his appointment to this important portfolio and in their congratulations also to the new parliamentary secretary to the minister. We wish them both every success and satisfaction in their new undertakings.
There is no legislation processed by the parliament of Canada which is received with greater satisfaction than that which aims to improve the standard of living of those who served our nation in its time of need. Military service in the army, navy or air force involves the offering by those in the services of their time, their talents, their health and, if necessary, life itself.
Veterans legislation in Canada dates back for more than 40 years to the days of world war I and to the promise that was given by the government and the people of Canada that the economic status of the survivors of that conflict and their dependents would be protected. This undertaking was extended to the veterans of world war II and to those of the Korean conflict and the resulting legislation became known as the veterans charter.
The survivors of world war I are no longer young and many require more generous assistance than they are receiving. These increases in disability pensions can do much to add comfort and peace of mind to our older veterans' declining years. It is 20 years since the disasters of world war II threatened the loss of freedom to Canadians as well as to our allies in the struggle. Those were dark days when neither the enormity of the cost nor the enormity of the sacrifice was permitted to stand in the way of an all-out war effort. We found ways to finance our wars. We should be ready to fulfil the obligations growing out of those wars. Let time not dull the public memory of our great wars. Many suffered the loss of loved ones. Many were totally or partially disabled and many are reaping more and more as time goes on the

Pension Act
physical results of nervous tension and mental turmoil associated with war service. Our nation should not weaken in protecting the economic status of those whose sacrifice bought victory.
There are three particular matters in connection with this legislation which I should like to stress for consideration. I think all of them have been supported by other hon. members in this debate. I would suggest to the minister that consideration be given at this time to arranging for increases in veterans allowances. Many veterans in the lower percentage pension classes depend for their livelihood on a combination of a pension payment and a war veterans allowance payment. Since war veterans allowance payments are subject to a means test, increase in pension payments will result in decreases in their war veterans allowance payments. This is likely to cause hardship for some veterans, and I would urge the minister to take the necessary steps to avoid such a situation.
This will involve, I believe, changes in the war veterans allowance schedule and in the income ceilings under the War Veterans Allowance Act. I would urge that this matter be given immediate consideration to the end that increases in both disability pensions and war veterans allowances, which support each other, can be brought in simultaneously.
Another feature of the Pension Act which I find difficult to justify is that widows of pensioners who have been allotted a 50 per cent or higher disability are provided with widows' pensions whereas widows of pensioners who have been allotted a disability of less than 50 per cent are provided with no such pension. It is difficult to justify on moral grounds why this should be so and I urge upon the minister and the house that consideration should be given to amending subsection 3 of section 36 of the act so that all widows will be treated alike.
As the third feature which I wish to discuss I should like to add my support to those who have spoken in the debate and urged the full use of section 70 of the Pension Act which provides that in awarding pensions the board of pension commissioners shall allow the benefit of the doubt in favour of the applicant. I must say I would agree with the hon. member for Red Deer and others that an amendment to section 70 is unnecessary. What is required is a more generous interpretation of this section as far as the veterans are concerned.
I wish on behalf of the veterans, as well as of all citizens of Middlesex West, to express our appreciation to the minister and the government for bringing this legislation

before parliament. We believe it is necessary to assist in bringing our national obligations to our war veterans more nearly into line with modern costs of living.


Mr. Pugh:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that all veterans in the house are very pleased indeed at the recent appointment of the new minister. Certainly, he is following a very able man. I would say that under Colonel Brooks we were, indeed, happy in the veterans committee and elsewhere, and I know that this situation will be continued under the present minister in the years to come. This was a good set-up because it must be a happy group that administers veterans affairs. The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador expressed the feeling of all hon. members when he said that inquiries which were directed to this department were handled with courtesy and promptness. This, in itself, is something which commends that department.
I should like to say a word about legions generally. I am proud to belong to the Legion. I am proud of the fact that we meet and that when we do, we remember. Those who attend these Legion meetings regularly must realize how wonderful it is that the veterans have banded themselves together. They perpetuate this wonderful spirit which has been developed by the veterans through two wars.
When the minister introduced the resolution he quoted some rather significant figures. He said that about $47.5 million have been added to the amount expended on veterans affairs. He referred to the changes in disability pensions, war veterans allowances, the increases in widows' and dependents' pensions, educational assistance and the increase in the cost of hospitalization. Apart from all these monetary increases, these various pieces of legislation which have come under review have been broadened extensively as to the classifications covered and the eligibility of the various classes.
May I also commend the parent branch of the Legion for the briefs that have been prepared. These have been of great assistance to all members of parliament, but particularly to those who have been members of the veterans committee and who have had the opportunity of welcoming the Legion representatives when these briefs were presented to the committee. All members of parliament have also received a large measure of aid from the Legion and from other veterans organizations. This help has been given voluntarily, whether it has been to-trace a person or for any other matter. It has been given, of course, with good heart.

I was particularly interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer. He has a very broad knowledge of veterans affairs. Not only did he serve in two wars with distinction, but after these wars he turned to service in veterans affairs. During the course of that time he has dealt with many cases, and many veterans and their widows have come to him for advice. He summarized all the points very well. I am not overlooking the fact that many other members brought up points, too.
In so far as section 70 is concerned, it appears to me that the veterans committee must have a good look at it. We must ascertain whether it is necessary to have all these appeals, and why 50 per cent of them were granted. Anyone who has dealt with veterans or their widows must know that there is a period during which these people feel nothing is being done for them. They ask you right away, why cannot something be done about this? You say, there is a right of appeal, and it is this time lag that should be eliminated. The suggestions of the hon. member for Red Deer were excellent. He mentioned the need for a refresher course for pension advocates, and I believe that would be an excellent thing, to bring them up to date so that the handling of these cases will be more expeditious.
Surely, we must have reached the point now where a precedent has been set. If these precedents were followed, then the doctors and pension advocates would realize at once whether a case fell within the scope of these precedents and whether there was a chance the veteran would receive a pension.
I was rather surprised at the remarks of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, remarks which would indicate that those who were speaking on this resolution were holding up the business of the house. He inferred they should sit down and let the house get on with other business. He said he had followed the debate with interest, but rather left the impression when he sat down that nobody else should speak. The majority of the members who have spoken on this resolution have been veterans, and have been members of the veterans affairs committee. When we get up and say these things we say them not in order to prolong the debate but because we feel that a multiplicity of voices will bring these matters to the attention of those in authority. We make these representations in all sincerity and we will not be shushed by one member.
I was very pleased to hear the minister's parliamentary secretary make a reference to
Pension Act
Newfoundland during the course of his remarks. Certainly the members from Newfoundland, without exception, have put Newfoundland's case forward very well. Probably the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was the-


An hon. Member:: Fly in the ointment.


David Vaughan Pugh: He may have been the fly in the ointment, but he was not very charitable. He was not as charitable as the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo who stated that there had not been time, since these representations were first made by the veterans, to have the necessary changes made. The act has not been revised since 1957. I would accept his statement as against the sort of vapid utterances that came from the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
I gathered from the remarks of the hon. member for Saskatoon that after this legislation is introduced no difference will exist, in essence, between the veterans from Newfoundland and the veterans from other parts of Canada. I am hoping that will be so. However, since the hon. member spoke, another hon. member brought to my attention the fact that it is not a good thing to make the Newfoundland veteran apply elsewhere for a pension. If there is a rejection, then he comes under our Canadian pension commission. Even if he is granted a pension over there he might not be eligible for a pension of the same extent as if he had been granted a pension by our own Canadian pension commission.
There are many other points I should like to cover, but they will be perhaps best covered after the bill has been introduced. I started out by saying that we are a happy group in veterans affairs. That is the situation. In my opinion the veterans and the Legion who follow these proceedings cannot help feeling that we are putting our best foot forward and are getting to grips with the many problems which are involved and the many anomalies which exist in the acts forming the veterans charter.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, this is my first opportunity to address myself to legislation under the new Minister of Veterans Affairs. He knows that I would be the first to acknowledge his gallantry in the last war and in the previous war and also to acknowledge with the same enthusiasm that he resembles his predecessor in qualities. I refer to the present Senator Brooks who had been in this Department of Veterans Affairs.
I think we have been fortunate in this particular department in that no veteran at any time, under one government or another, would have any feeling that he had not had

Pension Act
a man of spirit or gallantry at the head of this department. I think of Hon. Ian Mackenzie, Hon. Milton Gregg, V.C. and Hon. Hugues Lapointe. Steadily in this department, one government or another has placed in this office soldiers of great quality in whom the entire country would have confidence. I have confidence in the new minister. To him, valiant soldier that he has been, I know the veterans can look with great confidence in the future.
On the other hand, it is our duty to examine in parliament legislation as it comes before us. In this instance we are looking at legislation that involves a decision of members of a government with respect to pension entitlement. While I commend the resolution coming in at this time, it is only to be expected that I would say that in the opinion of the minister's predecessor this date is late. Being late it has proved to be extremely costly to those pensioners to whom so many tributes have been paid today and yesterday in this House of Commons debate.
Hon. Alfred Brooks, the predecessor of the present minister, had indicated that this kind of payment out to pensioners who need it would be given a year ago. He made that statement, but apparently his colleagues in the cabinet did not agree with him. The result is that a year or more later we have this type of legislation. This situation is evident as will be found if anybody will look at the printed record of the standing committee on veterans affairs meeting on April 7, 1960. At that time the then minister of veterans affairs was the first witness before the committee. As it happened, I personally chanced to be the one who asked him about the delay in doing something about which there had been a previous public commitment. I refer my colleagues now to page 131 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of that committee on April 7, 1960. I stated as follows:
Mr. Chairman, I would just refer to the editorial in the March issue of the Legionary.
That is March, 1960. That is the Legion's monthly publication.
At the committee sittings I said:
I think the Minister has it in his hand.
I just happened to notice that he had the red-coloured magazine in his hand. I continued:
The editorial, of course, quotes from the minister's statement in the House of Commons last year which read this way:-
I want to quote back what the minister said then, and I quote now to this committee as follows:
As I told the president of the Canadian Legion when he visited our office, it is not our intention to make any amendment this year-

That would be 1959.
-to the Pension Act. We plan to have it before us at the next session of parliament-
That would be the 1960 session of parliament.
-at which time we will go very thoroughly into all phases of the Pension Act.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to make everyone aware of facts, namely that the then minister of veterans affairs-I refer to Hon. Mr. Brooks-made this commitment in 1959 and I am sure that he made it in the utmost sincerity. However, I think that the present Minister of Veterans Affairs was at that time in the cabinet; and I think we are entitled to find out why, when a minister made that commitment in 1959 about something that was to be effective with respect to these deserving people throughout 1960, it did not become effective then. It only becomes effective in 1961.
In addition, I want to remind the committee that notice of this legislation came before us prior to the Christmas-New Year's adjournment. The committee on veterans affairs was set up prior to Christmas. I have been a member of that committee for a great number of years. As a member of that committee, at its initial meeting I raised the question, is there any chance that if we do not proceed to further meetings any veteran would be prejudiced by date of payment of any benefits under the new legislation?
In this resolution there is nothing to indicate whether a retroactive benefit is to be provided. However, I want to make it clear that in December, at its initial meeting, the veterans affairs committee indicated that it was willing to meet. As you know, Mr. Chairman, in normal circumstances members of the opposition do not want to have a committee meeting during hours when the House of Commons is sitting if that procedure can be avoided. However, at this meeting it was made clear that if any co-operation was required on the part of the opposition to meet when the House of Commons was sitting or otherwise we in the opposition were prepared to meet prior to Christmas if the government had no intention of putting in the bill a clause that would provide for retroactive payments to the veterans. On that day I asked the parliamentary secretary a question on this point and he said the contents of the bill could not be anticipated. But knowing the present minister and knowing his good will to veterans I am sure there will be no parliamentary prejudice.
Having read the speech from the throne, as all veterans have, I am sure the government will make it clear that any benefits shall have nothing to do with parliamentary

debate procedure, and will be retroactive in a way that will be of the utmost benefit to the veteran himself.
I say this after emphasizing that there was one complete year of delay, based apparently on the failure of the cabinet to adhere to a commitment made publicly by the former minister of veterans affairs in 1959. Otherwise all these needy people would have had in 1960 what is now afforded in the bill for 1961.
(Translation):


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, since there are only two minutes left before the house adjourns, may I ask you to call it six o'clock?
(Text):


Jacques Flynn: Does the committee agree that it be called six o'clock?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why should we call it
six o'clock?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will only be of perhaps one or two minutes' duration, and perhaps I could accommodate the hon. member by proceeding.
I would like to add my voice to those who have congratulated the hon. minister on his new portfolio. I know we had pleasant relationships with him when he was minister of trade and commerce and I am sure that warmth of feeling will carry over into his present portfolio. I wish him every success in his position in the cabinet. I also wish him success in following in the footsteps of his predecessor, and hope that he eventually reaches that delightful and serene place in which the former minister now resides.
This is in reality the fourth or fifth-I have lost count-miniature throne speech debate we have had in this house since the session started. I do not know whether it is necessary to completely beat this resolution to death, but because of the substance of it, it would appear that perhaps the most expeditious way to deal with the matter is to proceed to place the bill before us.
However, each member wishes to make his contribution, and I am sure that in future those who now insist they are doing things
Business of the House
for king and country will keep their seats if they feel that someone is transgressing.
The C.C.F. has long been in the forefront of promoting the welfare and interests of veterans of this nation, and we will continue to be in the forefront so long as we have veterans in this country. I merely wish to indicate that I am in favour of the resolution and hope it receives expeditious treatment in the house.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the house leader could forecast the business for the rest of the week.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, what I would like to see happen tomorrow is this. If there is agreement on the other side of the house, we would continue with the resolution stage of this bill and then, by consent, distribute the bill and carry on with second reading. This is because it is our intention that after second reading the bill be referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs. Hon. members may think that over. If that is not agreeable, on conclusion of the resolution stage and first reading we would then deal with the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I could perhaps relieve the hon. gentleman's mind immediately. I think it would be much more preferable to adhere to the rules of the house, but there would be no difficulty in taking the bill on Friday and probably dealing with it very quickly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: All right; we might do that.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, in order that the bill will be placed before the house as soon as possible and referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs, and in the interests of veterans concerned and their dependants, we wish to co-operate in any way we can to expedite it.


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