Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to a matter of special importance to management and labour engaged in the salmon fishery industry in British Columbia.
As members will recall, the government late last fall withdrew its control on the export of certain species of raw salmon to the United States. This permitted United States buyers, who were offering higher prices, to obtain substantial quantities of Canadian raw salmon which otherwise would have been canned by our industry for domestic and export markets. Our canners, thus deprived of the raw materials, were obliged to suspend salmon canning operations in the latter part of the season.
The government has been concerned with the possibility of a more serious dislocation of salmon canning throughout the 1948 operating season. Separate submissions were heard from representatives of the canners, labour union and co-operatives, all of whom desired the maintenance of the British Columbia canning industry, notwithstanding some differences of opinion as to the sharing of their respective responsibilities in meeting this end. The government feels that some corrective steps must be taken to safeguard both fishermen and management. The most desirable solution seemed to be a measure of stabilization of the canning industry while at the same time assuring increased export of the raw material to the United States.
I wish, therefore, to announce that, effective immediately, British Columbia fishermen are permitted to export to the United States unrestricted quantities of raw spring salmon. Export of raw coho is also permitted, but only up to September 1 of this year.
Raw sockeye, pinks and chums, will be retained in Canada.
I want especially to emphasize that this decision is simply a ruling that is designed to give balanced treatment to management and 5849-1784
fishermen. It is not an embargo. It necessitates, of course, reasonable compromises on both sides.
I am satisfied that the decision reached by the cabinet will provide equitable safeguard for management in maintaining its canning industry and for fishermen by leaving the way open for them to take advantage of the higher prices paid on the United States market for springs and coho.
I might add here that the normal export to the United States of all species of canned, salted, smoked, cured frozen salmon is not, of course, affected by the ruling.


Mr. MacINNIS:: May I ask a question of the Minister of Fisheries? He said that this regulation did not constitute an embargo.


James Angus MacKinnon: It does not.


Angus MacInnis: Does it mean that, despite the regulation, sockeye, pinks and chums may not be exported, and if they may not, isn't that an embargo?


James Angus MacKinnon: It may be construed as a partial embargo, but it allows certain species of salmon to be exported to the United States market, retaining others at home.


Mr. PEARKES:: Can the minister say what steps are being taken to ensure a market for all the salmon that can be canned in our canneries?


James Angus MacKinnon: From our conversations with the industry, and it is the opinion of our own officials, we believe that the catch which will be canned this year in Canada will find sufficient markets, domestic and foreign.
On the orders of the day:


Mr. ARCHIBALD:: I should like to ask a further question of the Minister of Fisheries. Owing to the fact that the embargo on chums is a serious blow to the fishermen's co-operative on the coast, will the minister consider referring this matter to the fisheries committee where the co-operatives could present their case?


James Angus MacKinnon: We have gone very fully into the matter, Mr. Speaker. We listened to representations from the fishermen's union, the co-operatives who are both fishermen and canners, and the canners. I
Proposed Legislation

think the decision we arrived at, and which I have just announced, is a fair settlement of the difficulty at the present time.


Mr. MANROSS:: I should like to ask a quest'on of the Minister of Fisheries. Now that he has taken care of the sockeyes, chums, and pinks, will he try to export the reds?



TREATIES OF PEACE

[Stage Direction]
MEASURE WITH RESrECT TO TREATIES BETWEEN CANADA AND ITALY, ROUMANIA, HUNGARY, AND FINLAND
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide that the governor in council may do such things as to him appear to be necessary for carrying into effect the treaties of peace between Canada and Italy, Roumania, Hungary and Finland, respectively; and for that purpose the governor in council may make appointments, establish offices and make orders or regulations; and to provide further that any expense incurred in carrying out the treaties shall be defrayed out of moneys voted by parliament.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939, to provide that the act may apply to areas surveyed as settlement or river lots, to provide also that where a farmer has land in an eligible township and land in an ineligible township payment may be made to him to the full amount of his eligible land, and for the purpose of clarifying certain provisions of the act.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 194*0, to enlarge the scope of the act, to clarify certain provisions thereof, more specially in relation to contributions, procedure, offences and penalties, and to provide further for modification in the rates of contributions with the object of equalizing, to some extent, the total contributions payable by employers and employees.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. MILTON F. GREGG (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Veterans Rehabilitation Act by extending the allowance provisions in respect to persons coming under the provisions of the act.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS* REID (New Westminster): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Yesterday in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Douglas) he stated that assistance would still be continued on feed grain going east. My question is this:	Will
the same procedure apply to grains going west into British Columbia?
Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes. The fact of the matter is

Inquiries oj the Ministry
that the order in council with regard to both east and west is being extended to cover the period down to July 31, 1949.
For the benefit of the house and others outside the house I should like to say that I understand that yesterday a dollar a ton was added to the cost of feed in eastern Canada because of the fact that there has been a twenty-one per cent increase in freight rates. This morning we sent out word that since the government is paying the freight, whether it is increased or otherwise no one should find it necessary to add anything to the cost of feed.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. J. BENTLEY (Swift Current):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce? Will the minister inform the house whether the government considers that complementary legislation by any or all of the provinces is necessary to make effective Part IYa of section 29a of Bill 135?


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: In introducing the resolution to the bill, Mr. Speaker, I thought I made the government's position clear on this point. I stated that complementary legislation was necessary from the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The province of Saskatchewan has passed complementary legislation; the other two provinces have not. I also made it clear that this government had done its share an opening the door. The Canadian council of agriculture made representations to this government which the government thought deserved action, and action has been taken. I understand that the same representation has been made to each of the three prairie provinces; and the government believes that if either of these two prairie provinces does not take the same view of the situation that was taken by the dominion government, it is an indication that the majority of the people in that particular province do not favour the legislation.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Not at all.



FEED GRAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has any correspondence taken place between the provinces of Alberta and Manitoba and the dominion gov- [DOT] ernment in connection with the government's policy with respect to the price of coarse grain, and have the questions asked in the correspondence been satisfactorily answered?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is difficult for me, Mr. Speaker, to keep in my mind all the correspondence I receive, but I think I am right in saying that there has been no discussion of price with the province of Alberta. In regard to Manitoba, certain questions were asked and answered to the best of our ability. The answer was that we would expect an agreement between the eastern consumers and western producers as a basis for a price, and I understand that discussions are proceeding to determine such a basis.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Tories seem to be in control of the coalition government in Manitoba.


Robert Fair: May I ask a further question in that connection? Is it not a fact that the work of the Canadian wheat board is to sell the producers' grain at the highest price obtainable?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.



OLEOMARGARINE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JAMES SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: I should like to direct two questions to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, occasioned by a front-page article in the Montreal Daily Star. First, did the government recently make inquiries about the importation of oleomargarine from Denmark to alleviate the present butter shortage? Second, if this is so, how do the government propose to get around the provision of the Dairy Industry Act which prohibits the importation or sale of oleomargarine?


Mr. CRUICKSIIANK:: By paying the farmer more.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The answer to the first question, Mr. Speaker, is no; and the second question is answered by the answer given to the first.
Inquiries oj the Ministry



FLOOD CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works. Has he received any reports as yet with regard to floods in the Toronto island district and around Etobicoke creek? If so, what action is to be taken?


Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works):: I have received some correspondence and petitions from the people of Etobicoke stating that they are sending a delegation to see me next week

I cannot say exactly the date; then I will hear what they have to say about the flood conditions.


Thomas Langton Church: The hon. gentleman
and the government seem to have made no progress in respect to floods since the days of Noah.


Alphonse Fournier: Two or three times before Easter recess I mentioned that when floods cause damage to works belonging to the federal government, we attend to the repairs. When such damage is caused to works or lands belonging to municipalities or provinces, we believe those bodies should take care of the repairs.


Thomas Langton Church: And in the meantime we get no action.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. MAX CAMPBELL (The Battlefords):: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he made a statement in western Canada recently to the effect that farmers not liable for income tax were not obliged to fill out income tax forms.


James Garfield Gardiner: I made the statement in western Canada recently that the income tax act provides in subsection 1 of section 33 that persons, whether farmers or not, who are eligible for the payment of income tax are required to fill out the income tax forms, and that there is no compulsion on any others to fill out the forms. I added that this is so, with the exception of what is provided by subsection 2 of section 33.


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: In view of the fact that there may be some

uncertainty arising from the legal opinion given by the Minister of Agriculture, I wonder if the Minister of National Revenue agrees with his colleague's interpretation of the law with respect to the filing of income tax returns.


Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue):: In order that there may be no confusion with respect to section 33 of the Income War Tax Act concerning returns, I should like to read that section, which comes under part V of the act:
(1)	Every person liable to taxation under this act shall on or before the thirtieth day of April in each year, without notice or demand, deliver to the minister a return in such form as the minister may prescribe of his total income during the last preceding year.
(2)	Any person, whether liable to tax under this act or not, shall at any time upon receipt of a notice or demand in writing from the deputy minister (taxation) or any officer authorized to make such demand, deliver to the minister a return in such form as the minister may prescribe, of his total income during the last preceding year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Read the next subsection as well.


James Joseph McCann: If you want the next subsection, here it is:
(3)	Notwithstanding subsection one of this section, the return to be filed in the case of a deceased person in respect of his income for the taxation year received or accrued before his death shall be filed within six months from the day of the death of the deceased.
What has that to do with it?



PALESTINE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: I should like to direct a question to either the Minister of Justice or the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or both; I have not been able to give them notice of it. In view of the latest cold-blooded murder of British soldiers in Palestine, will the government consider the advisability of prohibiting the soliciting of funds in Canada for the purpose of supplying these Zionists with arms and ammunition?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): The hon. member gave no notice of his question, and his voice was so low I was unable to fallow it completely. I shall read it in Hansard and try to give him an answer after I have seen exactly what he said.

War Veterans Allowance Act



INQUIRY AS TO INCREASED PRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Yesterday when we were considering the export-import bill the Minister of Trade and Commerce acknowledged that nails were in short supply. I should like to know whether anything is being done to bring up this production, because at the present time it is impossible to get two-inch or four-inch nails in almost any city in Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The production of nails is increasing month by month. There has been an improvement of about thirty per cent in the last month of 1948 for which we have the figures, as compared with the same month of 1947. The nails are disappearing into trade channels as quickly as they are made, and all I can say is that I hope the continuing increase some day will overtake the demand.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The average hardware man is getting only one or two kegs a month.



WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, April 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gregg for the second reading of Bill No. 196, to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946.
George Randolph Pearkes: When the house rose at eleven o'clock last evening I was pointing out the inadequacy of the amendments proposed in this legislation. Those inadequacies are in two or three different classes. In the first instance there is the inadequacy of the supplementary allowance that may be granted to a recipient of the war veterans allowance at the discretion of the board. The amount of the war veterans allowance is still 830 a month, but at the discretion of the board an additional supplementary allowance of $10 a month or $120 a year may be authorized.
In his remarks, which I have since had an opportunity of reading, the minister described the recipients of the allowance as consisting of three classes: first, the class who draw a pension as well as the war veterans allowance; second, the class composed of those who are non-pensioners but who draw the full amount of the allowance; and third, those recipients
who do not draw a pension nor the full allowance. The figures he gave as to the third class were something in the nature of 10,000.
My reading of the minister's remarks would indicate to me that he is to issue a directive to the department which will make mandatory the payment of the supplementary allowance to the first and second classes, but in respect of the third class he used the word "may" and I presume those recipients in the third class will submit their cases to the board for review. If the board decides they should receive the supplementary allowance, then at the discretion of the board an amount up to $120 a year may be granted. While the minister issues an order that the supplementary allowance will be paid to those in the first and second classes, no such mandatory instruction is contained in the bill. In the bill itself, the decision as to whether the amount of the supplementary allowance shall be granted is left to the discretion of the board. No doubt the veterans committee when the bill is referred to it will give consideration to the advisability of including in the bill specific instructions that the supplementary allowance be automatic to those who are pensioners drawing allowance or who are in receipt of full allowance, leaving only to the discretion of the board those who at the present time are not drawing the full allowance.
I consider the amendments inadequate in that they still maintain the means test. Although in certain respects, the permissible income has been changed, I am not at all clear from the minister's statement that there has been any increase in the permissible income. At page 2788 of Hansard he states:
In addition to the matter of increase, this bill rearranges what rvas known as "casual earnings" and raises the ceiling of permissible income under the act to $1,105 a year, or approximately $92: a month for married men and to $615 a year, or approximately $54 a month for single men.
Before this was introduced, the permissible income amounted to $615 for single men. It was made up of $365 as the maximum allowance, S125 for casual earnings, and $125 for other income, making the total of $615 as permissible income. I do not see, therefore, how there is any increase. There is a slight change in that there is the amalgamation of other income and casual earnings. In effect, a recipient of the war veterans allowance who does not go out and earn by his casual work $125 in a year, if he is in receipt of a pension in excess of $125 a year, may amalgamate those two and make up the total of $250. But at the same time the total permissible income of $615 is not exceeded. Encouragement is given to a man
War Veterans Allowance Act

not to work, and I suggest that is a wrong principle. It is better for the man himself and for the economy of the country to have a man in production and working, if he can find the opportunity to do so. Many of them make the opportunities in order to obtain casual work.
In addition-and this is the only increase I can see in the permissible income-there is the $120 which may be granted as a supplementary allowance at the discretion of the board or according to the instructions issued by the minister, as outlined by him last night. I do feel that if we are to encourage these middle-aged veterans to find work wherever they can, and improve their positions, rather than try to keep them down and make them live within the $615 or $735 a year-a pretty slim sum in these days-we should raise that ceiling much higher than it is now. I believe it was the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) who said it should be raised to the minimum income exemptions. We should encourage these men to work for the good of the country and of themselves rather than to rely entirely upon their pensions or their allowances.
One other inadequacy I did not have the opportunity to mention last night, is that of the amendments in respect to extending the allowances to other groups of veterans. At various other times, during this session and in others, I have mentioned the need for providing allowances to other groups of veterans. In the present debate other members have mentioned exactly the same thing, and have drawn attention to some groups about which I intend to speak again this afternoon. I refer to them because I believe it is only by continually impressing upon the government the need these men have, and the demand there is among veterans of all classes in every section of the country that their comrades be included in these allowances and be provided with a decent standard of living, that we can hope to get some consideration, should the committee be prepared to make recommendations along these lines.
The first class I wish to mention is that of the soldiers who went from Canada during the first world war and who, through no fault of their own, did not get closer to a theatre of war than Great Britain. This group may be divided into two classes. There were those who, through ill health incurred in Great Britain, were debarred from going overseas to France. I am certain all hon. members will have vivid recollections of or will have read about the hardships the first Canadian expeditionary force suffered while in training at Salisbury Plains during the winter of 1914-15.

Their living conditions were bad. There were no huts built, as there were in the latter days of the last war. They had to live in tents during an extremely bad winter, where the mud, rain and general conditions were appalling. That is a well established fact.
Many of those men suffered from meningitis and other diseases which in some instances impaired their health for the rest of their lives, and in any event denied them the opportunity of taking their places with their comrades in France.
Then there was another class of men, those who, on account of special training in the nonpermanent militia of pre-war days or because of their civilian training, were retained in Great Britain for special purposes, to instruct other men who went overseas. But, through no fault of their own, and against their desire, those men were kept in England. The records show that many individuals applied time and again to their commanding officers to be allowed to go overseas, but in the interest of the service they were retained.
No one is going to suggest that conditions in Great Britain were as hazardous during the first world war as during the second. We do know, however, that bombs were dropped by enemy aircraft. The Canadian camp at Shorn-eliffe was bombarded. Zeppelins came over; and I remember vividly seeing a map published by the Daily Mail which showed where the bombs had been dropped during the first world war. A number of bombs were dropped with surprising accuracy along the Brixton road leading out of London and there w'ere many casualties. Veterans of the second world war who remained in Great Britain are regarded as having served in a theatre of war, while veterans of the first world war who were denied the privilege of taking their places with their comrades in France, who were retained in Great Britain against their will, are denied this privilege. I do not know the exact number of these men, but it is not great, and I submit that these allowances should be extended to them.
I come now to the question of our comrades who served with the forces of His Majesty other than the Canadian forces, usually referred to as imperials. Every branch of the legion and other veteran organizations across Canada have been recommending for years that these men should receive more generous treatment at the hands of Canada than they have received in the past. I have here a resolution passed by the imperial veterans of Canada in Winnipeg. It first points out that the imperials living in Canada have contributed in great measure to the progress of Canada. It then goes on to explain the contri-

War Veterans Allowance Act
bution they have made' to Canada, both in peace and in war, and finally it says:
And whereas there are imperial veterans long resident in this country, who are now Canadian citizens, living under the most intolerable conditions, with a lower standing of living than those on relief.
It may be said that that is probably an exaggeration. I have here a copy of the British Legion Pension Guide, and on pages 8 and 9 there appears the scale of pensions paid to ex-imperials. Men and boys of the Royal Navy, marines, privates, gunners, leading aircraftmen and aircraftmen of the R.A.F. who are 100 per cent pensionable receive forty-five shillings a week, which translated into terms of Canadian currency equals $36 per month. I am not suggesting that there are many imperial veterans living in Canada who are receiving 100 per cent pension, and they would hardly be affected by the war veterans allowances. I merely cite that as an example.
When you come down to the lower brackets you find that an imperial receiving a 20 per cent pension gets exactly nine shillings per week paj'able every four weeks, which amounts to approximately $8 per month. I am not surprised that the imperial veterans in Winnipeg passed a resolution stating that men who are trying to get along on $8 per month are living in squalor and under a low standard of living. I feel at this time that we should recognize the fact that we have admitted these imperial veterans into the fellowship of Canadian citizenship; they are now Canadian citizens, and many of them have long residence in Canada.
There are two classes of imperial veterans. I would call the attention of the minister and the committee to the fact that many of these imperials were resident in Canada prior to their enlistment in the British services. According to the regulations, if they were resident in Canada immediately prior to enlistment they would be eligible for an allowance. But if they had left Canada three months, six months, a year or any period of time longer than that before enlisting, they were not eligible.
Many British reservists who were living in Canada in 1914 rejoined their old regiments. They are entitled to an allowance, while Canadian born men who had resided in Canada for many years, but who for one reason or another found themselves in Great Britain when war broke out, are barred from these allowances because they were not domiciled in Canada at the time of enlistment. Some of these men were students who were completing their education in Great Britain in 1914, and they are barred.
Then there is the larger group made up of those who migrated to Canada after the war finished in 1918. They were encouraged to come here, and many of them have lived here ever since. They have contributed much to the development of this country. In many cases their sons and daughters fought in the ranks of the Canadian forces during the second world war, and many of these men joined up locally with the veterans guard or other organizations. The time has come when we should not have any hyphenated Canadians. The imperial soldier who has taken out Canadian citizenship should be considered a Canadian and should have all the rights of Canadian citizenship. He has in other respects.
Finally there are the other groups which I shall not take the time to enumerate, because I have mentioned them on previous occasions. I intend to bring up their cases in the committee. I repeat that I feel that this bill provides inadequate amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act. In the first place, the supplementary allowances will in many cases be inadequate to meet the needs of the recipient. Second, the ceiling of permissible income has not been raised high enough to encourage men to work and thereby raise their standard of living. Finally, it is inadequate because it makes no provision for these other groups of pensioners who are in urgent need of allowances.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I must say that this bill is one of the most disappointing I have seen brought down in this house. I am fully satisfied that the members of the veterans affairs committee, all of whom are. veterans, feel the same way about it, and that they will do their best in the committee to secure the improvements that are being asked for in this debate on second reading. My reason for rising to take part in the debate is the hope that those of us who speak as nonveterans will be able to reinforce the views of the. veterans themselves who are members of the committee and help them to secure a much better War Veterans Allowance Act than is yet in prospect.
I am sure that last evening we were all delighted with what the minister was able to say, supported by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bentley) and others, concerning the way in which the old soldiers themselves have expressed no jealousy about the improvements made in benefits for veterans of world war II and have put on no pressure campaigns on their own behalf. I also want to say that
War Veterans Allowance Act

we in this house who are non-veterans are thrilled at the way in which the veteran members of the house really go to bat on behalf of their comrades of both wars, and we are pleased too that this is no partisan matter. But I believe it should be said, as the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Gibson) pointed out in another debate, that the desire for the best possible deal for Canada's veterans is shared not only by the veterans themselves on behalf of their comrades, but also by the civilian population of the country generally. All of us want the best possible deal for our veterans, and I hope that the debate now taking place and the speeches now being made on all sides of the house will reinforce the members of the committee as they make their recommendations and seek to improve the bill.
I said at the outset that the legislation struck me as one of the bitterest disappointments I have seen brought down in this house in the form of legislation. In fact I felt that to a certain extent both the house and the country generally have been misled. On the 19th of December the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) announced the proposed increases both in the disability pension and in the war veterans allowance. His reference to the war veterans allowance was very brief. This was it:
The amendment will authorize the war veterans allowance board to grant supplementary allowances up to $10 a month in cases of need for veterans and widows who, through age and infirmity, are unable to provide for their own maintenance. The board will be authorized to make the supplementary allowances retroactive to October 1, or to any subsequent date, as the circumstances of individual eases may require.
When we heard that announcement, while we recognized that there was in it a means test qualification, still, brief as the announcement was, it. pointed to an increase of $10 a month, and I think it is correct to say that we in this house and veterans and veterans organizations generally thought that that was a flat ten-dollar increase to those veterans who are on the war veterans allowance. A few weeks later, to be exact on February 16, after there had been considerable expression of displeasure with the announcements of December 19 having to do both with the disability pension and with the war veterans allowance, the Prime Minister made another announcement indicating that certain further increases were being proposed in the disability pension. On that occasion the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), who has just spoken, asked the Prime Minister, as reported at page 1288 of Hansard, this question:
Is provision being made for increases under the War Veterans Allowance Act?

Although the member addressed his question to the Prime Minister, the answer was made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) in these words:
The amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act are still under study, and the proposals will be completed before the end of the present week.
For my part I took it from that statement that, just as there had been some improvement, slight as it was, in the proposals respecting the pension act between December 19 and February 16, so we might anticipate some improvement in the proposed amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act. But it appears now that the bill before us simply implements the announcement of December 19. I can see in it nothing beyond what we were offered at that time.
A little later the resolution preceding this bill was put on the order paper. Reading it we were still uncertain just what wras in store, but there were at least two phrases in it that gave us hope. It said that there would be increased permissible income, and supplementary allowances. Those were the two things in which we rvere mainly interested -an increase in the allowance itself to the burnt-out veteran or to his wddow, and an increase in the over-all ceiling on income allowed to these people. When that resolution was being considered in the committee of the whole the Minister of Veterans Affairs made a brief statement upon it. He said at page 2716 of Hansard:
In the main it is the purpose of the bill to improve the amounts payable to the beneficiaries under that legislation.
Later in the same short statement he said:
In the main this bill is designed to increase the amounts payable to them, and to deal with other subsidiary matters indicated in the resolution.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that during all the stages that led up to the introduction of this bill we were led to believe we were to get in the main precisely those two things: a worthwhile increase in the amount of the war veterans allowance, and an increase in the total permissible income allowed to those in receipt of this benefit. I submit, sir, that with respect to many thousands of those on the war veterans allowance we get neither-neither an increase in the amount of the allowance the veteran will receive, nor an increase in the total income permitted to allowance recipients.
I was surprised, but in one sense pleased, to learn from the minister's remarks yesterday that there are about 16,000 recipients of the war veterans allowance who will be entitled automatically to receive the $10 a mouth

War Veterans Allowance Act
increase. I say I was surprised and in only one sense pleased to learn there were that many who would benefit in this way, but on the other hand I was saddened to realize that there are that many veterans, mostly of world war I, whose circumstances are such, who are living so far below the ceiling, that they will immediately qualify for that S10. It does seem to me that that simply is not good enough.
I was glad that the previous speaker, the hon. member for Nanaimo, pointed gut in detail that the minister is not really justified in talking about new ceilings and about increased permissible income. It is true that by the terms of the bill before us there is to be what looks like an increase in the amount of income from any source which a veteran may earn apart from his allowance, but that is offset by removing from the existing statute the clause that permitted S125 of casual income. To be fair, we must say that from this side of the house we have asked that the distinction between these two kinds of income be abolished, because of the fact that it has forced veterans to move from one job to another. But when we asked that that distinction be abolished, we hoped there would be a real increase in permissible income and not just the bracketing of the two figures already there.
As the previous speaker pointed out, under the act as it now stands, without the amendments proposed by this bill, a single veteran has the right to earn, in addition to the $365 allowance, $125 from any source and $125 casual income, which is a total of $615 a year. If this bill is enacted in its present form, the ceiling for the single veteran will still be that same figure, $615 a year. There is one slight qualification we should always make, and that is that $25 a year from unearned income is granted; but it hardly alters the case at all. In the case of the single veteran the ceiling is $615 a year, and the ceiling as a result of the proposals made by the minister will still be $615.
Similarly, with the married veteran, the present situation is that he can draw an allowance of $730 a year and make $250 from any source and $125 casual income, a total of $1,105. All that this bill does is to bracket the $250 and the $125 into one sum of $375, which means that after the bill is passed he *will be allowed to make $375 from any source, on top of the $730 allowance, which means that the ceiling is the same, $1,105.
May I point out that I have been speaking thus far, in connection with this phase of the matter, about the ceiling. There is another
way in which to describe this, namely, to use the language of the act. The act does not talk about a ceiling, as the Old Age Pensions Act does. It talks about other incomes which the veteran is entitled to earn, and if this amendment goes through, the veteran will be entitled to earn other incomes, if he is single, of $250 a year and, if he is married, $375 a year.
I ask the house to face this shameful fact, that these are precisely the figures written into the War Veterans Allowance Act in 1930. The other income allowed to the veteran has not been changed at all by any amendments made to the act since it was first passed in 1930.
I feel that the committee should know the temper of the house, of the non-veteran members and of the country about this matter, and they should make full use of the right they have in the veterans committee, which we do not have in committee of the whole, to make recommendations calling for increases involving the expenditure of money. I say they should make use of that right to obtain a substantial increase in this ceiling on the amount of income allowed to the burnt-out pensioner.
I think the member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) was most reasonable in suggesting the income tax exemption figure of $750 single and $1,500 married. Incidentally, speaking of the life * history of the War Veterans Allowance Act, I was interested in making this discovery. The act was first passed in 1930, and amended in 1936, 1938, 1946, and now in 1948, and on every occasion but one there has been an increase in the salaries of some members of the board. On that one occasion when there was not an increase in salaries there was an increase in the number of members. In other words it has always been possible to find more money for the members of the board. I do not begrudge it, but having regard to the fact that the other income allowed burnt-out pensioners has not been increased at all from what it was when the act was passed in 1930, and also that prior to this supplementary allowance, about which I shall have something to say in a moment, there has been only one increase in the amount of the allowance, and it will be seen that the benefit to the veteran is really not very a good record for this parliament.
Let me put it this way. I do not want to be partisan and to put all the blame in this instance on the government. There is a tradition that veterans legislation is parliament's legislation, and that is borne out by the way in which these matters are referred to the veterans committee. If I speak strongly about the matter it is in the hope that it will reinforce the members of the veterans
War Veterans Allowance Act

committee to be-as the minister said last night, though I am afraid he misused the word-generous to the veterans. This legislation, certainly with respect to the ceilings, is not generous at all.
I should like to say a further word about the ceiling question. If the bill goes through in the form in which it stands, the minister and his department might as well know that there will be considerable protest against it during the next few months, and that they will run into administrative difficulties. I would be prepared to predict that a year from now they will come back and ask us to raise the ceiling on the income.
If I may quote a parallel case, I would point out that in 1943, when by order in council the first increase was made in the old age pension in the amount of $5 a month, the government did not see fit to increase the ceiling of pensioners' income. In only a matter of a few months the then minister of finance, now Minister of Justice, was faced with the fact not only that it was not good enough but that there were administrative difficulties, and the government raised the ceiling at least by the amount of the increase that had been made in the pension itself.
And so I say. with respect to this measure, that even though it does include only a 810 supplementary allowance, there should have been at least that much increase in the overall ceiling. In other words, the ceiling should now be not less than $735 a year for single veterans and $1,225 for married. These are not the figures I would suggest. I would suggest $750 and $1,500. But if the minister would at least go that far, his figures would provide an increase in the ceiling to take care of the supplementary allowance itself, and permit all burnt-out pensioners and their widows to receive it.
With regard to the supplementary allowance, there too I want to keep my language moderate, but it does seem to me that we have been misled. I listened closely to the member for Nanaimo, and I thought he was under the impression that some veterans might get that $120 a year on top of the $615 ceiling to which they are held. If the hon. member will look into the bill, which I cannot refer to by section while we are on second reading, he will discover that the supplementary allowance is payable to the veteran only within the $615 or $1,105 ceiling. In other words, if a veteran is now drawing his $365 a year or $30.41 a month-a single veteran-and he is now making a total other income of S20.84 a month, that brings him to $615 and he will not be able to get the $10 supplementary

allowance. Neither will it be available to the married veteran now getting $730 a year or $60.83 a month, if he is already making the limit of $375 a year or $31.25 a month, for he will already be at the ceiling of $1,105.
The veteran will get the $10 supplementary allowance only if he is unemployable to such an extent, and lacking in economic resources to such an extent, that he is practically living on nothing more than the burnt-out pension itself.
It seems to me that the least this parliament would like to do, when we talk about the $10 supplementary allowance, is to do it right across the board the way it is done when freight rates are increased: ten dollars a month to every veteran on the bumt-out pension, whatever his situation may be. If that had been the proposal of the minister, some of us would not have smiled as we did the other night when he used the word "generous".
I strongly urge, Mr. Speaker, that the committee battle it out with the minister and send him back to the cabinet with the insistence that that $10 increase be right across the board; that the increase in the ceiling be not the misleading one we have in this bill but an actual effective increase which will make it possible for all veterans on the allowance to get this extra $10.
I should like to say a few words with reference specifically to the case of non-pensioned veterans' widows who are covered by this legislation. It is not many years since there was no provision for women whose husbands, when they died, were on less than 50 per cent pension. I am glad to see that the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNieol) has just come in, because he is one who, in years not long since, fought hard, along with others of us in this house, to get the government to make an allowance for these women. A measure to make such provision was first brought in in 1943. For a few years-in fact down until 1946 -it was a matter of an annual vote, but in 1946 provision for an allowance to these widows of non-pensioned veterans was written into the act which we are now amending. Making it statutory was a step in the right direction. The situation now is that when anything is done for the burnt-out pensioners, it is done automatically at the same time for the widows covered under this act. But on their behalf I want to say that the proposed increase of $10 a month should go to all of them without any question. Because of the way in which the proposed act is worded, they will be subject to the means test and they will get that extra $10 a month or $120 a year only if they are

War Veterans Allowance Act
under the ceiling of $615 a year which applies in the case of a widow without a child or children.
I put in a special word for these women, because their situation is a difficult one. Many of them have had the experience of seeing their husbands who were on no pension at all or on a 40 per cent disability pension, suffer a good deal in the later years of their lives from their war experiences. When those husbands pass on, the widows are in just as difficult circumstances as are the widows of other veterans. Yet they must take this legislation which is not something they receive as of right; and the very fact that that is so makes it necessary that the provision for them be much more generous than it has been.
When we talk about the widows, the same considerations come into play that have already been discussed by others who have spoken in this debate. I refer, for example, to the question of service in England during the last war. My attention has been brought to the position of many widows in my own city and in other cities, women whose husbands served only in England during the last war and therefore could not qualify even for this allowance.
I was present last year, Mr. Speaker, when a group of these women-other members might have been present too, but I am not sure about that-had a conference here in Ottawa with the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), who at that time was parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs; I understand he has recently resigned that position. On the occasion of that meeting in the Liberal caucus room on the fourth floor these women, speaking on behalf of the organization of non-pensioned widows, presented their requests one by one. With regard to a number of their requests the hon. member for Rosthern could make no commitment; but when they asked for the inclusion of England as a theatre of war in world war I, the hon. member for Rosthern, in so far as he could as a member outside of the cabinet, made a commitment to these women. He said: "I can give you the assurance that next year, although you will not get some of the things you want, but you will get an amendment to the War Veterans Allowance Act that will make service in England in the last war count for the purpose of this act."
I know that the women of that organization have counted during the year on that one specific improvement being made. I realize that the hon. member for Rosthern was not in a position to commit the cabinet. I also realize that he has made about the country a number of statements of the kind which do not seem
to get government backing. But these women took it as a solemn undertaking from the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. As a matter of fact they saw the previous minister as well, but I was not with them on that occasion. There is keen disappointment on their part that the change is not being made. I strongly urge upon the members of the committee, representing, as they do, the House of Commons to deal with this phase of the matter as parliament and as the country would wish them to do. The same considerations apply to the imperial veterans now living in Canada, but since this matter has been well developed by others, I need not go into it in any further detail.
Another thing I should like to say on behalf of the non-pensioned veterans' widows who are covered by this legislation is that I hope consideration will be given to their request to be included in' the matter of hospitalization. On one occasion when I raised this question the former Minister of Veterans Affairs seemed to misunderstand it and to think that they were asking, or that I was asking on their behalf, that room be found for them in veterans' hospitals. That is not their request at all. They are asking rather that financial provision be made for them when they themselves require hospitalization. So long as the amounts are as they are, I feel that that is a request which the government ought to meet.
Someone has said that this whole War Veterans Allowance Act is in the nature of social security legislation for the veterans. I think that is a good way to describe it. If it is to be social security legislation, let it have in it some element of real security; let it not be just a matter of charity as it is at the present time.
So, Mr. Speaker, I leave it at that. I feel that the amount of this allowance should be $50 a month for a single person and $100 a month for a married person; that the ceiling: should be effectively raised and not just in the manner in which this bill does it; that service in England in the last war should count; that imperial veterans now in Canada should be considered; and, as I have already said, that the widows covered under this act should be given by the government the benefit of hospitalization.
I conclude by once again expressing my earnest hope that the committee, when it deals with this matter, will not only deal with it as veterans, which they are, and not only on the non-partisan basis on which they have approached these matters from session to session and parliament to parliament, but that they will realize that the non-veteran mem-
War Veterans Allowance Act

bers of this house and the civilian population of Canada generally want a much better deal for our veterans than is provided in the bill now before us.
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview); The motion before you, Mr. Speaker, is for the second reading of the War Veterans Allowance Act, and I wish to draw the attention of the minister to one particular class of people who come under it. The original act was passed in 1930 to give some reasonable allowance to *those who fought in the South African war and world war I; and recently those veterans who served in the northwest rebellion, the forgotten men as far as veterans affairs go, were also included. Many of these men are located in the maritimes; a number of them are in the, Toronto district; some are in Saskatchewan and some in Winnipeg. They have received practically nothing. They were given grants of land, 160 acres each principally in Saskatchewan and northern Ontario, but they were given no travelling allowance to get to their land, with the result that many men never even saw it.
These were the men who started the militia eight years after the Mackenzie government passed the first militia act. They left their vocations and received no pay for serving, except fifty cents a month. Most of them paraded twice a week and on Sundays; they went to camp; and the fifty cents they received was put back into the company fund in order to build up the militia. Then came the South African war, and later the two great wars. Some of these men are in desperate circumstances today. I believe it was only in 1944 that they first received assistance under this legislation, but then those in charge of the act brought into effect what they call the means test. That was the meanest thing we have ever done in this house, because at the present time these men cannot even rent a small room with the amount they are receiving. Many small estates have been required to pay back the amount received in old age pensions and all that sort of thing. I remember one man who was with Sir John A. Macdonald when he lied; I shall not give his name, because I do not think it is necessary. He was in the press gallery here, and he wrote many articles on this subject in the Globe and also in the Mail.
I believe these men have been very poorly treated. They marched across lake Superior in the depth of winter when the temperature was 46 degrees below zero. They lived on dog biscuits and hardtack, and saved that country from being ravaged; and probably

they opened the eyes of the whole civilized world to the possibilities of the great prairie provinces which today are doing so much for this country. The other day I received a letter from my kind and good friend the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker), who is always engaged in good works, not only within his own party but in association with others in this house. The letter was from a member of the northwest field force in British Columbia who with others presented a brief to the veterans affairs committee two years ago. I believe he wanted to obtain $160 cash in lifeu of the 160 acres of land he had been granted. Nothing has been done about it since the committee got the brief.
The way in which these men have been used is the meanest thing I have ever heard of. The other day I was told of a man who had been one of these veterans, and whose son in later years became associated with the university of Toronto in connection with the training of football and hockey teams. He died, and when they came to settle up his estate it was found to be worth $837. Then along came the government to apply the means test, and asked that $600 be paid back. I must say of the former minister of veterans affairs that I always found him willing to assist the veterans; his heart was in the work. The present minister was for some time associated with the great university of New Brunswick, and holds the highest military decoration in the world. I do hope he will look into the cases of these members of the northwest field force, because they certainly have been given shabby treatment, though they were the backbone and founders of the militia of this country. From 1885 on through the South African war and the two world wars they, their children and their children's children have been serving in the forces.
I do not wish to detain the house longer. I have dealt already with the other matters involved in this bill and the other measures relating to the veterans. 1 or that reason I am prepared to give way now to the soldiers in other parts of the house.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: and all-round manner we have allowed our productive capacity to decline. But that does not need to discourage us. It is never too late to repent and to reform our ways, and to take into consideration what we have potentially in this country.
If we had [DOT] allowed our production to increase, as it could have done with the return of three-quarters of a million of our finest producers from overseas, then we should have enough surplus production to enable each of our people to have a thousand dollars' worth, and still take care of the exports necessary in relation to our external obligations.
Let us keep in mind what I have said as we consider the bill before us, which will render available to the recipient of a war veterans allowance, if he is married, the sum of $1,170 a year.
It may be argued that the country cannot afford financially to give a larger allowance. A sound financial system would overcome that difficulty. What cannot be defended to the satisfaction of any logical mind, is the niggardliness of the means test which is applied not only in this act but in the Old Age Pensions Act and in other acts.
Surely a man should be free to earn what he needs and what he can earn, without risking the loss of his allowance! Let the government and the house once more lay down the principle commonly accepted during the war that no man or woman should be worse off because of going into the services, and no one who stayed out of the services ought to be better off because of having stayed out. The principle ought also to apply to servicemen's wives.
The Canadian parliament is in duty and honour bound, first, to make of Canada a home fitting for heroes; second, to make it possible for every Canadian hero to find in Canada a fitting home, and, third, to render it possible and encouraging for every Canadian hero to raise up a family of hero sons to strengthen and bless our country in the days to come.
May I urge upon the minister and members of the committee that if the Canadian parliament is to discharge these duties they must bring back a bill far more generously and courageously drafted than is the hidebound effort that parliament is now considering and is about to submit to the committee for what I hope will be drastic revision.
May I urge upon the minister and members of the committee that parliament expects the minister and the committeemen to do their duty, not as the treasury board sees that duty but as the progressive, pulsating Canadian people see it.


Mr. T. A. KIDD (Kingston City):: Mr. Speaker, I should like 'to add a word or two to what has already been said with reference to Bill No. 196 to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act.
The house has listened with interest to the remarks of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) and other members who have expressed their views. What concerns me most at the moment is not what has already been said but what has not been said and might be said regarding the war veterans allowances.
In his opening remarks the minister stated that the benefits relating to this bill would apply in the main to a small proportion of the old soldiers of the first great war. He made mention that only 25,000 out of approximately 200,000 soldiers are receiving aid from their country. The complete summary, as tabulated,
is as follows:
Veterans, all wars	 26,106
Widows, all wars	 4,790
Orphans, all wars	 53
Total	 30,949
First, may I say that I hope the present minister and those who are closely associated with him, the pension board and all who are called upon to make decisions, will never permit the injustice to be done to the veterans of world war II that was done to many of those gallant veterans of world war I. No onus or responsibility can be placed upon the present minister, but it can be placed upon the department which had to do with the policy that resulted in a reduction of many pensions. There is not in this house a veteran of world war I who cannot recall an instance in his own riding of some veteran who enjoyed a 100 per cent pension who was dumbfounded to open his mail and find a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs advising him that his case had been re-examined and that there would be a reduction in his pension.
To emphasize my point, I should like to draw attention to a case I have in mind of a late pensioner whose family lives in Kingston. This man had had a 100 per cent pension for fourteen years when he was notified by the pension board that his pension would be reduced to 45 per cent. Those familiar with the Pension Act will readily understand the reduction to 45 per cent. It meant that his widow and family would be deprived of any pension at his death, the act requiring that 55 per cent pension is necessary at the time of death for a family to qualify for pension.
This man was seriously ill and receiving treatment in Christie Street hospital. His wife, then in her early sixties, was doing the best

War Veterans Allowance Act
she could to get along. What happened? The veteran, was heart-broken, and died shortly afterwards. I might add that I came to Ottawa to see the pension board on behalf of this widow. I received a courteous hearing and had every reason to expect that the case would be considered. However, for reasons best known to the pension board at the time, that was the end of it.
There seemed to be a feeling at that time that there were too many receiving 100 per cent pension. A special board was arranged to probe into the case but the old soldier had very little recourse. I trust and hope that those veterans of world war II who are receiving pensions will not be dealt with as ruthlessly as have many of the veterans of world war I.
I might also cite another case, that of a pensioner who received notice that his pension had been reduced from 100 per cent to 5 per cent. This man had a family of seven children and it took him nearly twelve months to have h'is pension returned. The purpose of amending this act is to make provision for the neglected child of a veteran.
The pension board should not take too much credit for caring for certain types of veterans who happen to lose an eye, a limb or an arm. The act is specific as to what should be done in such cases. But there are the borderline cases dealing with nervous disorders, heart or cancer. In so many cases the benefit of the doubt seems to go against the soldier instead of in his favour, and such should not .be the case. I emphasize as strongly as I can that I think the benefit of the doubt should be given to the soldier.
I should like to cite a case of a veteran of world war II and I do this because I feel that many similar cases should receive further attention. This man's name is Herbert J. Leach. His number is C-1072 and he enlisted in the R.C.H.A. at Kingston. On January 3 he was killed in action, leaving a widow and two children, a boy and a girl. This man enlisted in 1939 and those who are familiar with the circumstances will realize that his number of C-1072 is not a boxcar number.
The daughter has since married. When this soldier proceeded overseas his boy was just ten years of age. Upon the soldier's death his widow received $60 a month plus $15 a month for the boy until he was sixteen years of age. Unfortunately the boy happens to be below normal and his mother is left with the responsibility of caring for him. She has been refused any further veterans allowance by the!pension board. This particular case was brought to my attention and I in turn brought it to the attention of the minister and the department.
The application was substantiated by a certificate from the family doctor which stated:
This is to certify that Victor Leach, aged nineteen, of 51 Raglan road, Kingston, Ontario, is totally and completely incapacitated on account of meningitis at two years and is an epileptic and mentally defective.
R. R. MacGregor, M.D.
In order to support her child, the mother was forced to take a position as laundress for which she receives $18 a week. Her own allowance as a widow was 860, which has recently been increased to $70. The pension board decided that no pension should be paid to the child, stating that no pension shall be paid to a child who, if a boy, is over the age of sixteen years, except when such child and those responsible for his maintenance are without adequate resources.
I think the house will agree that it is a shame and disgrace when the widow of a man who has given his life for his country, a man who paid the supreme sacrifice and left a child unable to care for himself, is turned down by the department. I might add also that the mother of this boy is faced with an extra expense. The boy recently had scarlet fever which necessitated his being in hospital for twenty-one days, the bill incurred for this illness amounting to $111. I want to emphasize what I mentioned a moment ago, that we do not want the veterans of world war II to be treated as the veterans of world war I have been. I am not blaming the minister because these cases came up before he took over the portfolio. I submit that in every case the benefit of the doubt should go to the dependent or the returned soldier rather than to the department or the government.
I should like to draw attention to another case of hardship being visited upon a veteran student. Only last week there was brought to my attention the case of a veteran student who is ill in the Kingston General hospital and receiving treatment. This boy is married and, like many others, carries protection under a hospital insurance plan. On arrival in hospital he was presented with form 706 compiled by the Department of Veterans Affairs, a copy of which I hold in my hand. This form necessitates his turning over to the Department of Veterans Affairs any hospital benefits which he would receive under the insurance plan. This boy is being penalized for trying to look after his wife and family. Any other veteran who happened to enter the hospital and who was not under the plan would have his total hospital expenses taken care of by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
To explain this case further, I might mention that the veteran benefits to this boy will expire
War Veterans Allowance Act

in October of this year. What concerns this veteran and his wife is that the hospital benefits to which he has personally contributed were taken away from him by the Department of Veterans Affairs. This means that on and after October 1 this veteran and his family will not be entitled to any hospitalization.
I do not know whether the minister is familiar with this form and I can send him one if he wishes. Great hardship is being suffered by these veterans. It is a mimeographed form. This sort of treatment is something that should not happen.
I shall say nothing further. I have mentioned these two cases and I would refer again in conclusion to that boy. I know that under sections 20 and 21 of the Pension Act the minister has power to look into these cases if he sees fit to do so.


Mr. E. B. McKAY (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to be permitted to make a few observations on Bill No. 196, which has to do with the amending of certain clauses of the War Veterans Allowance Act. It is not my purpose to speak at any length because I am a member of the veterans affairs committee to which we have been informed this bill is to be submitted, and where I am confident its merits and deficiencies will be thoroughly reviewed.
The War Veterans Allowance Act was originally set up to provide for needy veterans who would normally not be in receipt of disability pension. Perhaps I may be permitted to enumerate its main features. The veteran must be sixty years of age, permanently unemployable or, having served in a theatre of actual warfare, incapable of maintaining himself because of economic handicaps combined with physical or mental disability or insufficiency.
The maximum allowance paid under this act for a single veteran was $30.41 a month, and the married veteran received double that or S60.83 a month. Casual and other earnings were not to exceed a total of $250. The maximum allowance for a widow was only $365 a year, or one dollar a day, unless there were children, in which case the allowance was increased to $730 a year, or $60.83 a month.
The bill before the house is to make certain amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act of 1946, all of which I do not care to discuss in detail at this time but I do wish to refer to one which I think should be commented upon. Other amendments could have been proposed which would have received the commendation of the whole house. I am not so sure that all these amendments do.

For instance, the amendment to increase the over-all income earned to $250 a year I cannot see is of very great advantage to the veteran. There are several minor amendments but I shall refer only to the provision for a supplementary allowance. It must be noted that the bill does make provision for the payment of a supplementary allowance of $120 if increase is approved by the board. We are assuming, of course, that the board will in most cases make provision for the payment of this supplementary allowance. But if this supplementary allowance is paid the bill states that the amount must not exceed the difference between the actual income of the recipient and the permissible income applicable in his case. In essence this simply means, if I interpret the bill correctly, that the veteran who receives the supplementary allowance of $10 a month will have his permissible income reduced accordingly, so that he will be, in actual fact, no better off than he was before.
It seems to me that about all that this bill does is to grant the old veteran the right to work harder in order to supplement his income without being deprived of his allowance. Under present conditions of high living costs it is apparent to all that he will certainly have to find some source from which to augment his income or else go hungry. So the government introduces this legislation in order that those able to work may make a few extra dollars to eke out an existence. But many are unable to work; some are completely unemployable because of age or disability. These men will now receive the ridiculously low sum of $40.41 a month allowance.
I do not think these war veterans will be very happy about legislation that makes no greater provision for them than this. They do not complain. They accepted their lot in the first world war and they are accepting it now. But there are many of us in this house who do not consider this legislation as fair to these fine citizens of Canada as it should be. I feel that all veterans throughout this land will be disappointed with this bill. It provides only a pittance where plenty could be provided. Canada has the money; the government has the money. We need only cite the $700 million surplus which it is estimated the government will have on this year's operations to prove that point. _
These veterans served Canada well in her hour of need. The minister stated last evening that they rendered honourable fighting service to this country. We all agree with that remark, but actions speak louder than words. If they rendered that valuable service, then

War Veterans Allowance Act
all I can say of this bill is that it is cheap and not worthy of a grateful country. Canada should pay for value received. These men are burnt-out in their fifties and sixties because of their participation in early life in the first world war. They may have no visible war scars, no very great war disability, but they are nevertheless some of the most pathetic casualties of the first world struggle.
I wish to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bentley) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and to urge upon the government that they increase the allowance to at least $50 a month for single man, $100 a month for married men, and to widows in receipt of the allowance to $50 a month. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that these amounts are little enough; indeed, they are much too small because I am sure that few people today can keep a household together on $50 a month. If these veterans deserve an allowance at all, and I do not believe any member of this house would suggest that they are not deserving, then the allowance ought at least to be large enough to permit these old veterans or their widows to live in decency and reasonable comfort in their declining years. They should not always have to live in the shadow of poverty in a country which is rated as one of the wealthiest nations in the world.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: It is not my intention to hold the measure up, but I have a few words to say before it goes to the committee.
I am not going to argue the merits or the demerits of the bill. I will leave that for the veterans affairs committee, because I do not think that what we say in .the house will have very much influence on that committee. At least that has been my experience in serving on similar committees in the past. There are, however, one or two points which are not covered by the bill and which I should now like to emphasize.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) went thoroughly into the financial aspects of the matter and there is no necessity for me to repeat what he has said. I notice that the bill makes no provision to care for incapacitated veterans who may be residing in the United States. I have had several cases myself which I have taken up with the war veterans allowance board. These war veterans of the first world war came back to Canada in 1919, some of them with war disabilities, and if they had remained in the country and fought their pension claims they could have established their right to pension.
Older veterans in the house will remember that in the years from 1919 to 1925 there was not much opportunity for employment in Canada, with the result that hundreds of veterans who served in an actual theatre of war could not secure employment here and had to go to the United States. Many of these veterans are in the United States today; and representations have been made to me, as no doubt they have been made to the minister himself, asking that something be done for veterans residing in the United States, having dependents and being totally incapacitated and hospitalized. These men have hospital bills, maintenance and so forth and are being taken care of by the United States government, and representations have been made to me to find out whether under the regulations it would be possible to extend the war veterans allowance privileges to veterans in that category while they are residing across the line.
Under the act as it has existed until now the stand taken by the department, and rightly so, in accordance with the regulations, was that this measure was not construed as a war veterans pension measure but as a social measure, more or less an old age pension arrangement for the incapacitated veteran, and that as such it could not be applied outside the country. However, if a man and his family returned to Canada, after a certain length of time in this country he could establish a claim.
I would point out, however, that in many of these cases the man is hospitalized and lacks the necessary means to come back to the country, and therefore he is a recipient of charity in the United States, despite the fact, mind you, that his present condition is attributable to services rendered in a theatre of war for this country, Canada.
I know from past experience with the minister in respect of veterans problems that he is sympathetic, that he understands those problems, and I suggest to him now and to the members of the veterans affairs committee that serious consideration be given to the question of amending this act so that veterans in the United States, in the position I have indicated, may receive the benefits of the War Veterans Allowance Act.
The war veterans pension is paid outside Canada. A man may reside in any part of the world and his pension will follow him. I see no reason why this measure should be construed as a social measure. In my opinion it is just as much a service measure, a pension
War Veterans Allowance Act

arrangement for the incapacitated veteran as the Pension Act itself.
There is another point I wish to make with regard to permissible earnings under the war veterans allowance arrangement. The veteran now makes $40 a month and of course the $10 a month supplementary is contingent upon a means test. Most of these old soldiers will qualify under that means test, but I think it is wrong to have every recipient of the war veterans allowance in Canada make application for that $10. It should have been automatic, and there should be no means test attached to it. However I leave that to the veterans affairs committee.
I think I am safe in saying that, in 70 per cent of the cases where a man is on war veterans allowance, the permissible earnings of $250 in the case of a single man, and $375 in the case of a married man, do not come into the picture at all. First, in order to qualify for the war veterans allowance you must prove that you are totally unemployable and you must get a medical certificate to that effect. If the doctor certifies that you are totally unemployable and you qualify for the war veterans allowance you are not working and therefore you are not earning an income for the reason that you are not able to do so. You may be able to get a job around Ottawa running an elevator or as a doorman in a hotel, but in most provinces there is not that kind of opportunity open to these men.
For that reason I think I am safe in saying that 70 per cent of the recipients of war veterans allowance are not affected at all by the permissible income and the only income which they have is $30.41 a month. Working it out, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre showed that it was $1,105 and $615, but he is in error because, in the large majority of cases, there is nothing coming in by way of additional income.
In my opinion the demand is reasonable that this should be brought up to $50 a month where a man qualifies as being totally unemployable, worn out and so on, and it should be without a means test. That $50 a month should be applied across the board. Someone may say that is a lot of money, that it costs money. I do not think money should be the determining factor. It was not during the war when there was no difficulty in getting money.
During the war everyone in this house agreed that whatever was physically possible could be made financially possible, and the minister of reconstruction could say, "I am going to build a munitions plant in Quebec. It will cost $25,000,000, but we have the material and the men and here is the money".

Where has all that money gone to? Why quibble about money in a matter of this kind? Every time you put extra money in the hands of a person who is not in a position to contribute to the national income by way of production, every time you put a dollar in his hands he spends it on the essentials of life, and thereby you are creating an internal consuming market which keeps the wheels of industry moving as it supplies that person with those necessities.
For that reason alone, I think we should forget this business about what it will cost the country. I do not think the taxpayers will quibble about it, and I do not think anyone in this house will quarrel if the minister comes and says that he is going to step up the amount to $50 a month without a means test attached to it. If that were done, the old soldier would be happy and he would have some purchasing power. That would stimulate the machinery of production and everybody would be just as happy as the soldier. Why, therefore, quarrel about this business of money? I suggest that we should forget that completely or at least revise our thinking on it to a considerable extent.
There is another problem, namely, that of the veteran and his wife, who by economic circumstances, have been forced to separate. The last time the veterans affairs committee was sitting, I brought to its attention some specific cases. One was that of an old man and his wife receiving war veterans allowance, with married status. The house they were in was sold. They were not in a position to get another one. The father went to live with a daughter and I think the mother went to live with a son; but force of economic circumstances separated them. Immediately that happened, the married status was taken from them. The old lady was left with nothing and the old gentleman's pension was cut down to that of a single man.


John Horne Blackmore: Cheese-paring.


Clarence Gillis: That matter was raised in the veterans affairs committee. At that time I suggested that at least some administrative latitude should be given to the board where there were extenuating circumstances of that kind. Nevertheless, no amendments were made. That injustice still exists and I think it should be removed.
In dealing with the pension commission and with the administration of the war veterans allowance, both provincially and nationally,
I have found them to be most sympathetic and reasonable, prepared to do anything they could within the confines of the regulations; but they are tied up by red tape. When I

War Veterans Allowance Act
hear people criticizing the pension commission and war veterans allowance administration, I know that such criticism is unjust. I know that it cannot be justified on the basis of my dealings with them. I know they are sitting there wishing and hoping that the members of the House of Commons had the courage of their convictions and would sit in a committee, prepare an act that was fair, reason- able and just and give it to them to administer. I think they would be quite happy to cure some of the ills that exist in the machinery of the pension administration. As for myself, I think it is too hidebound. I think we do not trust the administration. We tie them up with hard and fast rules and regulations and make no provision for judgment.
I believe that in borderline cases such as that of this old lady and gentleman who were separated, through no fault of their own, the chairman of the commission should have administrative latitude to make a decision, and not allow to take place an injustice such as the separating of a man and his wife and the penalizing of them by the loss of a certain amount of their pension.
I said that I did not intend to say very much on this matter, but if I keep on I shall occupy forty minutes. The bill is fair, but it requires a good deal of amending. That cannot be done here; it will be done in committee. I hope the committee will remember the two points I made. The first was with regard to the veteran in the United States who is being discriminated against, in my opinion; and second, with regard to the possibility of separating man and wife because of economic circumstances. I think those two points should be clearly cleaned up in this session of the veterans affairs committee. I also think they should try to give the pension commission and the war veterans allowance board some administrative latitude in borderline cases. Everything cannot be covered. I have some respect for their judgment, and I am quite willing to trust them with many matters that cannot be set down in legislation. I hope the committee will remember that. I intend to watch this bill carefully when it comes back, because I think that is the time when it must get its real analysis.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: I shall follow, Mr. Speaker, the good example set by previous speakers and shall also be brief. I first wish to make reference to a remark made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I must thank him kindly for his reference to me. I was perhaps the first to bring in the question of the non-pensioned widows' troubles into the house. As time went on, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and many others strongly endorsed the proposal, and in the end the minister sympathetically put through legislation in favour of the non-pensioned widows. When the matter comes before the committee, and it is an excellent one consisting entirely of war veterans, I hope that further consideration will be given to the non-pensioned widows, to start with.
When I was home two days ago I went to see a war veteran's widow. She was an old lady, living up in a back room in the north end of the riding represented by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Skey). She is quite an old lady, all crippled up with arthritis. I believe she draws $30.41 a month. She has no relations or no one to assist her in any way. The room was cold. I said to myself that it did not seem quite natural that any human being should be asked to exist-and that is all she can do-on $30.41 a month, after having given her husband in the service of the country. That lady is only one out of many.
I went to see a gentleman who is also a war veterans allowance recipient. It is necessary for him to go to the hospital in Toronto every week in order to receive injections of one kind or another. I believe he has anaemia. He can hardly keep body and soul together with what he receives. If it were not for the fact that his wife also draws a pension, as he is married, he would not be able to make ends meet at all. So I hope and trust that the committee-all of whose members are sympathetic men; and the minister also is most sympathetic with regard to veterans affairs-will see to it that some improvement in their situation is given to both the war veterans and the non-pensioned widows, because this consideration applies in the case of both. They are all thirty years older since the first great war ended and they are that much less capable of earning anything. Furthermore, it is out of the question for them to earn anything at the moment because there has been a big drop in the demand for labour; and that trend, I am sorry to say, is increasing daily. Unless they are given some consideration, their situation will be pitiable.
There is another class of war veteran about whom I wish to say just a word, and that is the South African war veteran. When the estimates for the department come in, I shall have a great deal more to say in that regard. I have in mind a South African war veteran who is now sixty-six or sixty-seven years of age and who, when he went to South Africa, was a mere lad. Of course his body could not have been at that time as well nourished
War Veterans Allowance Act

as it should have been to stand the onslaught of South African diseases, with the result that all his life he has been more or less handicapped but not enough to be knocked out completely. Of late, however, he has been. I have been doing my best to see that that poor fellow gets a square deal, but I have not yet been able to get it for him, merely because his wife happens to have a small income of a few hundred dollars a year. I do not think it is any of the government's business what income the wife of a war veteran may have, particularly when it is a small one like that. He should be treated as we expected he would be treated when the South African pension bill was brought into the house-and I was one of those who advocated that years ago-and that is on his own merits. It is wholly unfair and un-British, to my mind, to say that a man may not receive a small pension merely because his wife has a few hundred dollars a year coming in. So I hope the committee will also take that class of veteran into consideration when it considers this bill.
In the main I think we Canadians may be fairly proud of what our government has done for the war veterans. I do not hear much complaint from the men who served in the front line, the men who were incapacitated or wounded. It is only these complementary offshoots that appear to be giving us trouble these days. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) mentioned another class of which my riding has a large number, though perhaps I should not say more than his; in any event mine is one of the ridings in Canada with a very large number of imperial veterans. In my opinion their treatment has always been very unfair, and I endorse what was said by the hon. member. I need not deal further with this point at the moment, because I want to conclude shortly, and the hon. member put the case so well I could not add anything if I tried. However, I should like hon. members to keep in mind that these men and women are now thirty years older than when world war I ended, and it is these for whom I am speaking in particular.
I think perhaps with a reference to one other class I shall conclude. I have in mind the "Overseas firefighters". I believe the chief came from the riding of the Deputy Speaker, but by far the majority of the "Overseas firefighters" came from the city I represent, and I well remember what they were promised by the minister of that day. They seem to have had quite a difficult time trying to get fair play, and I hope the committee will give consideration to this class of veteran also. They took all the chances anyone else took. It is

true they did not have to go across the channel, but during the last war it was just about as bad in England as on the continent, because of the bombs.
I shall conclude by saying that I always appreciate the opportunity to say a word for the veterans because, as is well known, the riding of Davenport is almost made up of soldiers and their families. They are patriots; and I hope the government and particularly the minister will listen to the representations which will be made on their behalf to the committee to which this bill is to be sent.


Mr. J. H. FERGUSON (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I have no criticism of the minister or the cabinet, but as a veteran of the first war I wish to say a word on behalf of the veterans. I have in mind an expression which I would direct to the veterans affairs committee and to the minister, in the hope that he will go to the cabinet and have this bill reconsidered. Those words are: "Lest we forget." Many of us do not realize that the soldier has been a terrific factor in building up this great country. In 1812 the habitant said, "By gar, I guess that Yankee is going to take our country," and the Englishman said, "By Jove, that shan't be," and the two of them worked together on the St. Lawrence to defend this country. So today it is possible for us to sit in this House of Commons and discuss what is the fair thing to do for our ex-soldiers.
All of us in the house can think back to when we were boys and we heard of the great deeds performed by our soldiers in the South African war. How proud we were to welcome them back, and how in our hearts we felt an obligation to those men who returned wearing their scarlet coats. I was a little boy in the town of Rat Portage, which is now Kenora. I was really too young to understand what these veterans were, but I knew they were coming home and I was proud to be there to welcome them back. We think back also to August 4, 1914, when some person attempted to twist the lion's tail. Again the oldest cub in the pack stood beside the mother country without hesitation. They doubted whether this country would be able to raise the first division of thirty thousand men, but the number volunteering was greater than the number requested by England or offered by Canada. Soon 31,000 men sailed from the shores of Canada as the first contingent, perfectly equipped and ready to fight, and those men made history. Again in 1939 war was forced upon this country, and again men volunteered to fight for their homes and their freedom.
Today we are in parliament, dealing in a somewhat niggardly fashion with these men;

War Veterans Allowance Act
and this is the only place to which these veterans can appeal for fair treatment. Again I remind the government of the words: "Lest we forget." Think of the times during the first great war when our men trudged up to the trenches, with the rain pouring off their steel helmets and the mud soaking their shoes; drenched to the skin, standing in the trenches for three or four days at a time, then going out to wooden huts poorly heated and equipped. Today many of those veterans who returned from that war without a wound find that, on account of the conditions under which they served their country they need aid from this parliament. So I say to the members of the veterans affairs committee, to the minister and to the cabinet: Do not think you are overly generous if you deal honestly and reasonably with these people.
Fortunately I am not myself in need of a pension. Though I did suffer wounds during the first war I have enjoyed good health since; but I speak on behalf of the man who was disabled in the war, or who has suffered some mental defect, or who, because of the conditions under which he fought, now finds it necessary to come and say to his fellow countrymen, "Give me a helping hand." I say to the members of this house, do not look at the men who have preserved this country for us as you would look at anyone or anything else in this country. Lean backward in your attempt to be overly generous to them. No right-thinking man in this country will criticize you; or if such men do, their criticism is not worth considering.
I say, take this bill back; cut out the means test for these veterans; make it unnecessary for any veteran to have to appeal for a $10 increase. Be men about it. This country owes it to them. I owe dt to them; you owe it to them. Remember that phrase "Lest we forget." It is so easy to forget what our soldiers have meant to Canada. Because of them it is possible for us to sit here today and listen to the arguments advanced on behalf of these men; but we also have to listen to instances which should never have occurred and should never have to be cited in this house. The veterans affairs department and the dominion government have a duty to perform. I ask them to perform that duty dn such a way that in future we shall not have to listen to cases such as we have heard cited during this debate. They are not justifiable; they are unreasonable; they are not fair to the men who have made it possible for us to sit here in peace and safety.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words with respect to this War Veterans Allowance Act, by
reason of the fact that I spoke on the Pension Act when it was in the resolution stage and I now find it necessary to augment what I said at that time. It will be recalled that I advocated something I do not believe had been advocated before. I urged that veterans who had seen actual warfare should be paid a pension, regardless of anything else. I also made the suggestion that no member of His Majesty's armed forces who had been in an actual theatre of war should be now compelled to pay taxes, due to the fact that most of our tax money is for the retirement of the war debt. Our men in the forces should not be asked to fight the war and then, upon their return, be asked to help pay for it.
The reason I mention this the second time is that, when I spoke before, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) followed me in the debate and suggested to the house that what I had urged was not sound. That took place before the Easter recess. Since that time I have received a considerable volume of correspondence, some from individuals and some from veterans organizations, complimenting me upon the stand I took at that time. So I do not believe that what I said was so unsound as the hon. member for Kootenay West would have led the house to believe.
While I do not intend to take up much time in debate because, as I understand it, the bill is to be sent to the veterans affairs committee, I would ask if it is possible to have information as to the basis upon which the present pension rates are arrived at. In other words, why should the full pension be estimated at the sum of $87. Why should it not be $100 or $150? Or, on the other hand, why should it be as high as $87? Why should it not be $50? Just what is the reason for setting it at $87? There must be some basis of calculation; there must be some reason for the amount as it now stands. By what means does the government arrive at that figure? Does it base the figure on the cost of living? Does it estimate that, because the cost of living is related to a certain index, therefore the pension is $87? Is that the way it is done? Or has it arrived at that figure by taking out pencil and paper and estimating that the average income per person in the country is so much, and that therefore the pension should be $87? Is that the way it is estimated? I wonder what the basis of calculation might be; I have not been able to arrive at it.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: Perhaps the minister could tell you now.


Ernest George Hansell: I hope, when the minister closes the debate, that he might answer. I
War Veterans Allowance Act

suspect it is figured out on the basis of the lowest possible political expediency. I would think the government has estimated that it would not be politically expedient to put it lower than that.


Charles Edward Johnston: The political expediency of the government is pretty low.


Ernest George Hansell: I plead for better consideration of our war veterans. But I wish to emphasize particularly that part of the bill which has to do with allowances given to veterans who are not pensioned, and to the widows of non-pensioned war veterans.
There are some peculiar anomalies in this whole scheme of war veterans allowances. For instance, let me give an illustration. I have in mind two widows of war veterans who live in the same district and not far from each other. One of these widows, whom we shall call Mrs. X, receives a pension of $60 a month by reason of the fact that her husband was a war pensioner. He did not see an actual theatre of war, and was never sent overseas. For some reason or another he received the pension. It may have been because of a condition of health due to war service. This bill will increase the pension of Mrs. X to $70 a month.
The other widow, whom we shall designate as Mrs. Y, lives not far from the first one. The husband of Mrs. Y was sent overseas, served in an actual theatre of war and returned safe and sound. Eventually he took ill and found himself without income. He applied for assistance under the War Veterans Allowance Act, and received it. He had been in receipt of that assistance for only a few months when he died, leaving his widow penniless. Of course she was then entitled to an allowance. At the present time she receives the full allowance of $30.41.
This widow, Mrs. Y, has a heart ailment and is unable to work and thus augment her war widow's allowance. As I said, these two war widows live in the same district and move in the same social circle, if I might use that terminology as applying to them. I should like to know why one of these women is entitled to a higher standard of living than the other. I cannot understand why the difference exists. I think there is some reason for our asking for reconsideration of this scheme of war veterans allowances for widows of our veterans.
I should like to make a suggestion. Many of these widows in receipt of allowances are under the impression that they are receiving a pension. It is difficult sometimes to explain to them that it is an allowance rather than a pension they are receiving, that they are receiving an allowance because of their financial circumstances. I do not like to say it

when I am explaining it to them, but I can say to the minister, and I think he will agree with me, that what these war widows are really receiving under this act is relief. That is what it amounts to.
There is just a slight difference between their case and the old-fashioned dishing out of relief. When we were on relief we had to go down to the city office every Thursday or whatever day or hour might be set and stand in line. We presented our identification cards and were given a slip of paper entitling us to so much groceries from this store, milk from this dairy and our rent.


Mr. GREGG:: May I say to the hon. member that I would not consider such a widow as being on relief any more than I would consider a woman who was receiving an old age pension as being on relief.


Angus MacInnis: They are both on relief.


Ernest George Hansell: I am glad to hear the minister say that. I am glad to hear him say that he considers there is no difference. I do. The only difference is that the war widow in receipt of a war widow's allowance gets her cheque every month. She does not have to be embarrassed by going down to an office to get it and she can spend it in any way she wishes. I think I am right in that diagnosis.
Another thing in this bill I want to protest about is the means test which is applied to widows receiving this war veterans allowance. I protest against the means test in any event, but I protest especially this second means test. Under this measure, if there is to be an increase in the allowance it is subject to the board, and I take that to mean that there must be a reinvestigation of the widow's circumstances. Surely if her circumstances have been investigated once and she is in receipt of a war widow's allowance, the increase should be automatic.
Some of the previous speakers have deplored the pittance that is given under this bill, and I do thh same. In some respects I sympathize with the minister because I know that he would like to make the amount far greater than it is. I know that personally he would like to put the pensions up as far as it is possible to go, and also the war widows' allowances. But I know that he is subject to government policy. I know that in whatever he says under the bill he must protect the policy of the government. There is no getting away from that, and it is the government policy that I am now attacking because the provisions made by this bill are inadequate for these pensioners and especially for war widows who are left penniless.

War Veterans Allowance Act
I am reminded of a gentleman, not a war pensioner, who died not so long ago. He was a millionaire who had been one of the leading restauranteurs in the United States. He made so much money in the restaurant business that he went insane and he died in an insane asylum. He died crying out, "Cut the ham thinner, boys; cut the ham thinner." It appears to me that perhaps the government is on its last legs. This would seem to be so from what it has been responsible for recently. There has been the income tax forms, a reluctance to make any change in freight rates and so on. Surely the government is facing the insane asylum and now, by this bill, is crying out, "Cut the ham thinner, boys; cut the ham thinner".


Charles Edward Johnston: It is still bologna.


Ernest George Hansell: Maybe it is bologna they are cutting. Maybe they are cutting it so thin that there is nothing left to cut. During the Easter recess I was speaking to a prominent Conservative in my riding, perhaps the only one there.


Thomas John Bentley: That is why he is prominent.


Ernest George Hansell: That is why he is prominent. He said to me, "Mr. Hansell, I am wondering if the government want to be defeated. Are they not playing their cards in order to be defeated? I am wondering whether they are finding governmental responsibilities in this day and age too much for them and want someone else to take over?" That is the way it looks.


An hon. MEMBER:: More bologna.


Ernest George Hansell: That is the way it looks to me. On the other hand, maybe the Conservatives do not want power either. I do not know where we are getting to.


An hon. MEMBER:: You cut the ham pretty thin then.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not know who could cut the ham thinner. It could not be cut much thinner than it is.
I have said what I wanted to say. I believe that our veterans, and especially their widows, should be treated as this country can afford to treat them. I do not mean afford by virtue of the amount of taxes the finance minister can squeeze out of the public. I mean what we can afford to give them by reason of our vast wealth, and no one will say that this country is not one of the richest in the world. It is up to the government, therefore, to adjust its policies so as to make that wealth available to the people and especially to war
veterans and widows of war veterans who are called upon in these days of high cost of living to live on a mere pittance.


Mr. D. KING HAZEN (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion that has just been made by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) that veterans should not pay taxes is one that I believe will not be well received by a great many veterans in this country. The men who volunteered and went overseas and fought to defend this country and overcome the forces of evil are, I believe, just as anxious to bear their full share of the responsibilities of this country in peace as in war.


Ernest George Hansell: Let them do so voluntarily.


Douglas King Hazen: They believe they should bear their full responsibility and pay their full share as citizens of this country. I believe that the majority of the members of the Canadian Legion, as it is usually referred to, though its full name is the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League-and I must say I like that name and am proud of it-want to serve their country as faithfully and loyally in peace as they did in war.
I rise, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of making one suggestion only, and I shall be very brief. I am not a member of the committee to which this bill to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act is to be referred, and my purpose in rising is to ask that committee to amend the bill to provide a veterans allowance for those men who volunteered for service in the Boer war and went to South Africa but did not arrive there until January 1, 1902. It was not their fault that the war came to an end before they engaged the enemy. They volunteered for service and went overseas, as did the men in the second great war who are to be granted this allowance because they went to Great Britain. But, as I understand the act. the men I speak of who went to South Africa and arrived there after January 1, 1902. are not eligible for the veterans allowance. These men are now old, and many of them are not capable of doing the work they formerly did. Some of them are in need of assistance. If this act is to be regarded as a social security measure, as some members who have taken part in the debate have said, every consideration should be given to these men and they should be granted the veterans allowance.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) on the second reading of the bill informed the house that only 592 veterans of the South African war were in receipt of this allowance. If the act were amended to include the men who went to South Africa
Private Bills

but did not arrive there before January 1, 1902, the additional number would not be large and their inclusion would involve no great strain on the treasury of this country. So I would ask the committee when the bill comes before it to amend it by providing that men who volunteered for service in the South African war and who went to South Africa but did not arrive there before January 1, 1902, be included among those who are entitled to a veterans allowance.


Mr. J. O. PROBE (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I am not a member of the veterans affairs committee this year I should like to make one or two suggestions with respect to the bill which is to go to the committee after second reading. I shall not take up much time, probably only ten or fifteen minutes, and perhaps you would now call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 12, for the relief of Florence Joyce West Shannon.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 13, for the relief of Alice Cecilia Anne Magniac Bailey.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 14, for the relief of Valerie Jean Lewis Samson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 15, for the relief of William Neville Buckingham.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 16, for the relief of Marguerite Elsie Dunan Currie.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 17, for the relief of Ellen Catherine Holder.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 18, for the relief of Doris Amy Peate Taylor.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 19, for the relief of Kenneth Elliott Mitchell.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 20, for the relief of Margaret Craig Carmichael Nicholson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 21, for the relief of Hilda Emily Brown.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 22, for the relief of Joan Ruth Grimble Campbell.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 23, for the relief of Raymond Masse.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 24, for the relief of Barbara Mary Day Duffy.

Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 25. for the relief of Joseph Dunn.- Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 26, for the relief of Rena Victoria Rabin Wolfe.

Mr. Maybank.

Bill No. 27, for the relief of Frederik Smith.- Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 28, for the relief of William Thomas Wright.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 29, for the relief of Marie Antoinette Aubut dit Cimon Charron.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 30, for the relief of James Arnold Wells.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Magdelena Kleiziute Testart.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Hazel Shirley Elizabeth Hart Layton.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Irene Morgan Neilson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Elerick Montgomery Barton.

Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Adelaide Margaret Munn Bain.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 37, for the relief of Gwendolyn Beulah Russell Denenfeld.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 38. for the relief of Miriam Salomon Starr.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 39, for the relief of Laura Krause Suffrin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 40, for the relief of Jean Fullarton Craig Walker.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 41, for the relief of William Hesketh.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of Janet Alice Smith Bennett.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Gwendoline Elizabeth Hunt Edmund.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Reta Mabel Welch Gilbert.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Leah Shrimer Schanker.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Doris Mary Stratton Stuart.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Hellmut Hans Karl Pokorny.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Bella Wine Rapps.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Winifred Anthony Leith.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Eugene Alden Anderson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Shirley Leighton Pawson Milligan.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Mary Josephine Ruth Girard Rosenberg.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Leah Marcelle Pettitt Reeve.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Marie Yvette Francoise Bayard Savard.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Simone Body Whitelaw.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Ernest Alfred
Coker.-Mr. Maybank.

Private Bills
Bill No. 63, for the relief of Clarence William Henry Hodgson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 64, for the relief of Vera May Paulson Ward.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 65, for the relief of Ruth Ethel Attwood MeVicar.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 66, for the relief of Henry George Halsey.- Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 67, for the relief of George Crosby-Wilson Gray.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Joseph David Ernest Paul Maysenhoelder.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Myrtle Macdonald Heale Daniluk.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Robert Grincill Barnet Jones.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Gertrude Katherine Margolis Bird.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Cecilia Maud Wood Marshall.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Beatrice Doris Haggerty Goodier.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Joyce Knowles Ledoux.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Robert Ernest Beadie.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 76, for the relief of Grace Davis Park Parr.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 77, for the relief of Jeanne Crete Benoit.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Sarah Cummings Menzies Carlin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Annie Golden-berg Schulman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 80, for the relief of Clarice Jean Field Campbell.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 81, for the relief of Georgina Claire Williscroft Bovard.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 82, for the relief of Saul Jack Costin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 83, for the relief of Mary Shore Bernstein.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 84, for the relief of Saul Ettinger.- Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Lloyd Arthur Davies.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 86, for the relief of Alfred Keeley.- Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Marie Albina Ethel Dubois Howick.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 88, for the relief of Ignaty (Ignas) Sokolovsky.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 89, for the relief of Laura Grace Hanley Huggenberger.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Eva Wolfovitch Zloty, otherwise known as Eva Wolfovitch Gold.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Sheila Light-stone Marcus.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Lea Alvina Mary Boulay Orr.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Armand Lapierre.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Georgette Ruth Cote Geller.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 95. for the relief of Mary Elizabeth Ellwood Blackburn.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 96, for the relief of Annie Elizabeth Horseman Charters.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Sarah Ann Older Verrier.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Anna Martha Kokojachuk Waugh.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Elsie Mark Farley.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Lela May Begley Hall.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Marguerite Isaacs Katz.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Delilah May Jacobs Button.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Ruth Shkurnik Gilbert.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Goldie Tessler Wise.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 105, for the relief of Martha Norman McCaims.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Marion Rita Kendall ODonahoe.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 107, for the relief of Gertrude Mae McLean Cole.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 108, for the relief of Freda Gertrude Parkes McMillan.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 109, for the relief of Alma Petrides Prysky.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 110, for the relief of Jean MacDonald Di Falco.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Betty Yossem Edelstein.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 112, for the relief of Leonard Carlton Matthews.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 113, for the relief of St. Kilda McKay McLean Anderson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 116. for the relief of Nellie Polistuck Levac.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 117, for the relief of Eleen Rose Gray Lawson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 118, for the relief of Frieda Kimel-fild Solomon.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 119, for the relief of Gordon Merrill Fuller.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 120, for the relief of Phyllis Joyce Bradfield Ainsworth.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 121, for the relief of Michael Charles Parr.'-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 122, for the relief of Edna Birch Drimer.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 123, for the relief of Elinore Oakes
Forgues.-Mr. Maybank.
Private Bills
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 124, for the relief of Mary Gwoz-decka Carter.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 125, for the relief of Ralph Woodall. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 127, for the relief of Joseph Onfroy Pilon.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 128, for the relief of Thelma May Heggie May.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Molly Renetta Pry Bist.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 130, for the relief of Patricia Potter Parker.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 131, for the relief of Helen May Smith Saunders.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 132, for the relief of Jean Duncan Girard.

Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 133, for the relief of Evelyn Sylvia Jones Bowen.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 134, for the relief of Joseph Eugene Ernest Bourbonnais.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 139, for the relief of Mildred Frances Batten Gzowski.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 140, for the relief of Irene Nellie Kon Ballantyne.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 141, for the relief of Theophile Gobeille.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 142, for the relief of Violet Mary Cowper Preston.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 143, for the relief of Virginia Grace Borland Langton.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 144, for the relief of Ethelwyn Lillian Flynn Budd.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 145, for the relief of Alfred Winston Savage.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 147, for the relief of Diana Eve Whittall Beurling.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 152, for the relief of Rose Landes Clopoff.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 153, for the relief of Micheline Desautels Dooney.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	154,	for	the	relief	of William
Roydon Slator.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 155, for the relief of Marie Eva Thibodeau Buelow.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	156.	for	the	relief	of Margaret
Sleno Staines.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Jean Hume Mun-ro Auburn.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 158, for the relief of Gilles Hcnault. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	159,	for	the	relief	of Edward
Gordon Jakeman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	160,	for	the	relief	of Kathleen
McKeown Stevenson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 161, for the relief of Alice Mary Gallant Currie.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 162, for the relief of Muriel Frances Marks Buchanan.-Mr. Maybank.

Bill No. 163, for the relief of Leona Selma Cutway Hall.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 164, for the relief of Avery Patricia Gill Reinhold.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 165, for the relief of Poppy Catherine Hayakawa Smith.

Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 166, for the relief of Dolores Mar-garetTRaul Warner.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 167, for the relief of Norma Bernstein Levee-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 168, for the relief of Eileen Sophie McNamara Sepchuk.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 169, for the relief of Mary Rowan Young Conway.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 170, for the relief of Ethel Margaret Tweddell Cartmel-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 174, to incorporate The Canadian Association of Optometrists.-Mr. Cote (Verdun).
Bill No. 175, for the relief of Winifred Audrey Meyer Holton.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 176, for the relief of Chester Adam Hart.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 177, for the relief of Marie Marguerite Cecile Gagnon Lescadres.-Mr. May-bank.
Bill No. 178, for the relief of Samuel Reinhardt Lewis.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 179. for the relief of Ersilia Pace Imonti.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 180, for the relief of Helen Rose Noel Steele.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 181, for the relief of Edith Saltz-man Rashkovan.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 182, for the relief of Ida Malfara Romanelli.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 185, for the relief of Francis Clyde Peachey.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 186, for the relief of Harriet Dodd McLaehlan Cummings.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 187, for the relief of Phyllis Smith Curtis.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 188, for the relief of Jacqueline Louise Waddington Skinner.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 189, for the relief of George Malouf. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 190, for the relief of Sonja Anna Margaret van der Walde Brown-Mr. May-bank.
Bill No. 191, for the relief of Richard Edward Welsh.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 192, for the relief of Violet Maude Mitchell.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 193, for the relief of Elsie Williams Lodge.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 194, for the relief of Joseph Albert
Aldee Leveillee.-Mr. Maybank.

Bell Telephone Company

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Rinfret for the second reading of Bill No. 8, respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few remarks on this bill, and first of all I should like to refresh the memories of hon. members by referring to the explanatory note. The purpose of this bill is to obtain authority to increase the capital stock of the company from $150 million to S500 million. The company's present authorized capital stock is $150 million. There remains yet unissued $13,336,700 of authorized capital stock. So far there has been no adequate explanation of this tremendous increase in capital stock.
At this point I think I ought to express my personal appreciation of the efforts of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) and other hon. members who have taken part in this debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good public ownership members.


William Irvine: Yes. I congratulate them on the good service which I believe they have rendered to this house and to the country by taking the attitude they have toward this legislation.
I recall that in 1928 this company appeared before parliament for an increase in its capital by S75,000.000, and at that time there was as keen opposition as there is on this occasion to permitting the company to increase its stock to the extent then proposed, the only difference being that at that time there was more strenuous opposition to the manner in which the company had been accustomed to . issue its stock.
At that time there were charges that the company had issued its stock to its friends, to members of the company. It issued new stock at par to the members of the company, while the value of the stock was as high as $193.
I was looking up the old records here in the 1928 Hansard, at page 3084, and I find a quotation from the Toronto Globe of that time of a statement made by a Mr. Reid, who was counsel for the province of Ontario before the railway commission when the matter of telephone rates was up for discussion. Speaking of the Bell Telephone Company at that time, that gentleman made this statement:
The history of its stock issues shows that the company has been making a regular practice of issuing stock to it shareholders at par of $100 per share when it was listed and selling on the
exchanges at market prices, forty per cent, fifty per cent, sixty per cent, seventy-five per cent, and in the instance in the year 1899 at ninety-three per cent higher than its par value, and in each of such cases the shareholders were given a bonus of $49, $47, $50, $60, $75 and $93 per share, in addition to the regular dividend of eight per cent.
That was a very fair melon, if you like to call it that, and I imagine that the taste is still keen for that kind of fruit. It is just possible that with $500 million capitalization there would be afforded an opportunity for carloads of such melons to be brought in.


An hon. MEMBER:: Don't you like melons?


William Irvine: I do not like melons, if my hon. friend wants to know. As a matter of fact I usually get lemons, and my hon. friend is probably in the same boat. However, this telephone business is one of those services which I think most people will agree should be under public ownership. The telephone system should be run, if any service is run, for the purpose of giving the utmost service to the community at large and not for any profit whatsoever. It should be run at cost, at the cost of maintaining the service. I know of no other way by which proper services can be given to all the people impartially.
A private company running a telephone system for the profits which it can make from the enterprise will invariably centre its services in the larger communities and sometimes neglect entirely the sparsely settled communities. In this bill there is absolutely no provision for any extension of service to be rendered to the public. No assurance is given in the bill anywhere that under certain conditions the company will be obligated to give service to the community, and until such assurance is absolutely guaranteed I certainly think we would be remiss in our duty if we passed this measure.
The last time the bill was before the house some hon. member-I am not sure who it was but I believe it was the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe)-suggested that the more people there were on a telephone line, the more expensive it was. That, of course, is not true. It is true, I think, that the more people there are on the telephone system, the better the service or at least the greater service one gets for the money paid for the telephone because he is put in touch with a greater number of people. But I think the minister would not hold that, if half the people of Ottawa had their telephones cut off tomorrow, the other half would get their telephones much
Bell Telephone Company

cheaper because of that. Yet that would be the logic of the point of view which was then expressed.


Mr. RINFRET:: It depends on the number of lines.


William Irvine: I am opposed to this bill and I am opposed to the increase in capitalization, first, because I am opposed to giving a monopoly of a public service of this kind to any company whatsoever. No private company is good enough to be trusted with a monopoly of a public service. So from that point of view I wish to register my objection. It is not only the fact that this company has the monopoly of the telephone business in eastern Canada, but through its subsidiary, the Northern Electric Company, it has also practically the control of all supplies necessary for the telephone systems throughout the country. If I remember rightly, the point was brought out in discussion in 1928 that this Bell Telephone Company would buy its supplies from itself at enormous prices, and thus make profits through its own subsidiary in a manner which could not have happened had there been any competition at all in supplying the requirements of the company. In other words, it could over-charge itself through its own subsidiary, and the public paid the difference in charges made for services.
As I say, there has been no explanation of this over-capitalization of $500,000,000, and no satisfactory explanation has been offered to the house as to why this should be asked for or why it should be granted. This, however, we can say. The public, in the last analysis, must pay for all capitalization; and particularly will it be required to pay for over-capitalization. So I would remind the sponsor of this bill that I for one wish to have a more complete explanation of why this increase in capital is being asked for, and I also want-


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Let it go to the committee, then.


William Irvine: -to know how the stock is to be issued. My hon. friend says to let it go to the committee. By that he means, let us first get the endorsement of the house to something that we do not like; then when we get to the committee we shall be told that the principle of the bill has already been passed, and to take it and like it.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is not so with regard to private bills.


William Irvine: That is the way things go. I do not propose just to let things go to a committee without offering my objection beforehand, so that I may be sure that I have had

an opportunity of making that objection. Perhaps the most objectionable feature of the bill is the stock-splitting proposal, and that will be found in the third section of the bill.


James Horace King: Order.


William Irvine: I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that I am not supposed to quote from the bill.


James Horace King: Order. I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the general principle of the bill. The section of the bill.may be dealt with when we reach the committee stage.


William Irvine: 
Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Not 10 per cent.


William Irvine: I do not like that hypocritical way of doing the thing. I think this company should be required to face up-


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: 
Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: In dollars; not in percentage.


William Irvine: I think my hon. friend is getting warm, as we say in the old game.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: "Exasperated" is the word.

Bell Telephone Company


William Irvine: It is quite true that it does not alter the actual profits that might be made.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Why does the hon. member not say what he means?


William Irvine: But it alters the report of that profit. That is the thing I am trying to get at.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: It does not alter the profits at all.


James Horace King: Order.


William Irvine: My hon. friend may take the floor, or whatever you want to call it, and 6ay all he wants to say when I am through. I am expressing what appears to me to be the situation, or a possible situation to be brought about by the splitting of stock. If it cannot be so, and my hon. friend can show that, I shall be glad to learn it. But I am not the only one who takes that view. I can show my hon. friend, or quote to my hon. friend the words of men of financial repute in this city and in the employ of this government, which would support the point I am making there, and show that they say exactly the same thing about it that I have just said.
The next abjection to the splitting of the stock is that usually those who buy later on are at a disadvantage, for this reason. Of course the excuse is always, "Oh, we split the stock because we want the dear public all to come in."


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: The widows and orphans.


William Irvine: Yes. It is easier for them to buy a $25 share than a $100 share; so it is said, "It is in the interests of the dear people that we are splitting our stock". I know that is the excuse, but this is what usually follows. When stock is split in this fashion there is usually a quickening of the market, a stimulation, so the stock goes up. The original $100 share may be split into four $25 shares, and each of those shares may go from $25 to $30.


Park Manross: Time to sell.


William Irvine: Well, if it goes up to $30 it has greatly benefited the original stockholders. But then they begin to unload on, shall I say, the suckers; is that a parliamentary word? That is where they unload it; the dear people become suckers and pay the extra stock values that their own competition to get in on the cheap stock has created. That is the usual practice in a stock-splitting proposition of this kind. The $25 share may go up to $30. It may go twice as high, but let us say it goes to $30. This increases the original value from $100 to $120, which is a very considerable
increase for those who have the privilege of holding the original stock. As I say, the newcomers take the loss; the original shareholders make the gain, and in the last analysis I presume the public pays.
The next principle in this bill to which I object is that which gives this company the right to deal in or control wireless and radio and all the newest devices, appliances and principles which may be developed in these matters. I cannot quote this, but it is stated in the bill that this is a clarification of powers the company has always had. If the company has always had them, what is the need of clarification? But if the company did not always have them the clarification, so called, will see that it gets them from now on. So I am opposed to that provision in this bill. Surely this house is of the opinion by now that wireless, radio, television and so on should not be entrusted to any private corporation. No private company, I repeat, should be given power to handle a public service such as radio communication, television and so on.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill. My hon. friend may think I am going to try to talk out the bill. I am not. I am going to conclude my remarks right now, because I want every measure to have an opportunity to be voted upon in this house. I do not believe it would be democratic for me or anyone else to occupy all the time available to this or any other bill in order to prevent it from coming to a vote in the house. I have, however, taken this opportunity to register my protest, and if others feel like it I hope that they will do the same; that ultimately this legislation will come to a vote, and that the house will vote it down.


Mr. RONALD MOORE (Churchill):: Since the introduction of this bill I have become very much interested in the action that probably will be taken should it pass the house. I have discovered that the Bell Telephone monopoly is one of the largest monopolies in existence anywhere in the world; and I think it would pay all hon. members to read one of the books in our parliamentary library which deals with this Bell monopoly. It is entitled: "The American Telegraph and Telephone Company; the Story of a Great Monopoly", by Horace Coon, and was written in 1939. It is absolutely amazing the number of companies controlled by the American Telegraph and Telephone Company, and I should like to give a list of at least some of these corporations. At page 155 of this book I find that these associated companies are controlled by the Bell system in the United States-
Bell Telephone Company


Park Manross: What about Canada?


Ronald Stewart Moore: The system in Canada is controlled by the same company in the United States, and they also control the English telephone system. Take the New England Telegraph and Telephone Company; 66-31 per cent of its stock is controlled by the company I have mentioned.


James Horace King: Order. If I understand the hon. member correctly he is about to quote a number of companies who are affiliated with the Bell Telephone Company of the United States?


Ronald Stewart Moore: Yes.


James Horace King: The bill before the house is not concerned with the Bell Telephone Company of the United States; it has to do with the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.


Ronald Stewart Moore: I agree entirely, Mr. Speaker, but I think it can be easily seen by all hon. members that since the Bell system in Canada is only a part of the American system it is relevant to point out that this is one great world monopoly in the field of telephone communication.


James Horace King: Order. The hon. member knows perfectly well that on second reading the debate should be confined to the principle of the bill which is before the house. The bill under consideration just now is with respect to the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. So I would ask the hon. member who has the floor and other hon. members to confine their remarks to the merits of the bill before the house.


Angus MacInnis: If I may comment on the point of order, this bill asks for the extension of the capital of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, and surely anything bearing upon that has to do with the principle of the bill. You cannot discuss the principle of the bill without associating it with something else. So I should say the remarks of the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Moore) are quite in order and that it has always been in order to discuss a matter of this kind.


James Horace King: I am sorry, but I do not agree with the hon. gentleman. It is clear that the bill before the house has to do with the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, so the hon. member should confine his remarks to that company.


Ronald Stewart Moore: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not entirely agree that these other matters should not be considered in connection with the Canadian system. However, since it is the

ruling of the Chair that what I have been saying is out of order with respect to this bill I shall confine my remarks to the Bell system in Canada. At the start I want to say that I am not in any way attacking the Bell system for its labour relations or any matters of that kind. I believe we have to concede right at the beginning that the Bell Telephone Company of Canada is one of the best private companies in this country for which any individual could wish to work. But the principle behind this bill is not in the interest of the public -of Canada. And I venture to say that, instead of this house passing the legislation, we ought to look to the time when we in Canada shall be able to control our telephone system. Already we control it in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and some of the other western provinces. The reason we control it there is that at the time telephone lines were built in western Canada it was not profitable to go into that business. I believe that, particularly in Manitoba, it began as private enterprise but, to use a common term, it fell through, and the government had to take it over.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is not true.


Ronald Stewart Moore: The government took it over anyway.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: It took it over, but it was not broke.


Ronald Stewart Moore: It was very nearly.


William Irvine: Badly cracked.


Ronald Stewart Moore: The same position as the five privately owned railroads.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Not at all.


Ronald Stewart Moore: Otherwise private enterprise would not have allowed it to be taken over. The only reason we have this great monopoly today is that it was profitable at that time to go into that business.
There was only one other point I wished to make this evening in connection with this telephone system. There is great danger that if we continue the private ownership of telephone systems in Ontario and Quebec they will in time control radio broadcasting as well. Here again we find a similarity with the position in the United States. At page 205 of this informative book it states:
The Bell system has a stranglehold on the radio industry at one of that industry's most strategic and vulnerable points, for it has a virtual monopoly in furnishing the wire facilities to broadcasting stations. Chain or network broadcasting cannot be made in the United States without the use of Bell system wires.

Bell Telephone Company
I submit that if we continue to allow the private ownership of telephones to expand in Canada we may get in this respect a similar situation in connection with radio to that now existing in the United States. I intend to vote against this measure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: When do we get this vote?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member asks when we shall vote. If I have anything to say about the matter, we shall vote in a very few minutes.


Angus MacInnis: We will let you help your friends in a minute.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We of this group have made clear our position on the bill. We are not alone; we have had the excellent support of my good friend the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) and my good friend the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), as well as the support of a few other public ownership members of the Tory party.
The basic reason for our objection to the bill is that we see in it the strengthening of a private monopoly in connection with a public service. Like my two good friends in the front row of the Tory party, here-


Mr. JACKMAN:: Oh, talk for yourself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Take all the time you want. We feel that a public service of this kind should be a public monopoly and that we should move in that direction rather than in the direction of strengthening a private monopoly. In addition to that fundamental objection to the bill, we feel that even those in the house who do not support public ownership still have a responsibility to the people of Canada, whom they represent to consider a bill like this most carefully before it is passed. In the main-


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Let it go to the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If my hon. friend will contain himself for a moment I shall make a suggestion which will be helpful.


Mr. MITCHELL:: We are talking.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now, where was I, before the Minister of Labour's voice distracted my attention?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: You were against giving greater monopoly to private enterprise. That is the one point, sum and substance of all your speeches.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, I am delighted to learn we have been able to make our point sufficiently clear that the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman) understands it. That is a feather in the cap of the C.CE.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Don't be so ungentlemanly as to be boring.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was endeavouring to point out that even private ownership members in the house should look several times before they approve the principle of a bill which contains two particularly offensive features. One of those features is what we regard as a tremendous increase in the authorized capitalization; the other feature we regard as offensive is the one to which my colleague from Cariboo (Mr. Irvine) referred, namely the giving of retroactive rights in the field of radio, television and other things mentioned in the bill.
I feel there are members in the house who do not go along with us so far as our public ownership views are concerned, but who nevertheless consider that to grant this sort of extension of privilege to private interests is not good for private enterprise itself. It is just this sort of thing, as some private enterprise supporters realize, that brings private enterprise into disrepute.
For these reasons it seems to me that the discussion of the proposed legislation in committee, which the hon. member sponsoring the bill is so anxious to have, should take place before approval is given to the principle of the bill. The hon. member for Cariboo has already answered one interjection on that point by indicating what usually happens. Once second reading has been voted, we are told that from then on the house has approved the bill in principle, and that there is nothing left to do but to talk about minor details and, in the end, the bill becomes law.
So, as a generous gesture to the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Rinfret) who wishes to get this matter to committee, and so as to facilitate the taking of the vote other hon. members have asked for, I move in amendment seconded by my deskmate, the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson):
That Bill No. 8, letter C of the senate, be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion? Those in favour of the motion will say "yea".


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yea.


James Horace King: Those opposed will say "Nay".
Bell Telephone Company


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


James Horace King: In my opinion the "nays"
have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You wanted a vote.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: We asked for bread and he gave us a stone.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Speaker, it was our hope that this bill would have been allowed to go to a committee where all the relevant facts in regard to the company could have been brought out; but, since this is not to be done, it is not my intention to see the vote taken on the second reading until we know more about the principle of the measure.


An hon. MEMBER:: How are you going to find out?


George Hugh Castleden: If the bill had been sent to a committee we could have got the facts with regard to this application and the need for this increased capitalization.
First, let me say that if the bill related only to telephone service we might have let it pass, but it seeks to raise the authorized capital stock of the company from 8150,000,000 to 8500.000,000, which would make the company of such magnitude that it would affect the living and well-being of a great many Canadian people. This company has extended its service in the eastern part of Canada to the point where today it is practically a monopoly. Were that the only thing implied by this bill, it would not be too bad, but obviously we are on the eve of great developments in the field of communication.


James Horace King: Order. The hour for private bills having expired, the house will now revert to the business before it at six o'clock.



WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gregg for the second reading of Bill No. 196, to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946.
John Oliver Probe: Mr. Speaker, before the dinner hour the members of the house were expressing their views on the principle of the amendments to Bill No. 196, to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act. As I said when I rose to my feet at six o'clock, since I am not

War Veterans Allowance Act
privileged to act on the veterans affairs committee this year, I should like to mention a number of deficiencies in the bill for consideration by the committee.
First of all, I share the feeling expressed by other hon. members that the amounts allowed to those veterans who are unfortunate enough to require the benefits of the War Veterans Allowance Act are insufficient under present circumstances. The bill as it stands gives a maximum contribution from government sources, to the participants of the benefits of the legislation, of $40 a month for single persons or $70 a month for married persons, and there are permitted certain additional small incomes from other sources. The over-all effect is, of course, unchanged from the previous years. The total permissible income in the case of single veterans is $615 a year, and in the case of married veterans, $1,105 a year.
In view of the increase in the cost of living in the last couple of years particularly, in which we have had a rise in two years of 30 points, the minister might well have considered a bonus, perhaps on a sliding scale, in addition to whatever his government felt was a proper base income-a sliding scale bonus which would go up and down on the basis of the rise or fall in the cost of living, from a certain well defined yardstick, whether it be the scale of 1939 or the scale applying at the end of hostilities. A base period might well have been considered for which the allowance as it is now written into the proposed act might apply, -with supplements that would vary periodically with the rise and fall in the cost of living.
There is one further deficiency that I see. I feel that the minister might have considered at the same time including in this war veterans allowance legislation the right of the veteran to receive certain specified medical treatment and hospitalization. That might be included to supplement further the benefits which the veteran might receive from the legislation, because, in the case of the married veteran receiving somewdiat better than $2 a day, if from that sum there must be subtracted the cost of unforeseen accident or illness, with hospitalization and the medical bills that would ensue, he is worse off than the destitute, after all is said and done.
When the minister gave his statement yesterday he informed the house that there were under 31,000 recipients of benefits from the act-30,949, if his figures are correct, and I will question one phase of that in a moment- with a total cost to the Canadian nation of just under $15,000,000 as of the year 1947- $14,952,000 odd.
I think there may be one error in this statement and I should like the minister to make a note of it and to explain the figures as he has them. For example, under the heading "orphans, all wars", he told the house that there were fifty-three recipients of benefits and that the total liability on an annual basis was $25,596. That amounts to nearly $500 per orphan on an annual basis. The minister will concede that, according to the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946, which is not amended in this particular under part II of the act, under clause 8, subsection 3, the maximum allowance payable in any year to or on behalf of orphan or orphans shall be $360 in the case of one child, and so on, and there is a sliding scale downwards. So that I think the minister should give some explanation with respect to that figure on the basis of $360 per orphan. The liability for fifty-three orphans would be something in the neighbourhood of $19,000 instead of $25,000. Unquestionably, therefore, there is an error either in the amount or in the number of recipients. Perhaps the fifty-three refers to fifty-three families of recipients. I trust the minister will give an explanation in that regard.
Another point which I think the minister should consider is with respect to the present amount payable under the War Veterans Allowance Act. This corresponds so nearly to the amounts that are payable by way of old age pensions in certain provinces, when the dominion does in fact pay the maximum, that it may under certain circumstances be desirable for the recipient of the war veterans allowance to refuse to accept the allowance and to accept the old age pension of the province.
I know it is not the wish of the Department of Veterans Affairs to increase the fiscal burden of the various provinces by having them assume the cost of the payment of allowances in respect of veterans; but under part IV of the War Veterans Allowance Act, which is not amended by the bill before the house, a recipient of the war veterans allowance cannot accept the old age pension of a province while at the same time accepting the war veterans allowance.
There is another matter I would ask the minister to consider. I believe he can do this with great credit to the department, and it would not cover a large number of cases. According to the present War Veterans Allowance Act, veterans' widows are eligible for pension only when they have attained the age of fifty-five, and then, of course, only under certain circumstances. Widows under fifty-five years of age are not eligible according to the
5849-180i
War Veterans Allowance Act

act, unless permanently unemployable by reason of physical or mental disability. That is the way the act reads.
There are widows in their forties, with children, who are neither physically nor mentally disabled, but because the children are too young, the mothers cannot leave them to find employment. Such widows are unable to qualify for the allowance under this act as it now reads. I am sure the number involved throughout Canada would not be excessive, and in view of the fact that the total cost of the act is not to be stepped up immeasurably as a result of the amendment the minister has brought in-it was under $15,000,000 as of December last-this will not create an additional burden on the dominion treasury, while it will help to rectify a situation which I feel the minister himself and the treasury benches would not wish to see perpetuated.
There is one final consideration, Mr. Speaker, and that is that there is no special provision for children unless they are orphans; that is, unless father and mother are both deceased. There are innumerable cases across this country where the recipient of that allowance has more than one or two children. In fact, it is one of the paradoxes of life, almost, that the more necessitous the circumstances of many people, the larger the family with which they are blessed. For our unfortunate veterans who must apply for war veterans allowance it seems to me that a case could be made out comparable with that for families of pensioners where consideration is paid to the size of the family.
I say, first of all, that I feel the minister has allowed the treasury board to be niggardly in the amount which it is allotting for war veterans allowances generally under present conditions. Because of the similarity in amount of provincial old age pensions and war veterans allowance, I feel there is a danger that there will be a temptation for the veteran in certain provinces to apply for the old age pension-when he reaches the age of seventy, of course-rather than to use the financial resources of the Department of Veterans Affairs for his support. I think the minister should see to it that no injustice is done to the province, and that special provision should be made for widows under the age of fifty-five who have children. In the case of large families, or families with more than one child, I think some supplementary allowance should be paid to the children of such veterans.


Mr. W. G. CASE (Grey North):: I wish to add a word at this time, Mr. Speaker, because I believe there should be evidence of a desire on the part of members generally to encourage

the committee to give more generous consideration to the provisions outlined in this bill. This is a measure introduced by a newcomer to the department., the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg). I think the attitude we take here could encourage him and could strengthen his hand in his appeals to the government to provide more generous treatment for the War Veterans Allowance Act.
I suggest that we cannot afford to be niggardly with these veterans or the veterans' dependents. As a matter of fact we can afford to be generous, when one appreciates the resources of this great nation and the wealth which we possess. I would ask hon. members to recall, if they will, the fact that these veterans played their full part in preserving our way of life, in guaranteeing to us the security which we enjoy today. If we let our minds go back to those trying times when the bands were playing and the soldiers were marching forth to battle, it will be brought home to us that it is a sad commentary that the soldier is the man of the day and the man of the hour, but he is all too soon forgotten.
While these veterans were away, many men who remained at home had an opportunity to augment or to build up their resources. That opportunity was denied to the veteran who was serving overseas. Those years were lost years in the ordinary course of civilian life. The veteran suffered that handicap, if no other. I agree with my hon. friend who spoke this afternoon when he said that the veterans are not seeking any preferred treatment in their status as citizens of this country. They are willing to carry their full share of the load. But I feel that they are entitled to a just and proper reward for meritorious service in the defence of their country, that their widows should have consideration, and that their children particularly should have an opportunity of receiving an education comparable with that received by children of others who have been more fortunate and have been able to provide this opportunity for them.
Unfortunately, the world is a long way from being at peace. Already we hear notes of discord and the distant rumble of warfare. As a matter of fact there are those who will say that we are now at war-a cold war. We may again find it necessary to call upon the manhood of this nation to make a similar sacrifice. It is only fair that those who are prepared to make that contribution should have the absolute assurance that there will be, in reality, a sense of economic security for them. In other words, while we hesitate to glorify war, the present signs indicate that soldiering has become a profession; and it will remain

War Veterans Allowance Act
so as long as the world is in this state of anxiety and as long as this discord and lack of understanding prevail throughout the world. So I submit that our future security and our future ability to encourage another generation, or even this generation, of young men to take up arms, may depend upon the attitude we express in our parliament today.
I consider it most important that the committee on veterans affairs, to whom this bill will be referred, should be encouraged to believe that there is a large degree of unanimity in this house in regard to our desire to see that the veteran and his family receive far more generous treatment than they have received in the past. I can think of young men, now growing older, who, through a sense of loyalty and a sense of devotion, went forth to battle and played a tremendous part, who have since returned to our midst and whose health has been of an indifferent character all these years. They have not had the robust physique which has been enjoyed by some of their more fortunate fellow citizens; thus they have been under a handicap all these years. Now, as the shades of evening come closer, they are met with a degree of adversity, a lack of security; and I certainly feel that a burnt-out veteran and his family should not be subjected to the means test. With our wealth and resources we should indicate to these veterans that the nation is solidly behind them in peace just as we idolized them in war, when our very existence depended upon their bravery and courage.
So I would respectfully submit that the veterans affairs committee should take note of the temper of the speakers who have participated in this debate. They have endeavoured to interpret the attitude of thousands of Canadian people, and to show that the country is prepared to deal generously with her veterans. I believe the minister, who is directly responsible to the veterans, to this house and to the government, should pay heed to the remarks which have been made, because I have not heard one hon. member say this was enough. Everyone has urged more generous treatment. Everyone has intimated that he feels we are being altogether too niggardly. With that expression of opinion, surely the minister can approach his cabinet colleagues determined to secure their support for more adequate treatment of our veterans. With that leadership on the part of the minister and the members of the veterans affairs committee, I sincerely hope that more generous treatment will be given those to whom we owe so much, particularly with respect to economic security for themselves and their families.


Ronald Stewart Moore: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at any length this evening on this measure because as a member of the veterans affairs committee I shall have an opportunity later to bring up most of the points with which I wish to deal. Since that committee was set up, however, most hon. members of this house as well as the members of that committee have received many letters from veterans and veterans' organizations protesting against the treatment being given the veterans under the various acts. The measure now before the house, the War Veterans Allowance Act, is one of those measures which we think do not meet the requirements of the veterans. I believe every hon. member will agree that a single veteran in receipt of $365 a year, or $30.41 a month, does not receive enough to maintain anything like a Canadian standard of living. It is true, of course, that he is allowed other income up to a total of $615 a year; nevertheless even that is not sufficient to maintain a Canadian standard of living.
The main objection most veterans' organizations have with respect to the government's legislation is that it is not sufficiently generous toward the veterans, and I can wholeheartedly agree with that contention. For example, I do not see why a single veteran should not receive at least $50 and a married man at least $100 a month. I know there are people who argue that such expenditures on behalf of our veterans would take a great deal of money from the treasury. No doubt that is true; but it is also true that the income of this country is higher than ever before in our history. So while the government have this money I think they ought to place legislation on the statute books which will give our veterans a reasonable standard of living.
Then I should like to say a word in support of the veterans of the South African war. I believe this legislation should apply to them as well. There are other things I shall deal with when this matter comes before the veterans affairs committee, but I want to repeat that veterans across this country are not satisfied with the legislation which has been brought down. They feel it is not sufficiently generous, and I think they are right. I do not believe they can maintain anything like a reasonable standard of living on the amounts they receive under the War Veterans Allowance Act.


Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: This may be my only chance to say something in connection with this matter, since I am not on the committee. I shall not detain the house for
War Veterans Allowance Act

long, but I felt it my duty to make a few remarks. I am glad the minister has seen fit to bring down this bill. It is long overdue, but it has been a great disappointment to me, as I am sure it has been to others. In introducing the bill, the minister said, as reported at page 2788 of Hansard:
The terms of this bill will, I anticipate, receive careful study by the special committee on veterans affairs.
I hope it does receive careful study, so much so that when the bill is brought back to the house hon. members may have difficulty in recognizing it. Then the minister went on:
In the main, Mr. Speaker, this bill is a further important step toward giving the old soldier who fought for his country the assurance that in his old age his country will provide him with some defence against poverty.
I do not think the amounts provided under this bill, a maximum of $40 for a single man and $70 for a married man, even with the amounts they are permitted to earn in addition, will give these veterans much protection .against poverty. We must remember that the $20 the old soldier got back in 1930 was worth about $50 in terms of today's values, so that not very much is being given at the present time. I suggest that the minimum should be $50. It is within the discretion of the board to allow $50 in case of need for a single man, and up to $100 in case of need for a married man, but I say these men should be given a chance to earn a much larger total. I believe that total should be $750 for a single man and $1,200 for a married man; that would be a little more reasonable.
I do not intend to name the various groups who should receive assistance under this bill. The veterans of the South African war have already been mentioned several times. I would put in a word, however, for the non-pensioned widows, some of whom are finding it very difficult to get along today. They are not as young as they used to be; they have done a good job, and they deserve some assistance. Then there are the imperials and others who have been supported so strongly by many hon. members, more especially by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) and the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks).
In conclusion, let me say that these old soldiers and the widows of old soldiers either deserve adequate treatment, or do not deserve anything. Surely they deserve that adequate treatment, because the minister has said so. But I do not think we should be so niggardly. What we should do is to give them what would be a defence against poverty in their old age, and we ought not to be content just to give them partial aid. After all, when they

reach the age some of these men have reached $40 a month is not very much, particularly when they cannot earn anything for themselves. It is poverty.
I hope that when the bill returns from committee it will be an entirely different looking product from what it is now.


Mr. L. E. CARDIFF (Huron North):: Mr. Speaker, we are going to find that a great number of veterans will be disappointed in the bill unless, while in committee, it is revised so as to give those in distress much more consideration than the bill in its present form affords. I am not a member of the committee, and for that reason I should like to speak briefly this evening.
Let me say at the outset that I concur heartily with the appeal made so eloquently by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), who spoke more effectively than I could ever hope to do. I agree with everything he said. This evening I have in mind one particular case, and I should like to bring to the attention of the house one point which I believe has not been discussed by any other member. I do not wish to repeat figures which have already been given. However I would refer to a soldier who came back from the war several years ago. This man was discharged in 1934 as having a heart condition. Dependent upon him were a wife and four children. He was discharged from the army with a ten per cent pension, was unable to do anything and indeed was confined to his bed. Because of his heart condition he was told not to,exert himself in any way. After appealing for a reboard, he went back to the hospital for observation.
This man was let out a second time, again with a ten per cent pension. That was in March, 1944, and I did not know anything about the ease until the fall of that year. During that length of time his wife had found it necessary to use all their spare money saved from the purchase of war bonds, and they had reached the point where they were fit subjects for relief. This man, however, was too proud to ask for relief, and his pride even prevented him from coming to see me to ask if I could do anything for him.
Let me say at once that I am glad to give credit to the department because, when I intervened on this man's behalf, his pension was increased immediately, I am told, to 100 per cent. They gave him $50 and also an allowance for each of his children, all of whom were under sixteen years of age. This brought in a total sum of about $90.
After a year he was reboarded and given observation, with the result that his pension

War Veterans Allowance Act
was cut, although he was still unable to do any work, and was under doctor's care. This man was told not to exert himself in any way but, periodically, he would feel better and would attempt to do some gardening or other light work. Each of those times he would have to go to bed for two or three days. His pension was cut from S50 back to $30, or thereabouts. It has been cut further since that time, and the second to last occasion he appeared for a reboard it was cut again.
This man is still unable to do anything. The oldest child has in the meantime reached the age of sixteen years, so that the father does not receive any allowance for him. That boy is out trying to earn a livelihood for himself. The family is, however, in next to destitute circumstances. I was in the house this winter and one could not tell by the temperature of the room if there was any heat in the building or not. I know this man could not afford to buy fuel. I do not know how much fuel he had in the house, or whether he had any. But I do know one could not feel any heat in that building. Surely that is a disgraceful condition.
The point I am making is this, that when this man went to hospital for a reboard he was not allowed to say anything on his own behalf. If he attempted to tell them anything he was told either to keep quiet, or that they would send him out. That is not right, surely. A man with a heart condition does not always look as sick as some others not suffering from that ailment might look. But I do not know how a man's condition could be ascertained unless the man himself were asked to give the symptoms, and to tell something about himself. Surely it is not right to have a man in hospital for observation, and then not permit him to speak on his own behalf. That is not fair and should not be allowed.
I hope that when the bill goes to committee the minister will reconsider it, and that if the recommendations in the bill are not sufficient he will redraft it so that these men will get what is rightfully theirs without having to have others intervene on their behalf. Why should we as members of parliament have to intervene for men who have served their country faithfully and well and then, upon discharge, find that they have disabilities for which they are not responsible? It is time parliament was big enough to look after these men without our having to make representations on their behalf.
Mr. ANGUS MaeINNIS (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, at this late hour in the debate, after so many members have spoken in favour of a more generous measure than the one now before us, there is very little one can say
that has not already been said. However, since I am not a member of the veterans affairs committee, and since I have received many letters from veterans, not only recently but over a number of years, complaining of the inadequacy of the allowance, I wish to add my protest to those which have already been made. Also I would add my hopes, if they are worth anything, to those who have already expressed the hope that the minister will reconsider the measure either before or after it goes to the veterans affairs committee, and bring something forward more worthy of Canada than this bill.
I examined the bill for a considerable time before I could find where there was any amendment to the act. This is a bill to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946. I have in my hand a leaflet issued by the war veterans allowance board, giving information in regard to the 1946 act. I have also examined the 1946 act and I have found it difficult to discover what the amendments are. Undoubtedly there are some amendments. I did find one amendment, early in the bill. That is an amendment increasing the salaries of the members of the board from $6,500 to $7,000.
After that very good start by those who drafted the measure, I was hoping they would carry it on for those who are supposed to benefit from war veterans allowances, those for whom the War Veterans Allowance Act was enacted, and not just for those who were administering the act. Persons who are required to administer an act of this kind ought to be well paid because they have to do a dirty job. The act provides $365 a year for a single person.


An hon. MEMBER:: A dollar a day.
Mr. MaeINNIS: A dollar a day, and in a leap year it will be just one dollar less than a dollar a day. This is a leap year and I imagine these men will have to go hungry for the extra day. Is there a member of this house who believes that he could live decently on $365 a year?


George Randolph Pearkes: Why use the word
"decently"?
Mr. MaeINNIS: I assume that "decently" is a proper word in this connection. I suggest that the hon. member for Nanaimo is having a decent living and I am having a decent living, but we are not-


George Randolph Pearkes: I meant that you could not live on it at all.
Mr. MaeINNIS: I appreciate what my hon. friend means, but we expect people to live
War Veterans Allowance Act

decently. I do not know how many single veterans are receiving this allowance, but they are supposed to live on $365 a year. The minister shakes his head, but I will read the relevant section. There could not have been much in the heads of those who drew up this act, whether they were shaking them or not. Section 4 reads:
The maximum allowance payable in any year to an unmarried veteran or a veteran bereft by death of his or her spouse, without child or children, shall be three hundred and sixty-five dollars less the amount of any income of the recipient in excess of two hundred and fifty dollars per annum.
If he has not $250, if he has not anything beyond the $365 he will have only the $365 on which to live. The basis of the allowance should, in my opinion, be a living allowance in itself. If this great, rich country cannot provide a living allowance for the men who risked their lives for their country, then there is something very wrong with the members of this house and with the government of this country. What amazes me is the difficulty of improving the standard of living of persons with low incomes. If one has an income of $3,000, $4,000 or $5,000 it is not difficult to add another $1,000 every two or three years, but if a person is receiving less than $1,000 or less than $500 he must live on that because there is no hope in the world that he will get anything more.
I have jotted down some of the reasons why we should be more generous with war veterans than we are in this bill. The first thing that struck me is that we could afford to be. This is a rich country and at the present time the government is fairly flush with funds, if I may use that term. For that reason alone we should be more generous. If a man treated an animal the way we treat these people he would be brought up in the courts for cruelty to animals.
The second reason is that we are seeking recruits for the armed services. When a young lad finds his father or his grandfather subjected to this sort of treatment after having risked his life for his country, what hope is there that the young man will be eager to join some branch of the services? There is not the slightest hope in the world. The third reason is that there is a great ado at the present time about the danger of communism. Communism is not something that just happened for no reason whatsoever. Communism developed under the autocracy of czarist Russia. It did not develop in countries where freedom and justice existed.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is a disease.


Angus MacInnis: My hon. friend says it is a disease. Perhaps it is and perhaps it is contagious. When people are subjected to the conditions under which it developed in the first place they are more liable to catch the disease than those who are not subjected to the same -conditions, the same as with any other disease. If there is one thing that creates divisions and sets people against each other it is inequality, the feeling on the part of some that they are being discriminated against, that they are not receiving their fair share after they have performed their fair share of the duties required of a citizen. I suggest to the minister and to the government that they pay heed to the pleas that have been made in the house this afternoon, and that when this bill comes back from the committee it will be a better bill than the one we have before us. There will not have to be a great many changes made to make it a better bill, but I hope the changes will be made.
There is another point I wish to make. I cannot imagine why the single person for whom the government makes the magnificent allowance of $365 a year should not be allowed to earn at least that much more by his own efforts. Why is it that he is not allowed to have additional income of more than $250? If he earned more than that who would be hurt? Who would be hurt if he earned $500? I suggest to the minister that the more the individual recipient of war veterans allowance is allowed to earn, the better it will be for the individual and the better for Canada. Nothing can be worse for the individual than the continual frustration of not being allowed to earn a living income by his own efforts, to be denied that right without being penalized for earning more than $250.
The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) wanted to know the basis of these allowances.
I wonder if someone would explain how it was that somebody-that somebody who convinced the minister and the cabinet-came to the conclusion that $365 is sufficient income for a man who had offered his life for his country and who is not now able to make a living for himself by his own efforts? Would somebody explain just how the conclusion that $365 was a sufficient income was arrived at?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I think that statement should be challenged for this reason.
It is not stated in the bill and has not been stated in the house that $365 was a sufficient income for a veteran with no other source of income. Under this bill, in addition to other earnings he can receive at least $40 a month, which multiplied by twelve makes $480 a year.

War Veterans Allowance Act


Angus MacInnis: All right, suppose we make it $480. Who determined $480 as an income sufficient for a man to live on? Who on the government side of the house wants to live on $480 a year? That amount is just as bad as the other; it is simply adding insult to injury. I hope that when this bill goes to the veterans affairs committee they will throw out this means test if they do nothing else, and put the veteran in the position where, if he tries to do something for himself, he will not be penalized for so doing.


Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, since coming to parliament in 1940 I have taken no part in the discussion of veterans problems because they have been handled very well by the veteran members of our group and other veteran members of the house. Since 1945 the veterans of world war II have joined the veterans of world war I, and I feel, in justice to the people of my constituency who are affected by this legislation, I could not let it pass without expressing my protest.
In the first place I do not wish my remarks to be considered by the minister as personal at all. I ami sure that every member of the house and the citizens of Canada are proud of his record in world war I and world war II. I know something personally, too, of the high esteem in which he was held in the University of New Brunswick before coming here. I am sorry for the minister that it is his misfortune to pilot legislation of this type through the Canadian parliament in the year 1948.
In the February issue of The Legionary, an article appears by the general secretary of the Canadian Legion which uses very moderate language:
Our idea of a new rate for war veterans allowance would be $50 per month for the single person and $85 per month for a married couple.
In an editorial in the same issue The Legionary says, speaking of the government's proposals for increasing disability pensions and war veterans allowances:
To many pensioners and to all war veterans allowance recipients the tremendous increase in actual living costs is nothing less than catastrophic.
These aging men and women are not concerned with the jump in automobile prices, or the higher cost of nylon stockings or cosmetics. They were already leading a marginal existence before the price increases and were not able to afford luxuries then. What they are vitally and desperately concerned about now is the price of bread and milk and butter and meat, and of shoes and everyday clothes and other things that are needed to exist. About the only bright spot in the whole gloomy picture is the fact that rents have been allowed to remain stationary, or nearly so.
These men, who offered their lives in the hour of Canada's greatest need, have earned a better deal than that which the government is proposing to give them.
The minister's officials have come to the conclusion that the cost of living warranted something being done. As the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) has mentioned, provision is made in the bill for board members, who receive a monthly cheque of $541.66, to get an increase of $41.67 because of the increase in the cost of living. They are to have extra take-home pay of $41.67 a month. It is very difficult for me to understand why a man getting $541.66 a month must have his salary increased to $583.33 because of the increase in the cost of living, while at the same time it 'is expected that single veterans getting $30.41 can get along with an extra $10 a month, or $40.41, and married veterans get along with $70.83, an increase of $10 over their present $60.83.
A little over a year ago I happened: to be present at a public meeting in the city of Montreal when the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) was making one of his first public statements as minister of that department. He spoke of the contribution that Canada had made during the war and said that dt had been our objective to see that no man who put on a uniform for his country would be any worse off for doing so and that no one who remained at home would be in any better position for having done so. He mentioned that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), who also represents a Montreal seat, was doing his part to see that those who remained at home would not be in any better position than if they had gone to war. He also mentioned the present minister's predecessor, who also was seeing to dt that those who fought for Canada would not be in a worse financial position for having joined the force.
I think members in all parts of the house are agreed that veterans who have to get along on the provision we have had in effect of a maximum of $640 for a single person and $1,130 for a married person certainly does not put the veteran in a preferred position. I know a great many veterans who thirty years ago could not establish the fact that sleeping in the mud or being forced to go without sleep hour after hour impaired their physical health, but many of them are now in the evening of life. According to the minister's own figures, 16,711 veterans of world war I will be entitled to the full $10 a month, which means that they are to get by on $640 for a single person and $1,130 for a married person. That is the maximum, and many will get less.
War Veterans Allowance Act

If there were any question of Canada's not being able to afford to pay more the veterans would accept their lot without a great deal of complaint, but we are all proud of the magnificent performance of Canada during the war and there is no indication in the world, either in the field of construction, in the sale of automobiles, in travel or anything else, that Canada is now on the verge of bankruptcy. I looked up Hansard of February 11, 1944, to find out how we were prepared to spend money in those days. I find that the Department of National Defence was able to get 128,000,000 for capital expenditure on construction, purchase, repairs, and operating expenses of properties; $51,000,000 for repairs, operating expenses and rentals; $182,000,000 for ammunition and bombs; $104,000,000 for armament, including rifles, machine guns, mortars and guns of all descriptions; $274,000,000 for motor transport vehicles, trucks, tractors and trailers; $30,000,000 for the operating cost of mechanical transport. Now the minister comes to parliament and asks for only $14,000000 odd for the twelve-month period to discharge our responsibility to veterans of world war I, and world war II. Mr. Speaker, that is just not good enough. I feel sure that if the minister and the members of the committee cannot bring back to parliament proposals making more generous provision for the veterans who risked their lives for Canada, a great number of Canadian people will lose faith in the ability of Canada to keep her commitments to those who risked their lives for her in time of trouble.
Hon. MILTON F. GREGG (Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate with interest and noted carefully the criticisms and suggestions made. As I have listened this evening it has occurred to me, as it probably has to other members, that this 9th day of April, 1948, marks thirty-one years exactly since the first Canadian corps, which contained many of the men about whom we have been speaking during the last day or two, stonned Vimy Ridge and made a great name for itself. I am sure the survivors of that old corps will be glad to know of the generous feeling on the part of this house as reflected by the speeches that we have heard from all comers of the chamber both yesterday and today. Sandwiched in between the expressions of individual generosity there has been some criticism, but it has been a source of gratification to myself to note that those in the department, the board, who administer the work have not come in for any serious criticism in their administration of the act, whatever criticism may have been directed against the act itself. The work of those

administering the act has received due recognition. But that is only a small segment of the whole veterans program of Canada.
It has been stated by some that these amendments are not very important, while others have said that they are downright niggardly. All I wish to say in reply to such statements is that ever since 1930 in this house, and quite properly, the War Veterans Allowance Act has been held up as one of the finest pieces of veterans legislation in this or any other country for the purpose for which it was designed. I believe that is true, and I am sui-e hon. members believe it is true. If it is, then these amendments are very valuable for they improve that act for the veterans by approximately one-third.
The amendments are important because they increase the amount to the recipient. They are important, too, because the adjustments of the permissible income ceiling, and the other features related to it, give effect to those increases to the maximum degree.
There has been discussion of eligibility under this act, not touched upon by the amendments. I am not going into that tonight. There could be a long discussion as to where the cut-off line should be. There was at one time a school of thought from the old war that suggested that only those beyond the old artillery horse lines ought to be eligible for these benefits, because they were the only people who were really in a position to be preaged or to have serious after effects on account of active war experience and hardship.
That school of thought, I am glad to say, has not prevailed and for the old war the English channel was taken as the cut-off line. Arguments might be advanced if the Atlantic ocean were made a cut-off line; as the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) so admirably pointed out, there might be some discussion as between zeppelin bombing and Salisbury Plain, on the one hand, and the experiences, which the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor) might relate, in the explosion that occurred in Halifax, which killed sailors and soldiers, and which were attributable to the war. There might also be added some of the hard, cold camps such as Valcartier in those days.
I expect that in future years there will be discussions as to whether the Atlantic is the proper cut-off line for the new veteran, but that can await future discussions.
The question has been raised: what is the basis of this war veterans allowance? Hon. members know as well as I do, perhaps better, the basis of the original allowances set up in the original act. Whatever that was, I will

War Veterans Allowance Act
not attempt to define it tonight. In setting up the increase in these amendments, I certainly feel, however, that it should not be done without some consideration being given to the whole Canadian population; in other words, to the relationship between this increase and social security legislation such as old age pensions.
In reply to a number of hon. members, the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Probe), the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) and others, I may say that these amendments will make the benefits under the War Veterans Allowance Act greater than the combined federal and provincial benefits of old age pensions in any province in Canada.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Not in Saskatchewan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Nor in Alberta or British Columbia.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I should like to go into that more fully in the committee, and I will let my statement stand until refuted at that time. I will, however, add this. The attempt has been made in working out these amendments to do precisely what I have said.
The statement has been made that the increases are subject to the approval of the board. Of course they have to be subject to the approval of the board, but that has carried with it the matter of the means test, and I am free to say that I am not very much more keen on that term "means test" than any other member of this house. Somehow it implies taking a person into a cold room and putting him through a close examination in respect of all factors entering into his life and living.
I can tell the house that in the administration of this act the members of the board and their staff look upon this part of their work under the act as an endeavour to help the veteran, a study of the difficulties which he has to meet through no fault of his own, and that attitude toward the work will continue.
There is one point I should like to emphasize. It has been suggested that the present recipients of the war veterans allowance must in all cases undergo a further investigation of their financial condition before this proposed increase can be paid to them. As somebody said, they must make application and by some method let it be known that they would like to get this increase and that they are qualified to get it.
That is not the case. The government has given special consideration to this matter. It was desired that this bill be so prepared as to enable the full increase to be paid immediately to all cases where existing records show the maximum allowance is now being paid and the 5849-181J
recipient is not now in receipt of income up to the new permissible income created in this bill; and we now know who those veterans are.
The practical effect of this will be that the main body-not quite all; I will refer to that later-of present recipients, based upon the recent study of records at the head office of the board which has now been carried out, will be paid the full $10 increase retroactive to October 1, 1947, immediately after this bill is ratified by parliament and the remaining group will be dealt with equitably by the board with the utmost dispatch and understanding immediately thereafter.
That bears upon the remarks of the hon. member for Nanaimo. He referred to page 2788 of Hansard and the statement I made yesterday afternoon in which I referred to a third group. I did not attempt to divide them into groups, except to try to give some definition of the veterans who have been under study by the members of the board during the past few weeks. Groups 1 and 2, as already referred to, can be dealt with right away or automatically, if you like, now that the study of the file has been completed. In the third group referred to there will be some-I cannot say the exact number tonight -following that study, who will be able to receive the full increase. There will remain perhaps one-third of the whole number of recipients from whom some further information may have to be obtained.
Hon. members will know full well that each one of those 26,000 or 30,000 cases, as they are called here, are human beings made of flesh and blood, with individual and complex sets of circumstances that are happening today, tomorrow and the next day. I spoke of the attempts of the department, in conjunction with the placement service of the Department of Labour, to get these men placed in work, encouraged to work, assisted in finding their way back, if they possibly can, with this veterans assistance grant as a backlog underneath to help them. We will take a man now receiving the grant who, we believe-according to the last discussions we have had with him, and the assistance that has been given him-hopes to get into a permanent or semipermanent job. If I were to say that on this date or whatever date this bill becomes ratified, he will get the increase, it would mean one of those things which no veteran likes, namely, the necessity of a government department asking for a refund in the future. So there is an attempt there in what I referred to yesterday as the third group, to tidy these things up ahead of time in order to make as few as possible subject to investigation when the bill is ratified.
Human Rights

During the debate there has been some discussion to the effect that some worthy veterans are reluctant to apply for war veterans allowance because they consider it a dole and feel that there is a stigma attached to it. I can assure the war veterans allowance recipients that nothing is farther from the minds of those who administer the act; I know that nothing is farther from the minds of the members of this house; and I believe that nothing is farther from the minds of the people of Canada. I want to make this quite clear. The War Veterans Allowance Act is, in my opinion, social legislation designed to help to meet the needs of some of the older veterans who have rendered valuable service to their country and who have been unable to gain full employment. I should like to repeat that the war veterans allowance is not in any sense a dole or a charitable payment. The spirit in which the act has been administered so far is the spirit in which these increased benefits -contained in the amendments will be administered by the members of the board.
When this bill receives second reading, I shall have much pleasure in moving that it be referred to the committee on veterans affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the committee on veterans affairs.
Milton Fowler Gregg: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I refer to a matter which I overlooked. The hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Probe) asked me to clarify page 2788 of yesterday's Hansard, "Orphans-all wars-53; $25,596". I should have explained it at the time. That means fifty-three families of orphans or, in other words, the orphans of fifty-three veterans.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice, for the Prime Minister) moved:: That it is expedient to appoint a joint committee of both houses of parliament to consider the question of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the manner in which those obligations accepted by all members of the united nations may best be implemented;
And, in particular, in the light of the provisions contained in the charter of the united nations, and the establishment by the economic and social council thereof of a commission on human rights, what is the legal and constitutional situation in Canada with respect to such

rights, and what steps, if any, it would be advisable to take or to recommend for the purpose of preserving in Canada respect for the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms;
And that Messrs. Beaudoin, Breithaupt, Cour-noyer, Croll, Deehene, Diefenbaker, Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont), Fulton, Hackett, Han-sell, Harkness, Hazen, Herridge, Ilsley, LaCroix, Maedonnell (Muskoka-Ontario), Marier, Marquis, Michaud, Massey, Miller. Probe, Rinfret, Robinson (Simcoe East), iSmith (York North). Stewart (Winnipeg North), Stuart (Charlotte), Whitman, Zaplitny be members of such committee, as far as the interests of this house are concerned.
That the committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records and to report to the house from time to time.
That a message be sent to the .Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose, and select, if the .Senate deems advisable, some of its members to act on the said proposed joint committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it will be possible, in view of the lateness of the hour, for the house to give this measure sufficient consideration tonight to enable it to be passed. I would hope so. In any event, I shall content myself with a somewhat brief statement of the facts relative .to the resolution. Apart from the names of the proposed members of the committee, the resolution is the same in terms as a resolution passed by the house last session. Pursuant to that resolution a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons was set up. That committee met on June 5, June 13, June 17, June 20, June 26, June 27, July 4 and July 11, a total of eight meetings. It made four reports to the Senate and the House of Commons. Those to the House of Commons were dated June 6, June 17, July 12 and July 14. The general public made no oral representation to the committee, though a number of letters and I think, petitions were received which are now in the committee records. However, the deputy minister of justice was heard in regard to the legal and constitutional position of Canada in so far as human rights are concerned. The chief of the first political division of the Department of External Affairs gave evidence concerning the obligations assumed by Canada as a member of the united nations; and the director of the division of human rights, department of social affairs, united nations, appeared and supplied information relative to the activities of the united nations in the matter of human rights.
I should like to direct the attention of hon. members to the terms of the resolution. It will not be necessary for me to read it again since you, Mr. Speaker, read it a few moments

Human Rights
ago; but the interpretation placed upon the resolution by the committee last year was that it naturally falls into two divisions, the first dealing with the obligations Canada assumed as a signatory of the charter of the united nations, and the second relating to the steps it may be desirable for this parliament to take, irrespective of its obligations as a signatory of the charter of the united nations, in respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
With regard to the first division of the resolution to which I have referred, I think I should bring the house up to date with respect to what has happened since the committee ceased its deliberations last year and made its report. The commission on human rights which functions under the economic and social council of the united nations had a somewhat important meeting in Geneva from December 2 to December 17 of last year. This was the second session of the commission on human rights; and it has submitted a report of its proceedings and conclusions. This report has now been submitted to member governments of the united nations by the secretary general, with the request that the observations, suggestions and proposals of the various member governments with respect to the draft bill reach the secretary general by the 3rd day of April, 1948.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask when the government received that request?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That was received in January; and this resolution was placed upon the order paper with the hope that there might be an opportunity for the house to consider the resolution and for the committee to give the government some advice as to the suggestions that might be made to the united nations before April 3. That was not found possible, so the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) wrote a letter to the secretary general of the united nations which I shall now read, with the consent of the right hon. gentleman. This letter is dated Ottawa, April 1, 1948, and reads:
Sir,
I have the honour to refer to your letter of January 9, 1948, in which was enclosed a report on the second session of the commission on human rights, and to inform you that the proposals contained in the draft international bill of human rights have been closely considered by officials of the government, and it is expected that they will be considered by a joint parliamentary committee on human rights. A discussion of this subject by parliament has not yet been possible, however, and the Canadian government would not wish to express views on a matter of such importance without having had
the benefit of learning the opinion of parliament. This is especially true in view of the nature of the Canadian constitution, and the Canadian government, therefore, regrets that final comments on the declaration will not be available for April 3.
The Canadian government is anxious that ample opportunity be afforded to comment on the international bill of rights both at the meeting of the economic and social council in July and at the meeting of the general assembly in September.
It is the opinion of the Canadian government that the final drafting of an international bill of rights is a serious task involving the reconciliation of differing philosophies and judicial principles. It is therefore respectfully suggested that the final expression by the united nations of human rights and fundamental freedoms may well require much more time than is at present contemplated, and that postponement of approval of the draft bill from the 1948 to the 1949 session of the general assembly might be with advantage taken into consideration.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
Louis S. St. Laurent, Secretary of State for External Affairs.
As I say, that letter was addressed to the secretary general of the united nations, Lake Success, New York.
I should like to say a few words with regard to the report of the commission on human rights, but perhaps I can shorten what I intended to say by referring hon. members to the Canadian Bar Review of March, 1948, where at page 548 they will find a short statement by Mr. John P. Humphrey, director of the division of human rights, united nations, setting out the present position, and a short description of the report. This report contains an account of the work of the commission, together with a draft international bill of human rights, presented in three annexes. It has been agreed that the term "International Bill of Rights" shall be understood to include (a) a draft international declaration on human rights; (b) a draft international covenant on human rights; and (c) the measures of implementation. It was on all three sections of the international bill of rights presented in the report as annexes A, B and C, that the comments of the member states were requested.
The draft declaration, when its final form has been settled, will be submitted by the economic and social council to the general assembly of the united nations for adoption, by a resolution of the general assembly as a statement of the human rights and the fundamental freedoms contemplated by the charter.
The authority for the resolution will be article 10 of the charter under which the general assembly may make recommendations to
Human Rights

the members of the united nations or to the security council, or to both, on any questions or matters within the scope of the charter. The declarations so adopted would therefore have the character of a recommendation and would not have absolute juridical force. That this is the accepted understanding of the juridical effect of the declaration is apparent from the report of the working group on implementation.
The declaration, while not a lawmaking document, would no doubt have a highly persuasive character; it could be appealed to as a political rather than as a legal argument by individuals considering that, in relation to themselves, there had been a violation of its provisions. It might also, in the course of time, be incorporated in whole or in part into the common law as a reflection of public policy. But whether or not the declaration would have this sort of effect upon the common law is speculative.
I have been talking about the declaration. As contrasted with the declaration, the covenant which is found in annex A is proposed as an international convention which will, upon ratification, become binding upon the states party thereto. The covenant in its present, or in other similar forms, will create binding international obligations which states will have to discharge by legislation, in so far as there is any inconsistency between the terms of the covenant and the state of its domestic law.
This being the case, it is apparent that the covenant should be scrutinized with the greatest possible care. The conclusion of international agreements is a prerogative matter which rests as a matter of law exclusively with the executive. There is, thus, no positive requirement of parliamentary approval or sanction before the ratification of a covenant such as the one now under consideration. However, it is well established constitutional practice that important international agreements imposing obligations on Canada or purporting to affect rights and interests within Canada are submitted, before ratification, for the approval of the houses of parliament by way of resolution.
The joint parliamentary committee, when set up, will of course be master of its own procedure. If the same scheme or organization is adopted this year as was set up last year, there will be a steering committee. But it would seem appropriate for the joint parliamentary committee in its division of its responsibilities to consider, first, annex A of the international bill of human rights; that is, the declaration. This part of the draft bill defines 
the principles upon which the international covenant, annex B, is expected to be based. It is suggested that these principles should be considered prior to an examination of the proposed international covenant.
It is suggested further

and more properly as I say, these suggestions should be made to the committee rather than to the House of Commons; but the House of Commons will want to know why they are setting up this committee, and something about what the committee is expected to do-that the committee might find it appropriate to examine only annex A, namely, the declaration, to begin with, rather than all three annexes of the proposed international bill of rights. At the next session of the general assembly it is possible that only the declaration will be considered for approval, while the covenant, annex B, may be referred for further consideration to the international law commission. In this event, the Canadian delegation to the next session of the general assembly would have to express approval or disapproval of a resolution embodying only the general principles outlined in the declaration, annex A. The covenant, annex B, would not be submitted in final form to the member states for some considerable time. For this reason, although comments on all three annexes were requested by the secretary general, it may be found advisable by the joint parliamentary committee to give its consideration first to the declaration only.
That will be, I assume, one and probably the first branch of the committee's duties. I may say that the question as to what steps nations should take with reference to this international bill of rights was considered in the British House of Commons. The debate is to be found in British Hansard, the issue of February 26, 1948, particularly at pages 2268 to 2276. This question as to whether nations should favour entering into a covenant creating international obligations, or whether they should be content with a declaration setting out principles alone, and having very much less binding effect, was given some consideration.
The Minister of State, Mr. McNeil, said this, bearing somewhat on the point about which I have been speaking:
It is quite plain, as every hon. member -who has spoken tonight has said, that it is not enough that we should have signatures to a treaty. There have been treaties in the past to which the signatories were nothing more than signatories. We must, in these most troublous times, also ensure that this treaty is enforceable and enforced.

Human Rights
And later he said:
We want definition, we want as wide and free an agreement as possible, and we want to be quite firm in ensuring that this is not just another pious resolution. I agree with the point about the peoples of eastern, and unfortunately, central Europe. We can, by disseminating the reports from the commission, by publication and by broadcasting the speeches, keep alive the idea; but let us be quite sure that we are unanimous that this is an enforceable covenant. That will be, I am sure, the wish of all sides of this house.
On that question I assume the committee would wish to make some recommendations. But, as I say, the declaration is the first matter to consider, rather than the covenant, which is much more definite and a much more difficult matter.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: The minister said there was a good summary of the draft bill. If it is not long would he read it, or have it placed on Hansard.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is fairly long.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: It would make the minister's statement more complete.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think I can hope to make my statement complete in that sense. I think I shall have to take some steps to see that this is circulated among members of the house.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Is it too long to go on Hansard?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The draft declaration?


Mr. COLDWELL:: I mean Professor
Humphrey's summary.


James Lorimer Ilsley: As a matter of fact there is not much more in Professor Humphrey's summary than I have 'told the house. There is much more in this declaration and in this covenant, but they are too long to put on Hansard. However they will have to be communicated to members of the house in some way so that they may have an opportunity to see what they are.
If I may I shall come to what was regarded last year as the second division or another division of the duties of this committee, although I must say that the duties of which I am now going to speak are closely allied with the duties I have been discussing. The committee was asked to consider and make recommendations as to what steps, if any, we should take an this country, apart altogether from our obligations as signatories to the united nations.
In that connection the committee decided last year that the attorneys general of the
*provinces and the deans of the law schools should be communicated with and invited to submit their views as to whether the dominion parliament has the power to enact a comprehensive bill of nights applicable to all of Canada, and that such written views be forwarded to the Minister of Justice. I think it would be appropriate at this moment if I were to state the results of that inquiry.
There is no record of a reply from Alberta. A reply was received from British Columbia stating that the attorney general of British Columbia is of opinion that most of the matters relating to human rights discussed by the committee appear to fall within provincial legislative jurisdiction and are for the most part dealt with and safeguarded by the common law, which is part of the law of British Columbia.
An acknowledgment only was received from Manitoba, and the same is true of New Brunswick. A reply was received from Nova Scotia saying that in the view of the attorney general, because of the distribution of subject matters of legislation between the dominion and the provinces as contained in the British North America Act, and because a bill of rights would affect both subject matters that belong to the dominion and subject matters that belong to the provinces, the parliament of Canada would not be competent to enact a comprehensive bill of rights applicable to all of Canada.
There was an acknowledgment only from Ontario. There was a reply from" Prince Edward Island stating that the attorney general considers that it is doubtful whether such a statute could be drafted so as not to conflict with the provisions of the British North America Act. There is no record of a reply from Quebec.
A reply was received from Saskatchewan. The attorney general of Saskatchewan considers that it would be presumptuous for him as attorney general to attempt to advise the committee on matters of law. He forwards a copy of the Saskatchewan bill of rights passed in 1947. In his opinion, the dominion can go much farther than the province did in the realm of criminal law in giving protection against arbitrary arrest or detention and in guaranteeing the right of habeas corpus and the right to assistance of counsel. He states that Saskatchewan is in favour of a federal bill of rights.


Douglas King Hazen: Did the minister mention Ontario?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There was an acknowledgment from the secretary of the attorney general, but no opinion has been received.
Human Rights

Before I pass on to deal with the replies of the deans of the law schools, I think I can sum up the result of this correspondence in this way. No attorney general says affirmatively that he is of opinion that the dominion parliament has power to pass a comprehensive bill of rights applicable to all of Canada; certain attorneys general express a negative opinion and deny that power, and several show very little or no interest in the matter. The general course and tone of the correspondence, when taken with that of the deans of the law schools, make it fairly clear that if the dominion government does undertake to set limits to the activities of the provinces in dealing with civil rights of this kind, it is altogether probable that a considerable provincial rights controversy will be precipitated.
This is perhaps borne out by the replies from certain deans of law schools. A reply was received from Dalhousie University as well as from Laval University. There is no record of a reply from McGill University, Osgoode Hall law school, the University of Alberta and the University of British Columbia. An acknowledgment was received from the University of Manitoba. There is no record of a reply from the University of Montreal, the University of New Brunswick and the University of Saskatchewan. A reply was received from the University of Toronto.
I shall not undertake to summarize the opinions of these deans because they are contained in an exhibit before the committee, but generally speaking they are most unfavourable to an affirmative answer to the question as to whether this parliament has that power. It will be the duty of the committee to consider these replies and decide whether they want to press for further replies, whether they should hear representations from the general public and from the number of organizations which have requested to be heard, as to what is legally possible and what is desirable in regard to this matter.
That is the present status of this matter. Briefly it can be said that we set up this committee last year but were not able to get very far on account of the pressure of work. We gave an undertaking to reappoint the committee this year, and the work which the committee can usefully do has been outlined in the few remarks I have made tonight.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, first may I say that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Usley) has properly outlined the events that have taken place since the committee met. While he was generous enough to say he felt that this resolution could well

be passed this evening, I am not as optimistic as he was. There is one thing that I have noticed. From the time that this matter was first mooted in this house, namely, the drafting of a bill of rights for Canada, and later on a request on the part of the united nations for assistance from Canada in the drafting of an international bill of rights, little support was received from the government of this country. That, sir, is very well supported by the fact that in January last the draft of the united nations organization, which believes that an international bill of rights is necessary if peace is to be preserved, was thought of so little importance by the government of this country that the matter has remained there secret until this evening, in spite of the fact that reference was made to that question on February 13, when I asked whether the government had received the draft and whether it would be submitted to the committee. Yet all the time the government knew that the nations of the world, meeting as they have been to draft an international bill of rights, were expecting an answer by the 3rd of April. That indicates, more clearly than words, how disinterested the government of this country is either in a national or in an international bill of rights.
I have very little time this evening before the adjournment of the house, but I am going to face one situation which the minister reiterated tonight, as he so frequently did in the committee, namely, the danger, because of the constitutional position of our country, of Canada passing a bill of rights.
Here we are a sovereign nation among the nations of the world and promising as a signatory of the united nations to uphold fundamental freedoms as one of the principal prerequisites for the success of the united nations; yet the minister's attitude tonight raises a doubt whether Canada even internationally can do that which all the nations of the united nations undertook to do when the charter was accepted.
We were circumvented last year in the committee by the constitutional issue being raised on every possible occasion; and the minister tonight reiterated the summation of the answers given by the attorneys general of the provinces and by the deans of the law schools, apparently believing that those answers, coupled with the evidence given before the committee, would once and for all end in this country the crusade for a national bill of rights and would determine as well Canada's position as being unable to discharge her international responsibilities.
The committee, if it is to meet as it did last year, will merely be shadow-boxing, going

Human Rights
through motions, postponing and procrastinating, with the government forever hiding behind the constitutional position.
The Supreme Court Act makes provision for determining this question once and for all. Time is going to deny me the opportunity to read section 55 of the Supreme Court Act, but I am going to sum it up in this way. When important questions of law or fact arise, touching the interpretation of the British North America Act, the constitutionality or interpretation of any dominion or provincial legislation, or concerning the powers of the parliament of Canada or of the legislatures of the provinces or of the respective governments thereof, whether or not the particular power in question has been or is proposed to be exercised they may be referred by the governor in council to the supreme court for hearing and consideration.
Then it says that the determination on that question of reference, although advisory only, shall, for the purposes of appeal by His Majesty in council, be treated as a final judgment of the said court between the parties.
Let us get away from this sham battle. Let us ascertain once and for all whether or not we have the power to discharge, first, our responsibility as a nation in the united nations, and, second, if a bill of rights is necessary for Canada, of which I suggest recent abrogations of civil rights in Canada indicate the necessity. Let us determine the question once and for all. For that reason I intend to move, seconded by Mr. Casselman, the following amendment to the resolution:
That the following words be added at the end of paragraph 2 of the resolution:
"that in order to assist the committee in its deliberations the government do immediately
submit to the Supreme Court of Canada such questions as are necessary to determine to what extent the preservation of the fundamental freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and the maintenance of constitutional safeguards of the individual are matters of federal jurisdiction.
That, Mr. Speaker, once and for all will determine this question, so that no longer will anyone be able to hide behind the concept that under our confederation Canada cannot maintain the fundamental freedoms of Canadians within Canada. I now move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Major James William Coldwell: What is the business for Monday?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: We shall have the pleasure of listening to the continuation of the argument of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) on this motion to set up the committee and the amendment he ha3 moved, and, after that has been disposed of, we shall deal with the matters that were indicated for today's business but which were not reached today. In addition, if there is time, we shall take the second reading of Bill No. 197, to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act.


Major James William Coldwell: The amendment to the motion for supply will not come up on Monday?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 12, 1948