1941-05-27

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of the standing committee on standing orders-Mr. Golding.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That on Wednesday, the 28th day of May instant, and all subsequent Wednesdays until the end of the session, the sittings shall in every respect be under the same rules as provided for other days.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a general desire that we should take steps at

this stage of the session to reach the period of adjournment as soon as possible. I understand that the whips had a conference in the afternoon yesterday at which it was agreed that we might resume sittings on Wednesday evenings-that would require a special motion -and also sittings on Friday evenings, which will not require any motion, because at present we simply adjourn at six o'clock on a general understanding. I rather expected from directions given that this motion would have appeared on the Votes and Proceedings of to-day.	*
I understand that hon. members-very naturally-will wish to listen in this evening to the broadcast which will be made by President Roosevelt. The broadcast begins at 10.30. It might be understood, if this motion is adopted, that we would adjourn at 10.15 this evening and make up for it by sitting to-morrow night.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: Speaking for myself, I am quite in accord with the spirit of this motion. I think we should expedite the business of the house. I am hoping that the motion will be accepted with unanimity. It may be, of course, that certain hon. gentlemen who had no notice of the motion have made commitments, but unless some considerable body of opinion is opposed, I hope the motion will carry.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply. Is it a fact that new regulations affecting the oil industry are about to be announced by the oil controller? If so, will these regulations be available before the house adjourns?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: I have no knowledge of the subject matter. Had I received notice, I would have asked the oil controller; but I have had no intimation that new regulations are to be forthcoming.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am sorry; I sent the minister notice this morning.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not receive it. I have not been at my office.

Pension Act



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY ADDITIONAL DIVERSIONS OF WATER AT NIAGARA FALLS-REPORTS OF BOARDS OF ENGINEERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: May I ask the Prime Minister if he is in a position to say anything further in reference to the statement he made on May 21 as to the agreement between Canada and the United States in connection with further diversion of water at Niagara Falls?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The position is this, that any statement to be made is to be given out simultaneously here and in Washington. The President has had more important matters to attend to within the last day or two, but possibly by to-morrow he will be in a position to make a statement on the diversion referred to, in which case the same will be done here.



THE WAR


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the Prime Minister anything to report to the house and the country with respect to the state of the war, especially recent developments?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe hon. members have much the same knowledge of the situation as I have myself. Confidential communications that have come thus far have for the most part been similar to reports which have appeared later in the press. There is no late news to-day. The house, of course, is aware that the Bismarck was sunk this morning, but apart from that no further information has come that it is possible to disclose at the moment. If before we adjourn it should appear advisable to give a resume I shall be glad to do so.



CANADIAN SEAMEN HELD BY VICHY GOVERNMENT IN FRENCH GUINEA-SITUATION AT ST. PIERRE AND MIQUELON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Has the Prime Minister anything further to say about the Canadian sailors who have been detained, as to whom I asked a question last week? And has he anything further to report about the situation at St. Pierre and Miquelon? Newspaper reports are disturbing. One recently stated that the officials there were anti-British.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not yet received:
a reply to the cable sent by the French minister to the Vichy government with respect to the position of the sailors referred to. As soon as a reply comes I will give such information as I may have to my hon. friend. I do not think there is any reason for concern about the position of the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. The government is fully informed about the situation there. I would not hesitate to say that any reports that may be appearing as to a critical situation in the islands may be regarded as without real foundation.



PENSION ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 17, to amend the Pension Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.
On section 1-Definitions.
Richard Burpee Hanson: The question of pensions is one that heretofore during my experience in this house has always been given the most careful consideration by all bodies of opinion in the house. For the most part, so far as I can recall, proposed amendments to the Pension Act have always been referred to a special committee made up almost entirely, if not altogether, of ex-service men. Those of us who do not- fall within that category have in large measure depended upon the wisdom with which these men have handled the situation. Personally I know very little in practice of the workings and operation of the Pension Act. But I understand that it is an intricate ' subject and that it has been a matter of intensive study now over a period of at least twenty-five years.
On its face the bill as brought down by the minister some months ago appeared to be quite understandable. But as brought back with the report of the committee it contains several extensions, and if I apprehend aright after a hurried reading of it this morning it proposes an extension of certain principles and perhaps the introduction of some new ones. Therefore I think it would be very helpful to the committee if the minister would make a considered statement of the position-what was intended by the bill, what its provisions were before it went to the committee, what changes have been effected by the committee,
Pension Act

and generally the scope of the amendments and the whole present intent of the measure. Will he also let us know whether the committee was unanimous. He might also take the committee into his confidence and state in terms of dollars and cents what obligations may be incurred by the treasury under the present proposals, so that the country may have a real understanding of the position.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): I am glad indeed to accede to the very reasonable request of my hon. friend. To answer fully I must deal briefly with some of the essential principles and provisions of pension legislation.
I would remind my hon. friend that when the war broke out immediately by order in council of September 2, 1939, the provisions and principles of the then existing pension legislation in Canada were made applicable to all serving in the Canadian forces. That remained in effect for some months, until certain cases arose which cast some doubt upon the wisdom of the application of what might be called the absolute insurance principle to all those who were serving in the forces, whether in Canada or overseas.
As a result of some of these cases coming to the notice of the government a departmental committee was set up to investigate the situation. I shall quote one or two paragraphs from their report:
The question arises whether this assumption of liability on the part of the state is a justifiable and proper one under the present circumstances, and whether the application of such a general principle of insurance against practically all risks should be applied without discrimination to all members of the forces.
The committee feel that where a citizen voluntarily enlists for war service and in the course of such service leaves Canada, he and his dependents are in a different category from those who serve in Canada only. This basic differentiation underlies the consideration of the terms of reference outlined. . , .
The committee feel that there can be little argument against the state providing compensation to a man or his dependents for any disease, injury or death which arises out of or is caused by the performance of his duties.
This latter principle is the one applied in the Pension Act to service in the armed forces during peace. Subsequent to that report another order in council was passed on May 21, 1940, the vital paragraph being as follows:
Pension shall be granted for service in Canada-"when the injury or disease or aggravation thereof, resulting in disability or death, in respect of which the application for pension is made, was attributable to military service as such."
In other words the order in council of May 21, 1940, definitely restricted the order in council of September 2, 1929.
IMr. R. B. Hanson.]


Richard Burpee Hanson: But it
extended the theatre of war to Canada.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: It applied to service in Canada; that is correct.


Mr. STIRLING:: And did it apply to the reserve forces of the Canadian Army?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It applied at that time to all forces serving in Canada; and the insurance principle, which after many years of variation by legislation became the final principle of the old act as applied to the forces of the great war, was abandoned by that order in council so far as service in Canada was concerned. Then we had the next step, the introduction of the original bill 17, not the amended bill as we have it to-day. The essential section of bill 17, dealing with this very principle, was section 5, subsection 2, under which pension was payable for service in Canada-

when an injury or disease or aggravation thereof resulting in disability or death in respect of which the application for pension is made arose out of and was directly connected with such military or war service, as the case may be.
In our judgment these words are not so restrictive as were the words of the order in council of May 21. 1940; and as these words now appear in subsection 2 of section 6 of the amended bill, the word "and" becomes "or," so there is an alternative and it is made broader still.
In regard to the history of the insurance principle, all those who are familiar with pension legislation will recall that until June 3, 1916, pension was payable only when the disability or death was attributable to or due to service or the result of service, or in the line of duty, or caused by service. In Canada the "due to service" principle was entirely discarded in 1916 so far as members of the naval and expeditionary forces on active service were concerned, and a new principle of insurance during service was adopted. At that time this was to apply only to men who were enlisting for service overseas. In 1918 a new element was introduced into the question by an order in council which made members of the permanent force and militia units on pay in Canada part of the Canadian expeditionary force and as such entitled to the benefits of the insurance principle.
The parliamentary committee of 1919 reached the following decisions:	that the
insurance principle applied to all the members of the Canadian forces during service; that as soon as the members of the forces were discharged the "due to service" principle would apply; that the "due to service" principle should apply to members of the forces

Pension Act
who took up occupations during leave; and they decided that after the declaration of peace the "due to service" principle should apply to all members of the forces. They decided that the insurance principle should apply during treatment with the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment which followed immediately after discharge. For service in a theatre of actual war the insurance principle applied to disabilities which might already have existed previous to service.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did that include venereal disease at that time?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Only in relation to those who died on service, I am informed. In 1920 there was another departure. All pensions awarded thereafter were limited to disability or death directly attributable to service. In 1922 we had the basis of the whole insurance principle, section 11; the principle was restored with reference to former members of the expeditionary force who had served in a theatre of actual war if they could show that at the time of discharge from the forces they were suffering from disability, such disability being deemed to have been incurred on or attributable to service, unless the commission established to the contrary. Then in 1923 the final disposition was made. The Ralston commission of that time w'ent thoroughly into this whole principle; strong representations were made to the parliamentary committee of that year that the insurance principle should be restored in respect of all former members of the Canadian expeditionary force, and this was made retroactive to September 1, 1919.
I give this brief historical review, and also the history of the orders in council and the provisions of bill 17 as it was introduced into this house, in order that hon. members may be familiar with the development of the insurance principle in Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Just to
clarify matters, and for the benefit of those of us who are laymen in regard to pension legislation, would the minister give a definition of what he termed the absolute insurance principle? I thought I caught it as he went along, but I should like to be sure about it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It means, Mr. Chairman, that a soldier is protected in respect of anything that may happen to him during service, except in cases of misconduct. That is a very broad definition of the insurance principle.
The select committee appointed by this house gave careful consideration to this question. In that committee, frankly speaking, the opinion was expressed that the
insurance principle should apply to all those serving in Canada. There was another school of thought which held that this would be far too broad and too drastic a departure with so many in sedentary occupations throughout Canada with little prospect of engaging in active service in a theatre of actual war. They were of the opinion that the insurance principle should not apply to all those who were serving in Canada, but that it should absolutely and automatically apply to all those who were in a theatre of actual war.
In regard to this latter term my hon. friend will see, if he looks at the bill originally introduced, that the definition of a theatre of actual war was fairly restricted. That definition has been amended by the committee, after careful consideration, to include service anywhere outside of Canada. That is the first group. In the second place it includes service in any areas or locations in Canada which the governor in council may designate to be theatres of actual war. In the third place it is made to apply to units that may be engaged in active service against hostile forces in any part of Canada; and in the fourth place there-is the all-inclusive reference to contact withe any hostile force within the dominion. So that the definition of a theatre of war as we have-it in this amended bill is by far the broadest, we have ever had in this dominion.
In the committee there was made manifest a laudable desire, which I cannot criticize, that if possible we should apply the insurance principle not only to those who are serving in a theatre of actual war but also to those who are in active training for service in a theatre of war, which, broadly speaking, would apply to certain formations that now may be proceeding, or soon may be proceeding, to a theatre of actual war. We endeavoured, with our legal advisers, as best we could to obtain a line of demarcation to include under the sheltering wing of the insurance principle those who were in active training and who were practically ready to proceed overseas. After consultation with the services themselves the committee found that the line of distinction or demarcation between those who were to have service in Canada and those who were to proceed overseas was not clear. In other words, we found that what appeared to be the desire of the committee, or at least a great section of it, was not a practicable solution. Therefore we came to what might be termed a compromise. It will be found that subsection 3 of section 6 of the present bill introduces what may be termed a new principle in pension legislation in Canada.
Pension Act


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a means test, is it not?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. That section, which appears at page 6 of the amended bill, vests in the commission a discretionary power or authority in cases of financial need, where there has been occasioned a serious disability, or where death has ensued, to grant a pension in the discretion of the commission.
At this point I might say that in the old Pension Act there are two sections which confer discretion upon the commission. One is the old section 21, which confers discretion in regard to services of a special and meritorious kind in a theatre of war. But in that case, too, there is an element of need involved, as well as of special meritorious service. Also in section 12, if my memory serves me correctly, discretion is there vested in regard to certain misconduct cases. Again, under section 12, there is the qualification respecting need. But this present section is much broader in its implications and in its significance than either section 21 or section 12. It is frankly designed to meet certain cases of hardship and distress which were brought to the attention of your select committee. Those were cases in which the insurance principle did not apply. The persons concerned could not qualify under the strict letter of the order In council of May 21, 1940, containing the /expression "directly attributable to service as :such"; and therefore in several cases definite hardships ensued.
Your committee endeavoured to meet that situation by placing this discretionary authority in the hands of the Canadian pensions commission. I admit at once it is a very wide power to give to any commission, and unless the committee had an unanimous and complete confidence in the exercise of good judgment on the part of the present commission when using discretionary authorities and powers, I doubt if it would have gone as far as it did.


Mr. POULIOT:: No, sir.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I now come to what I might call the date line provisions of the bill. There are three of them. The first date line provision deals with the time of application for pension. In a previous year the date line was made 1936 for those with service in Canada, 1942 for those with service overseas in the great war and, in bill 17 as introduced, there was a date line for the present war. Your committee struck out the 1942 limitation and decided that at least for the present there should be no date set for the present war. So that only the 1936 date line remains in the amended bill.

The second date line provision is concerned with widows. I believe in what I am about to say I am stating fairly well the opinion of the committee, although strong representations were made to us to extend that date to the present time, and not necessarily make it retroactive. The committee did not feel so strongly about the 1930 date line as it did with regard to the 1933 date line, having to do with children's allowances. Strong arguments were placed before the committee to extend the 1933 date line, and equally strong arguments for that extension were put forward by members of the committee themselves. It is felt, however, that this is scarcely the time to alter the principle involved. It has been before the house on several earlier occasions. The leader of the opposition will recall how the date line was established in 1933. As a result of a conference between the then minister of finance, Hon. Mr. Rhodes, and those who were representing all veteran organizations in Canada, an agreement was reached to the effect that allowances be not paid after May 1, 1933. The matter was taken up in this chamber on several occasions subsequent to 1933, but parliament has not varied the provision. I for one feel that with the tremendous obligations confronting our people, this is not the time to do what we could not do between 1933 and 1939.
There are other provisions of the bill which have to do with administration. One important section, dealing with Canadians serving with imperial forces, definitely broadens out the provisions of the old act. There is, however, a difficulty. We have indicated a period of four years prior to the war, in an endeavour to protect our boys in the Royal Canadian Air Force who went overseas in 1936, 1937, 1938 and 1939 for a short term of service with the Royal Air Force, and whose intention it was definitely to return to Canada when those four years had expired. So that not only are those who enlisted since the war for service with the Royal Air Force protected under the sheltering provisions of the section I have indicated, but also those who went over for a period of four years prior to the war are in like manner protected.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was that an ordinary term of enlistment?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, it was not in every case. I believe, however, it was a general provision in such commissions at that time.


Mr. SENN:: Would that provision apply to any service other than the air force?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, it will.


Mark Cecil Senn: It applies to all services.

Pension Act


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, to all services, and affecting those who were domiciled in Canada for four years prior to the outbreak of war.
Hon. members will realize that under the agreement we entered into with the British government in connection with the British commonwealth air training plan, pensions for Canadians serving or fighting in England or in Europe are payable by the British authorities. The provisions of this amending bill will supplement such pensions to the Canadian standard. There are, however, benefits in our Pension Act which are not contained in the pension act of Great Britain. The complaint might very well be voiced, and with justice, that we are not making provision to extend these additional benefits in every case. We simply cannot. We cannot do it by legislation. The basis of entitlement is in many cases different in the old country from what it is in Canada, and the benefits consequent upon such basis may not accrue to the men affected, as it would if they were pensioned on a definite Canadian basis. So that the only solution I can see at this time is arrived at not by legislation, but by entering into negotiations with the British ministry of pensions to see if we cannot work out administrative machinery which will give our men all the equality, all the justice and all the fairness to which they are justly entitled.
Perhaps I might take a few minutes to turn to the minor sections of the bill. One of them improves the provisions of the old section 21. Another section extends to children the benefits previously extended to widows under the fifty per cent disability clause. Then there are certain minor sections dealing with matters of administration.
In conclusion I wish to express to the members who sat on the select committee the sincere thanks of the government for the laborious and painstaking attention they paid to every clause in the bill. As an hon. member has said, pension legislation is always difficult. Two great principles are involved: first, that of basic fairness to state and country, and second, justice to those who are serving in this war and those who served in the former war. I think the committee has conscientiously endeavoured to carry out its duty with regard to these two principles. The bill now before us is the result of their deliberations.


Mr. GREEN:: The Canadian Pension Act is the magna charta of our fighting forces, the men of our navy, of our army and of our air force, and it is also the magna charta of their wives, their children and their dependent parents. In short, it may be described as the protection of that group of Canadians
who in this war, without doubt, are making the greatest sacrifices and perhaps of those who in the last war did likewise. In this war at any rate they are all doing so of their own free will. For these reasons, if for no others, I suggest it is of the greatest importance that these amendments to the Pension Act should be given the most careful consideration and that the members who are here to-day should suggest improvements thereto whenever they think that such improvements can be made.
Bill No. 17, this bill, amending the Pension Act, as it was brought into the house some weeks ago was very restrictive, far more so than it should have been. For example, it made it quite difficult for a man serving in Canada to qualify for pension-almost impossible, unless he was accidentally shot while on the rifle range, or was knocked over while drilling or otherwise directly engaged in his military training. Except in such cases it would have been almost impossible for him to get a pension or for his dependents to qualify. That applied particularly to cases of disease.
Also the bill as it was brought down contained deadlines which were very restrictive. For instance, the new soldier, the new sailor, the new airman could not apply for a pension unless he applied within seven years of his discharge. That was bringing into the Canadian act for the first time the principle which applies in Great Britain. Again the additional pension payable for the child of a pensioner could not be obtained, so far as the present war is concerned,	unless	that child	wereborn within ten years of the termination of the war.	In other	words,	a married	manreturning	from the	present war, and	laterhaving children, could not get an allowance for any	of them	unless	they were	born
within ten years of the date of the termination of the war. The similar restriction which applies now to men of the old war went into effect in May, 1933, which was fifteen years after the end of that war, and of course we have always contended-some of us at least have done so-that there should be no such restriction with regard to children.
Then the additional pension payable for the wife of a man serving in the present forces was payable under the terms of the bill only if he was married within ten years after the war. In other words, if he married more than ten years after the termination of the war he could not get the allowance for her. Finally, the widow of a man serving in the present forces could get a pension only on his death, no matter whether she was otherwise able to qualify for it or not, if she had married him before he obtained the pension. In other words, if a man came back from the
Pension Act

war, was granted a pension and then married, his widow could not get a pension upon his death, under the provisions of the bill as it was introduced into the house.
Furthermore, the bill contained no relief for a returned soldier of the last war in respect of the various deadlines. As the minister has said, the bill as introduced contained that portion of the Pension Act which stipulated that the man who served overseas in the last war must apply before January 1, 1942, or, if later, only with special leave from the pension commission; also the provision that he received no payment in respect of his wife and children, if the children were born or the wife married after May 1, 1933, and that his widow could not receive a pension if she was married after January 1, 1930. All these deadlines were retained in the bill as it was introduced, although throughout the years we had been complaining, and complaining strongly, that they should be taken out of the act.
Another restriction imposed by the bill as originally presented was that the appeal board, which is the final board in the hearing of an application for pension at the present time, should be reduced from three men to two, and that if there was disagreement between these two the decision would be left to a third man appointed in Ottawa, who had never even heard the witnesses or seen the man. He sat in Ottawa and read the file and based his decision upon the documents. This was a retrograde step that should never have been introduced into the bill.
1 agree with the minister that the committee have worked very hard and have had interesting sessions. In committee some of these restrictions were removed and others were not, and I think it is fair to say that the special committee have made changes, in fact that the bill's own mother, which in this case I suppose would be the minister of pensions, would hardly recognize the child as it comes back to the house.
For example, some of the deadlines have been removed. A man applying for pension, a returned soldier of the last war who served overseas, now has no deadline. He can apply at any time, not being limited to January 1, 1942. Further, there is no deadline for the man serving in the present forces.


Mr. DUPUIS:: I understand that there is no deadline now for the returned soldier of the last war in regard to his claim for a pension. Do I understand that he has still to prove that the disability was caused while he was in the service-that he is bound to give evidence by medical certificate obtained during the war or a few years afterwards?


Howard Charles Green: Oh, yes. It is fundamental. The man must always show that his disability arose as a result of his service. He must trace it right back to his service in the war. That still stands. The deadline has been removed in the case of the man who served overseas as distinguished from the man who served in Canada only who some years ago was prevented from applying after July 1, 1936. For the man who served overseas, the deadline which was set at January 1, 1942, has now been taken out. As regards the child and wife of a man serving in the new forces, deadlines have been removed, which I think is a very good thing. In other words, no matter when a child may be born, payment can be received in respect of that child. But the deadline still stands with reference to the child and wife of a man who served in the last war.
As regards the widow of a member of the present forces the provision will be found in section 17 of the bill. She can now receive a pension if she married a pensioner within a year of his death, or if she was married to him less than a year before he died, in the event that the board decide that it was not to be expected that he would die within a year. In other words, this provides against death-bed marriages, and I think the committee were agreed that death-bed marriages should not be recognized. But the widow of a man who served in the last war is still subject to the old deadline. Unless she married before January 1, 1930, or before he received his pension, she is just out of luck; she cannot qualify for a pension.
The committee wiped out the provision that the appeal board membership should be cut from three to two; they insisted that the board remain as it was, composed of three members. They made another change in section 6 of the bill, which affects section 11, subsection 1, paragraph (c) of the act, by striking out the words "or was a congenital defect". As the act stood formerly, the meaning of these words was that no pension could be paid where the disease or disability was a congenital defect. That aroused great antagonism in nervous and mental cases. Apparently a portion of the medical fraternity had decided that if a man became a nervous wreck or perhaps went out of his mind subsequent to the war, it was because he was born to do so; that he had a congenital defect and that his war service had nothing to do with the disability. Such a ruling never seemed reasonable to the lay members of the house, and the doctors who served with us on

Pension Act
the committee this year agreed with us and recommended that these words should be deleted.
Another important change is to be found at the top of page 3 of the bill. Subsection 9 of section 3 of the act is amended to provide that the chairman of the pension commission shall have the status of a deputy minister. He had this status before 1936, but in that year was deprived of such standing and made subject to the deputy minister of pensions and national health. In order that the pension commission may be more independent it has been decided that the chairman should be given the status of a deputy minister.
The minister has referred already to section 20 of the bill, which introduces a new section of the act to be known as section 46A. This provides that Canadians who serve with the imperial forces will be entitled to have the difference between their imperial pension and a Canadian, pension made up by the Canadian government. This is of vital importance to the men training under the commonwealth air training scheme. It may perhaps surprise hon. members of the committee to know that all Canadians who train under that scheme become imperial airmen once they leave the shores of Canada; they are paid by the British government and receive their pensions from the British government, pursuant to the agreement between Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It was of the greatest importance, therefore, that these men should be able to get the same rates of pension as those who serve in the Canadian air force.
In this connection there is one thing I should like the minister to explain more fully.
I should like to know what he is prepared to do in order, for example, to permit a Canadian airman serving under the commonwealth training plan to establish in Canada his right to a pension rather than in Great Britain. Is it not possible for us to arrange with the British government to send, to Canada a pensions representative who would have the authority to decide whether or not a Canadian airman serving under the commonwealth air training plan is entitled to a pension, rather than require the airman to fight his case in England?
There still remain certain serious defects in this bill, which will also be defects in the act. A good example will be found in section 1, the definitions section. The definition of "member of the forces" does not include men who serve in the auxiliary forces. For example, a Salvation Army man, a Y.M.C.A. man or a Canadian Legion man may be serving overseas with the troops. For all purposes he is treated as a member of the forces except when it comes to pension. If
he is disabled or killed a pension can be granted only by order in council. I submit that that should not be necessary. A Canadian Legion man was drowned a couple of weeks ago along with some of our troops on his way to Great Britain. The widow of that man will be able to obtain a pension only by order in council. I submit that all such cases should be covered by the act.


Vincent Dupuis: Would the hon. gentleman go as far as to include C.P.S. members?


Howard Charles Green: What does the hon. member mean by C.P.S.?


Vincent Dupuis: Civil protection services.


Howard Charles Green: In some provinces they are called A.R.P. men. They certainly should be protected, whether under this act or some other I do not know. Their rights should be clearly defined by dominion statute.
There is another more serious defect in this measure. It still will be far too difficult, even with the amendments provided by this bill, for a man to qualify for pension. After the last war a man qualified for pension whether he had served in England, in France or in Canada, under section 11, subsection 1, paragraph (a) of the act. The keywords of the whole Pension Act were to be found there, as follows:
-was attributable to or was incurred during such military service.
This was the "incurred on" principle, sometimes known as the insurance principle. It applied to all men who served in the last war, whether their service was overseas or in Canada. Another relevant provision was subsection 2 of section 11 of the act. It is described in the marginal note as covering post-war disabilities. In other words, a provision is put into the Pension Act to cover men serving in peace time. They or their dependents can get pensions only if the disabilities are attributable to military service as such. The words "as such" are very restrictive. As I say, this provision applied to men serving in peace time.
About the time the present war broke out- in fact, on September 2, 1939, just before the declaration of war-the government provided by order in council that the "incurred-on" principle-in other words the insurance principle-should apply to all men serving in the Canadian active service force, whether in England, in Canada, in Iceland, the West Indies, or elsewhere. All men in the Canadian active service force were protected by the insurance principle by that order in council, and it stayed in effect until May 21, 1940,
Pension Act


Vincent Dupuis: Is that changed now in the bill?


Howard Charles Green: I am coming to that in just a minute. I think the house should lay it down as a principle, without equivocation, that the man in the active army, in the navy or in the air force who is going overseas, and who is merely here in the meantime training for that purpose-in other words, the man who is on "active service" as the Canadian people understand it, the man who is really going to do the fighting-should have the protection of the "incurred-on" principle, whether up to the time of the accident he had been able to get out of Canada or not.
In other words, the men of the third Canadian division now in Canada waiting to go overseas, the men of the armoured division, the men of the tank brigade, the men of the fourth Canadian division, all on active service and all ready to go and do the fighting, should be protected, even though they have not yet been able to proceed overseas.
In spite of these considerations, however, the committee bring in a half-and-half recommendation on a question about which there 
should be no compromise. What a majority of the committee has done is to bring in, as embodied in the new section 11, subsection 2, a provision extending the peace-time principle a little by changing the words "attributable to military service as such" to "disability which arose out of or was directly connected with such military service." It is still very much restricted. I doubt whether it will cover cases such as I mentioned a few minutes ago, of men killed while returning from leave, or dying as the result of an epidemic of disease while in barracks.
Then, to go further and cover a few borderline cases of hardship, the committee inserts subsection 3 of section 11, which provides that where there is a serious disability-it must be serious-or death-that is the first restriction -and, where the man or his dependents are in necessitous circumstances-that is the second restriction-the commission may, if they see fit-for the whole thing is left to the discretion of the pension commission- award a pension, not exceeding the amount that the man would get if he were overseas. It may be considerably less, but they have power to go up to that amount, as well as to pay a lower amount.
I will add no more to my statement with regard to this defect, except to repeat that it is a serious one, and that the men who are going overseas to do the fighting for this country are entitled to the protection of the "incurred-on" principle.
A third defect, which also is serious, is that the children and the wives of the men of the old army are not protected, if the child was born, or if the woman was married, after May 1, 1933. No matter what deal was made here in that year-and there is some question as to what it was-I have never been able to see the fairness of saying to a man with, say, three children, one born before and two born after the first of May, 1933: "We will give you the allowance for your one child, but we will not give you the allowance for the other two"; or to say to the young veteran of the last war, the man who enlisted at the age of sixteen or seventeen and did not get married until a few years ago, "The child of an older soldier can get the allowance, but there is no allowance for your child". Such an unfair discrimination should have no place on the statute books of Canada. These men should be encouraged to have children rather than the contrary.
Of the sections of the bill which apply, sections 13 and 22 have to do with the wife and children, and sections 16 and 17 have to do with the widow. So far as widows of the men of the last war are concerned, they are still not entitled to pension unless they were

Pension Act
married before the husband got his pension or before January 1, 1930. The Canadian Legion suggested that the date be changed to January 1, 1940, but that was not accepted.
Finally, I wish to point out to the committee something which is not, strictly speaking, a defect of the Pension Act: that it is impossible now to make any change this session in the War Veterans Allowance Act. It was decided that some provision for widows who were not otherwise pensionable could best be made in the War Veterans Allowance Act. This group of widows made out a good case, but apparently the only way in which they can be covered is under the War Veterans Allowance Act.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Will the War Veterans Allowance Act be amended this session to take care of that?


Howard Charles Green: No; as I have said, the act is not to be amended at this session, which means that no protection will be given at this time to this deserving class. It means also that relief cannot be afforded to the men of the old imperial army who have been in Canada for a period of years and who are claiming some benefit from the War Veterans Allowance Act. It also means that there will be no amendment for the benefit of veterans of the Riel rebellion.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is pretty hard on the widows of the war veterans.


Howard Charles Green: That sums up my complaints and my suggestions in connection with this bill. I believe the bill should be most carefully considered by the house and that they should insist that the proper changes be made. I am certain that the Canadian people, if they could all be here, would wish us to go the limit to protect the men who are going to do our fighting, and their dependents.


Vincent Dupuis: A returned soldier of the last great war who enlisted in the present war was on his way overseas but fell ill of pneumonia on the Atlantic shore and was returned home. Would he be entitled under the present bill to receive a pension? The man to whom I refer is a married man with many children, and actually starving. I tried to obtain something for him from the pension board, but was told he was not entitled to pension because he was bound to prove that the disease which led to his discharge was attributable to war service. To me that seems absolutely unjust. I should be very glad if the new legislation in its letter and spirit would cover such cases.
The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) mentioned that during the last war the Pension Act covered not only those
who went to France but also those who were in England. I know many instances in which, so far as the civil service commission's regulations are concerned, a distinction is made between a returned soldier who served in France and one who remained in England; to those who went only as far as England they refused the advantages given to those who served in France. I think the department of pensions must have something to do with that because they have a representative on the civil service commission.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With regard to the last point, there would be a preference to men who saw service in France in the last war over those who remained in England, unless the latter had a disability pension.
With regard to the pneumonia case, under the terms of the order in council of May 21, 1940, the man would be pensionable only if his illness was directly due to service as such. Under the broadened provision of the present legislation it might be pensionable under subsections 2 and 3 of section 6. If this measure passes my hon. friend should reapply in regard to that case.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will this bill cover the case of an officer who was detailed for duty overseas and was lost at sea on the Nerissa?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, definitely it would.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Is the War Veterans Allowance Act to be amended at this session?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is no intention to amend that act during this part of the session.


James Arthur Ross: The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) made a splendid survey of this bill as we have it before us in its amended form. As a member of the committee which spent considerable time discussing this bill I should like first to compliment the chairman of the committee, who did a fine job. I might add that the members of the committee were fairly harmonious in their deliberations. Some of us may not have obtained all that we would like in the way of amendments, despite the fact that the bill in its present form is scarcely recognizable as the one with which the committee started.
The application of the insurance principle might have been a little broader. True the provision as to necessitous circumstances does give broad authority to the pension commission, but, like the hon. member for Vancouver South, I think all who are training and are in category A to go overseas should have the
Pension Act

insurance principle broadly applied to them. It should not be considered a matter of charity or necessitous circumstances. I believe we could have taken care of these people on a much broader basis than we have. We cannot estimate in dollars and cents what we owe to those men who are going to be a decisive factor in this war, which is being fought in order that we may in future enjoy our way of life. We should be very considerate of those people who make such tremendous sacrifices, and their dependents.
Coming to the matter of the deadline, we made some headway when the deadline was withdrawn for those serving in the present war. I feel very strongly that children bom after May 1, 1933, should not be discriminated against. It is also a discrimination against the younger soldiers. A man who went to the great war in his 'teens found economic conditions most difficult following the war. There was the man of the right type who, having met the girl who he thought would be his helpmate and would make a fine mother for his family, felt that he could not afford to marry for many years following the great war, and that I think is to his credit. Many of the men who viewed the economic affairs of this country in this light are to-day among our better citizens, and certainly their offspring are of a type that we should be fostering in this country to-day. I do not think there is any trouble about disunity, and so on, among these men who have rendered service, and to their offspring this country owes some obligation. Therefore I feel rather keenly as to the deadline, and not only as respects the widow married after January 1, 1930; I think we might have taken away that deadline with respect to those children. It is unfair discrimination not only against the children but against the father, who may have been a younger soldier and for the best reasons in the world did not marry until later in life.
The compassionate pension or supplementary award referred to on page 8 is a step in the right direction. Widows now are granted pension if married a year prior to the granting of pension, or if the commission is satisfied that the husband had every prospect of living at least a year. That is another step in the right direction.
I should like to urge further, as did the previous speaker, that we make an effort to have a representative of the British government stationed in this country; if we did so we might obtain much more for the men who are taking part in the commonwealth air training plan. A great deal more might be accomplished in that regard.

There are two or three clauses that I intend to discuss as we come to them. I am extremely sorry, especially on behalf of the widows, that we are not going to have the War Veterans Allowance Act amended at this session. Many of those widows are entitled to further consideration as soon as possible. It has been pointed out that they will not receive any consideration unless that act is also amended; and the veterans of the Riel rebellion, who probably are in necessitous circumstances at this time, cannot be provided for either. I trust that the government, at the earliest possible day, will amend the War Veterans Allowance Act to deal with these matters.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is
perhaps a harsh thing to ask for, but I should like the Canadian people to know just what additional financial burden this bill will impose. We may as well face the facts. I am not opposing any such additional burden, but I think we should know what the increased money liability is likely to be as a result of this bill. I think we ought to know.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Well, Mr. Chairman, I fear it is impossible even to forecast what the financial obligations may be. I do not know that anyone could do that, because naturally, in the first place, it would depend upon the provisions of the legislation, which to-day is being broadened as compared to what it has been up to the present time, except for the first few months of the war. In the second place it would definitely depend upon the numbers of casualties or disabilities with which the forces might be confronted. For the first seven months of the war the amount of pensions awarded was very small,-only $5,176.43. For the first twelve months the figure was $188,522.43, making a total of $193,698.86. That, of course, was under the provisions of the orders in council.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I quite
appreciate that possibly no one could give any definite data with respect to the pension liability that may result from this war. But could not the commission give an estimate in regard to the increased obligation resulting from the greater benefits to those who served in the last war and their dependents? Could they not make a distinction between the two wars?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Except for possible supplementary awards under old section 21, and in two or three other minor respects, there are no increased bene-

Pension Act
"fits to those who served in the great war. It is very difficult to forecast what the obligation will be in regard to the present war.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I quite
agree.


Mr. LOCKHART:: It is not my intention to [DOT]detain the committee at any great length, Rut having listened with considerable interest to the explanation given by the minister I have come to the conclusion-and I hope the minister will correct me if I am in error- that the men of the third division now serving in Canada, preparing for whatever may lie ahead, are definitely uncertain as to whether they may receive pensions if they become disabled, except under certain circumstances and -at the will of persons who have been given authority to deal with these matters. That,
I gather, is the gist of what has been said by the minister. I am not criticizing the committee, which I think did a splendid job-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Perhaps my hon. friend would prefer that I wait until he is through, but there is one provision in the present bill which I forgot to mention. If anyone goes to a theatre of war and then returns to Canada, the insurance principle applies to him for all time. *Once the men go overseas from Canada they are completely protected.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I am not concerned with the man who goes overseas and then returns to Canada. My remarks have to do with the great army of men who have volunteered, particularly at this time when further volunteers are being sought by the thousands. These men cannot feel any sense of security, with relation to pensions for their wives, if they go overseas within the next few months. That is the only criticism I have to offer; and I do so advisedly. A great many of the men now in the army, the air force and the navy- though I have particular reference to the army-have younger brothers twenty-one or twenty-two years of age who are now being [DOT]enrolled in the defence forces, in a sense under compulsion. There have been a number of serious accidents, many of which I could mention ; these accidents are bound to continue, and any man in the active army to-day, serving at some training centre, learning of the action that has been taken by this government, will find himself in a very difficult and uncertain position when he comes to discuss the matter with his younger brothers who are soon to follow in his footsteps.
I point this out to the minister because from my own experience I know what effect this bill, and the other statutes that will follow, will have on the minds of many men now serving with the active forces. I am
receiving letters every day in regard to this matter, as I am sure other hon. members are; within a short time these men may be leaving for Egypt, Africa or some other distant points, but in the meantime serious accidents are happening almost every day. The other day at Petawawa a man lost his life in an accident which occurred through no fault of his own; yet under these provisions the families of these men are to a great extent debarred from any possibility of gaining security in the days to come. Now, when recruits are being sought in goodly numbers, is the best time to give this matter consideration and to see to it that these men shall not have to go overseas in the days to come with this feeling of insecurity in their hearts as a result of the actions of this committee and of the government.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: I have just one or two questions to ask the minister. How many men have been discharged, after service, since the outbreak of war; how many who have served overseas have been returned to Canada; how many serving in Canada have been discharged; of all these, how many are in receipt of pension? I agree with the last speaker that if ever there was a time when the morale of this nation should be upheld and when everything should be done to cause those going into the armed forces and their dependents to realize that their service will not be forgotten and that in the event of sacrifice it will be properly rewarded, that time is now. Subsection 2 of the new section 11 amounts to this, as I understand it, that if a man is killed while in service in Canada, or while going on or returning from leave, or accidentally while in camp as the result of negligence, we will say, on the part of someone driving a motor vehicle not connected with the military forces, he would not be entitled to pension.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That does not necessarily follow under the present legislation. It was so under the provisions of the order in council.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister was
very careful to say that that does not necessarily follow now. The amendment provides that pension shall be payable where death or injuiy "arose out of or was directly connected with such military service." I am reminded that under the Workmen's Compensation Act the words "arose out of" have been interpreted time without number. The interpretation is generally to the effect that a person must actually have been engaged in the work at the time the injury was received or occurred, within the scope of the employment.
The minister has indicated that under circumstances such as those to which I have
Pension Act

referred, a person would not necessarily be disqualified. Will he tell the committee that if under such circumstances a person is killed or injured, under the section as amended such person's relatives or such person himself would be entitled to pension? I am sure he would not go that far. Well, if we want to get recruits we shall have to extend to those serving in Canada to-day a right of pension similar to that enjoyed by those who served in England in the last war.
Subsection 3 provides that where a pension is not awardable, the pensions commission may, under certain circumstances, grant a pension.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
ex gratia.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. Either a
person is or is not entitled to pension, and I protest against placing under the control of any commission, however commendable it may be, the power to make a decision awarding or refusing to award a pension beyond the qualifications stipulated in the statute. Let us amend this measure so that the men to whom the last speaker referred may, while serving their country, receive a pension. To-day on every hand we read about the deaths of men on service in Canada. The dependents of those men should be entitled to pension.
It is intended under the suggested amendments to allow the commission to give such persons pensions if they decide so to do. Let us make it definite enough so that such persons will not have to depend upon the interpretation of words as restrictive as "arose out of" or "was directly connected with such military service."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There were 12,786 discharged as medically unfit and considered for pension, of which number 6S7 were granted pensions. Those were disability applications. The next classification is for widows and parents; these are dependent pension rulings where death occurred and they total 329.


Howard Charles Green: How many of those were
cases where the men served in Canada?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not believe I have that information, although I did place it on Hansard about two months ago.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps the minister will get it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. Then, there were forty-three deaths prior to May 1, 1940. Twenty-five served in Canada, and nineteen outside Canada.


The CHAIRMAN:: I would draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that we are discussing section 1 of the bill, the subject of which is "definitions". So far the discussion has taken place on other sections. The only difficulty with this manner of proceeding is that the discussions will be repeated when we reach the appropriate sections. I believe we would proceed in a more orderly fashion if the discussion were confined to the section under consideration.


Howard Charles Green: When we began discussing the bill the minister made a general statement, and other hon. members have been replying to him.


Thomas Vien: I was not aware of that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes; and it was also understood in the committee itself that so far as possible there might be a general discussion on the first
section.
The CHAIRMAN; All right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suggest that in the end this procedure will save time, because it will clarify many points. Strictly speaking the chairman is right. But in a bill of this kind, where there is no enacting clause, one does not have an opportunity for general discussion. I believe it is the consensus that we should have such discussion, and by having it now we will save time later.


Thomas Vien: Moreover, if there has been an agreement, then the rule has been suspended by unanimous consent.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have read the bill carefully, and in it I do not find provision for circumstances such as those I shall now outline. I have in mind a neighbour of mine who enlisted after the beginning of this war.
He was a big, strong, healthy man and, no doubt on account of his size and physique, he was made a military policeman. In the course of his duties he was attacked and badly battered by a couple of soldiers. While being so attacked he was kicked around the chest, and his shoulder bone was broken.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: While on duty?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, while on duty. After being in hospital for some time he was sent to another camp. Returning home on leave, he died suddenly on the day following his return. As I understand the circumstances, there is nothing in the act to provide compensation for his widow and family.

Pension Act


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What was the disability?


John Ritchie MacNicol: According to information received from his family they wonder whether his death was hastened by having been kicked and beaten by a couple of soldiers. If there is any section in the act which could cover that case, I should like to have it pointed out to me when we reach it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I believe that under the order in council the case the hon. member has described would probably not be pensionable. In the present bill however a distinction is made between "leave with pay" and "leave without pay". If the assault arose from his service, even though he was on leave with pay, he would have a claim. If he did not have a claim under subsection 2, considered conjointly with the interpretation of "leave with pay", his case certainly could be considered under subsection 3.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am glad to hear that. This man died on return from Petawawa.
I have just- a brief observation to make with reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South. I appeared before the committee and they treated me courteously and listened to a lengthy exposition from myself in favour of widows' pensions, but there is nothing in the bill in that regard. As the hon. member for Vancouver South remarked, something might be done later on under the war veterans' allowance.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That question is still before a select committee of the house. They have not made a report with regard to it, but undoubtedly they will. In the meantime, I doubt whether it is in order to discusss the subject at this stage. Personally. I have no objection, but the matter is still before the committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is not foreclosed at the moment.


Thomas Vien: If that particular
feature is still before the committee it would be out of order to discuss it now, before the report of the committee has been tabled.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I understood from the hon. member for Vancouver South that the matter had been disposed of.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Do I understand that there is a possibility of some consideration being given the problem of the non-pensionable widow this session?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not so far as legislation is concerned. I intend to make a statement after the recommendations of the committee are before the house, and that statement might be made on my estimates. During the present session, however, there will be no legislation dealing with the question. There may be action to obtain further relevant and necessary information with regard to the whole situation, but that is as far as I can go at this session. As a matter of fact, this discussion is out of order.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then I will not continue it.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I am sorry the discussion is out of order because I wanted to ask a question which could possibly be answered later on. I refer to the number of widows who are in the twelve to twenty class and the amount of money that would be required to give them pensions. I believe I brought this matter up once before.
With regard to the insurance principle of the bill, that is, for those men who are really in the active service forces, it must be remembered that as matters stand now it is more in the nature of workmen's compensation. Under workmen's compensation, the workman of the country has an opportunity to obtain accident and sickness insurance which will take care of him while he is off his job; but conditions to-day make it impossible for a man in the armed forces to get sickness or accident insurance to protect him in any way against such unforeseen occurrences as motor accidents, or sickness when he is, so to speak, off his job. I think, therefore, the government should do something to meet that situation. It is most unfair that a man who is thrifty, a man who has a family and wishes to visit his home, should be exposed to the dangers of hitch-hiking, because, under present circumstances, if he goes by rail he has to pay his own railway fare and consequently he is forced to hitch-hike. We know that accidents occur in hitch-hiking, and should one of these men meet with an accident he is out of luck. Something should be done about the matter. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver South that, for the active service forces, those men who will go overseas, we should see to it that they are protected against accident and sickness when they are on leave or are not on duty.
Another matter which I have in mind is with reference to the auxiliary forces, those men who go over with the Y.M.C.A., and so forth. Such men are doing as fine a job as the other fellows, and the charitable institutions will not take care of them in any way.
Pension Act

They have practically the same status as the soldier, and I suggest that something might be done to have them made members of the forces so that they would be able to qualify for pensions.
I have always thought it was a hardship on children born after 1933 to be unpensionable. Many a young fellow went to the last war at an early age and, after coming back, found it almost impossible for many years to get a job, and it was only when he was getting on a little better later on in life that he decided to get married. If his family were born after 1933 the children are deprived of benefits, if he is pensionable. That defect should be remedied. It would not cost the country very much.
The same remark applies to the woman who got married after 1930. There was a good reason for putting that provision in the bill originally. I believe it was called the gold-diggers clause. The object was to prevent the sort of thing implied in the term, but that has gone by the board now. Any woman who married a man after 1930 did so because she was pretty fond of him. She took care of him, certainly devoted a good deal of her time to his welfare and probably made a great sacrifice herself. That is another feature which should be improved.
I cannot speak too strongly on the question of the insurance principle with regard to this bill. Some provision should be made to take care of men from this point of view.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The number of those in the classes between twelve and twenty is 65,000.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Widows?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I mean widows.


Mr. POWER:: Any one of the men has a potential widow.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: How much would it cost the country?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That can be estimated in the next few months.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: In the event of its being found impossible at this session to do anything with regard to the question of widows' pensions, would it not be possible to utilize the deliberations of the committee? In view of the fact that some sort of report will be put in, the minister might give some relief to some of these widows by order in council; almost anything can be done by order in council these days. That might be arranged.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is estimated that the number of nonpensionable widows of disability pensioners is at present approximately 5,000.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I do not think what I am about to say comes under the bill, but for a long time we have been asking for consideration for a small group of men whose pensions were adjusted, I believe, until 1909 or 1910. I refer to the permanent force of Canada.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I regret having to interrupt so often, but that is also before the select committee. It is a matter which has to do entirely with the Department of National Defence, and doubtless the committee will make some recommendation with regard to it. It could not be taken care of by this bill.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: At last we are
going to get some action on it.


Mr. GILLIS:: Mr. Chairman, first. I want to join with the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) in complimenting the chairman of the pensions committee, of which I am a member, upon the manner in which he handled a most difficult job. I think he made a good job of it.
Second, I should like to make a few observations with respect to the manner in which the committee itself handled its work. This is the first time that I have served upon a pensions committee and I had some apprehension that the committee might adopt a partisan attitude because government members dominated the membership. I am naturally suspicious. I wa$ however, agreeably surprised to find that partisan politics were completely forgotten and that the problems relating to men who are serving in this war and who served in the last war were considered on the basis of merit alone. I think every member of the committee was fully conscious of his duty with respect to those problems and had no thought of politics or anything like that.
The hon. member for Vancouver South has given a thorough analysis of the bill as it stands at the present time. I agree with practically everything he has said, but there are some things which I view in a different light. I believe this bill will overcome many features which were objectionable in the first draft. It has relieved my mind with respect to certain sections in the act and the way in which they were administered. The real test of any legislation is its administration. In my opinion we shall get out of this bill just what the people who have the responsibility of administering it are ready to give us. All the departmental representatives who have to do with the administration of pensions sat in

Pension Act
on that committee. They heard its deliberations, and I think they understand what was in the minds of the men who gave them their instructions for the final drafting of this bill. After listening to those men, I am reasonably certain that many of the problems which faced the old soldier in the past will be lightened to a considerable extent.
I am disappointed to find out that no changes will be made in the War Veterans' Allowance Act at this session. I allowed some of the sections in this bill to pass without objection because I understood that certain sections of the other act would be amended and that certain classes of pensioners or people would be taken care of under that act. I refer particularly to the widows of men who served in a theatre of war and -who no doubt went to premature graves as a result of that service.
I repeat. I am disappointed to find out that these widows are not to be taken care of by an amendment to the War Veterans' Allowance Act. My information was that they would be, and I hope something may still be done because I understand the committee is still functioning.
I am one member of the committee who believes in the full maintenance of the insurance principle. I am convinced that perhaps 50 per cent of the problems of the war veterans are due to the fact that there is no other type of social legislation which will take care of a man who breaks down in industry and becomes prematurely aged. Many of the veterans who have been and are now filing claims are men who should be taken care of by some other form of social legislation. Since, however, we have no legislation to take care of them, they try to relate their problem to the only source of relief they have.
The full maintenance of the insurance principle will help the man being requisitioned for service. I do not think there is a man entering our service, whether for overseas or in Canada, who thinks of himself alone. What bothers 99 per cent of them is what is going to happen to their families. When a man offers to fight for his country, he offers his life, but he wants assurance that his family will be taken care of. That is why I favour the full maintenance of the insurance principle. I have a large group in mind, those industrial workers who have protective insurance, compensation insurance, or other schemes whereby their families are taken care of in the event of their death. When such men are requisitioned for service they must leave their employment, and as a result they lose this protective insurance for their families. I am speaking about the $1.30 a day man. Such a man has not sufficient income
to continue to carry ordinary insurance, and consequently his family is left without any protection.
If something happens to him which cannot be related to service, his family are the real sufferers. The present act takes care of this problem to a large degree, but not to the extent I should like it to do. There is a new section which will take care of the soldier whose disability or death is not related to military service. I am thinking of the man who gets into a tangle not related to his military service and loses his life. If the dependents are found to be in necessitous circumstances, the commission have the discretion to award a pension or to take care of them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No matter what the cause of death may be.


Clarence Gillis: That takes care of the situation to a considerable degree. I repeat, I think the committee did a good job and went a long way toward relieving my mind of many of the matters that had been bothering it.
I should like to see nursing sisters who serve in a theatre of war placed in a category by themselves. I do not think they should be dealt with in the ordinary way, by having to appear before boards and travel the routine pension route. When any one with the delicate mechanism of a woman serves two or three years in England, or in any other theatre of war, she has suffered to such an extent that compensation for her services should be very easy to get. She should not have to undergo the relatively rough routine followed by the average soldier.
I am interested also in the men who are doing convoy work at the present time. There is an order in council that protects men who serve in that capacity.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not being enlisted men.


Clarence Gillis: Yes. That order in council
covers men who serve on ships of Canadian registry, but a large percentage of the ships sailing from Canadian ports are of British, Greek or some foreign registry. If our Canadian boys who are engaged in this very necessary and dangerous service are injured or killed during that service, there is no pension and no protection so far as the Canadian government is concerned; they or their dependents must apply to the British government or the government of registry of the ship. It is a long, hard road to travel. I had to do with one case; it was satisfactorily settled by the British imperial pension authorities here in Ottawa, but it took, as we can well understand, considerable time to adjust.
Pension Act

A special committee dealt with the matter and recommended that it be given consideration. I hope that, before this discussion is concluded, the minister will say something about the question.
There came before the committee another matter, of which I have not heard anything, and I should like to know exactly where we stand. A Mr. Beaton appeared before the committee in behalf of long service pensioners. They have been dealing with the Department of National Defence for a number of years. Their pensions are very, very small, having been fixed years ago in accordance with rates paid at that time. There are not many of these pensioners, but according to the description Mr. Beaton gave the committee, most of them are now objects of charity. I understood, or hoped, that some action would be taken in their behalf.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I interrupt the hon. gentleman to explain that I touched upon that point a few minutes ago? This is a question which could not be dealt with under this particular piece of legislation, but it is still before the committee, and is one on which, I hope, the committee will make a recommendation to the Department of National Defence.


Clarence Gillis: I realize that it is not a
question for this committee, but the point I am trying to make is that it should be attended to.
It seems to me that there is discrimination in the section of the bill which refers to tubercular veterans. The provision has been extended to take care of men who may have incurred tuberculosis after May, 1940; but cases which developed prior to that time do not come under this bill. I have one or two such cases in mind.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What was the point?


Clarence Gillis: The point is this, that in the last clause of the section referring to tubercular veterans-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What section was that?


Clarence Gillis: -it sets out quite a long preamble with respect to eligibility for pension of that particular class, but it makes an exception of cases which were incurred prior to May, 1940. As I understand it, any man who incurred tuberculosis prior to that date is excluded from this legislation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, no. That is certainly not the intention of this legislation. This matter has been 
carefully reviewed by the tubercular veterans' association, and I understand that they are thoroughly satisfied with the drafting of this section.


Clarence Gillis: I hope I am wrong. I am
glad to get that information.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What, in
a word, is the effect of this?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is just continuing, or applying, the benefits provided for this class under the old Pension Act, to the conditions of the new war.


Clarence Gillis: Another matter I had in mind-strictly1- speaking it may not relate to the bill, although it has to do with pensions and national health

is treatment for men discharged from the present army. As I understand the situation, between ten and twelve thousand have been discharged for medical reasons. On leaving the army they have made applications, and their claims have been examined by the pensions department. I should like to know-and I raised the question in committee-the exact status of this group as regards hospitalization and treatment. The minister answered this morning that they were entitled to treatment for a year after their discharge. I believe I am safe in saying that 75 per cent of the men who are discharged as medically unfit, and who have a family to maintain, go to their homes. If such a man is taken to hospital and given treatment under the conditions outlined by the minister, he leaves a family at home who have nothing wherewith to maintain themselves while the head of the family is in hospital. I believe that is a matter which should receive more consideration. I hope, however, that these defects will be attended to in the future, either by the house or in the course of the administration of the act, by order in council or otherwise.
Speaking of the work of the pensions committee as I saw it, I believe that it has functioned, not with the purpose of making political capital, but as recognizing the problems and disabilities of those who go into the army to serve us, and trying to care for them and fulfil our obligations to them to as large an extent as we can, consistent with the financial resources of the country. I am not ashamed to say here that I believe the committee has done a very good job, and that this bill will go a long way to relieve many disabilities which were not provided for in the original draft.


Mr. CHURCH:: I believe that the able minister, the splendid chairman of the committee and all its members deserve the thanks, gratitude and unanimous support of the house

Pension Act
and of the country in the good work which they have done since this session started. I am personally aware of the committee's good work, because I have read every day its proceedings and was a witness before it. I 'have had applications for copies of the minutes from some of the leaders of four of the largest denominations and from prominent citizens in Canada. The committee has given good and efficient service, and is a great credit to the committee system of this house.
Only general principles, constructions and changes of import are dealt with in the bill, because this is in many important features a very different war from the last one.
While the bill and the explanatory notes clearly elucidate the principles and procedure and administration of the measure, there are some amendments which, to my mind, might have been included.
The provision which makes the chairman of the commission a deputy minister is, I think, a good one; it will be useful when parliament is not in session, increasing efficiency and making the act more workable.
Another matter upon which I wish briefly to comment is that of soldier insurance, in connection with life, unemployment and demobilization after the war clauses. The system in effect in the United States resulted in a marked economy in their national pension system, and I was in hopes that the committee, although this may not be the right place to include it-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I interrupt my hon. friend? The question of soldier insurance has yet to be considered by the committee, and doubtless there will be a recommendation with reference to it.


Thomas Langton Church: I thank the minister and hope it will come, but I w'as going to remark that I believe a bigger economy in pensions would be possible if we had the matter included in this bill, thus forming part of a coordinated system of direct and indirect legislative aid to the soldier and his family.
I was in hopes that something more would be done to help reestablish the large, body of men who were accepted at the outbreak of war, and after three to six months in the army were discharged as physically unfit. Some additional consideration, it seems to me, should be given to them.
Another point of importance has to do with compensation for the dependents of men who have been killed on the highways or who have died while in attendance at camp. They surely were on military service when killed travelling on leave to and from camp. I should have liked to see some additional provision for them.	.
Another matter is regarding the setting up of the commission chairman as a deputy minister to administer the act, which I think by these amendments will be enhanced and speeded up. I believe the time is coming when, in view of the rising cost of living, we must have a more liberal provision in the Pension Act and a cost of living bonus for our soldiers. Railway employees and civil servants are asking for a cost of living bonus, and the widows and orphans of soldiers are very much handicapped by the present scale. A revision should be had.
Another feature that I think the committee might have taken up further, although they cannot do it all in one bite, is the further education of soldiers' children. The minister has made many changes since this started and should go still further. Regarding hospitalization and the burial of the dead, I hope that with the new system and definitions the minister will have increased powers.
The people of Canada wish to see the soldiers dealt with generously. They have never expected, since the first German war ended and the second started, that we should act as dead-beats to our returned soldiers. The government have done very well in this connection, but more aid is needed, and with the increased powers and a more liberal construction of the new measure I hope the good work will keep up. I believe that these soldiers should very soon have a bonus for the increased cost of living.


Jean-François Pouliot: Let me first congratulate the chairman and the members of the pensions committee who have made a painstaking study of the problem of pensions and have reached unanimity, which is a real accomplishment. I also congratulate the minister upon the attention that he has given to this problem, and all hon. members who have spoken, and particularly my friends the hon. member for Vancouver South, the hon. member for Souris and the hon. member for Broadview, who has just concluded his little speech.
I agree that all men who have been in a theatre of war should be helped when they have suffered a disability that prevents them from doing the same work as they did before enlistment. If a man enlists, of course he makes a sacrifice, and if he is wounded or becomes disabled, he has reason to expect the state to come to his aid and help him to resume his life in the same condition as if he had not been to war and had not become disabled. That seems a reasonable point of view. There is no necessity for exciting pathos with regard to these cases; there is not
Pension Act

a single member of the committee who does not appreciate the gallantry of our army in all its three branches. I leave it to others who have more oratorical power than I have ever been gifted with to express the feelings in which we all share.
There is, however, one point that seems to have been overlooked with regard to soldiers. It is the necessity of investigation of each case throughout Canada. The reply may be "Oh, it is too expensive". It is not too expensive, because at the present time we are paying about 854.000,000 a year for pensions, ordinary pensions being included. It is a formidable sum, and we do not know w'hat will be the cost of pensions for this war. I sincerely hope that the fewest possible number of those in the forces will be wounded or disabled; that is the wish of every one of us. But whatever happens, we must expect to pay a very heavy bill.
At the present time the amount of 854,000,000 is out of proportion to what the Canadian people can pay. I do not want any deserving case to be overlooked; I do not want any soldier who has been wounded on the battlefield to be refused pension. I state that clearly and positively. On the other hand there are cases in which a man deserves a pension and does not need it. By virtue of the law he has a right to it, but I wonder whether it is not possible in each case to say to him: "Joe, you are entitled to this according to the statutes of this country; no one can deprive you of it; but since you do not need it, do you insist on receiving it?" The answer will be left to him, and whatever answer he makes deserves * respect. He has freedom to decide whether he will draw this pension whether he needs it or not. There are other cases where men have been awarded pensions that they did not deserve, and in those cases the investigator should see to it that the payment of those pensions is stopped at once.
Another class of cases deserving of sympathy is that of those men who have been at the front in a theatre of war for two or three or four years, either on land, at sea or in the air, men who were strong when they enlisted and who still looked strong when they were discharged but who suffered from rheumatism perhaps ten or twenty years before they would if they had not seen this war service. Those men deserve special consideration. I cannot understand how a pension can be refused to a man who has been at the front for two or three years, who has been living like a caveman in the mud of the trenches, in winter as well as in summer; you cannot expect that man to be 100 per cent healthy when he comes out even if he is discharged

as A-l. I have known soldiers who have been at war for three or four years who looked just as husky as any policeman but whose health was not good. They were declared sick by boards of specialists, men of high standing in their profession, but were turned back; they could not get anything.
A case that happened recently was that of a poor fellow who was in the army for a couple of years. I saw him quite often. He was examined by the board of pension commissioners and awarded a pension. He had been at war for two years. He was suffering from rheumatism which at times was very painful. He was awarded a nice pension of $3.75 a month; and he has a wife and some children. I found it really shocking. At the time I thanked the pension commission; when I was told that a cheqtie for S47 was being issued, I thought the man was to receive a pension of $47 a month. But this cheque covered only the arrears for a certain length of time, and he was told officially that he would receive only 83.75 a month. How can a man live on twelve or thirteen cents a day? It is absurd.
I am not in favour of imposing an undue burden on the treasury, but it seems to me it is time we made a check of this matter. At present all we know is the total amount paid for pensions, but I am sure that if we had an honest investigation by independent men, with power to decide each case on its merits and without regard to party considerations, the pension bill could be cut by at least a third. Then the country would have to pay only two-thirds of the 854,000,000 or 855,000,000 that is being paid now. That is worth considering because, if-and God forbid-more of our boys become disabled, the country will have to look after them, and we shall have to find the money somehow. It seems to me the best way to do that would be to check over w'hat we are paying now. The trouble with all departments of the government is that no check of this kind is in effect. I am not against all civil service officials; not at all, but I do not want them to have a free hand. I want the principle of ministerial responsibility restored; when I say that, I use the king's English and everyone should know what I mean. It is essential that power given by the people should be checked by the people, through their representatives, but in order to do this, information is necessary. It would be in the interests of the department to spend two or three million dollars, if necessary, in order to see just where we stand with regard to pensions.
Any member of parliament or any citizen can make representations to the commission with regard to any case, but unfortunately very

Pension Act
31S3
often those representations are entirely disregarded. It is impossible, I regret to say, to make any representations to anyone on the pension commission. I have nothing against these gentleman personally, but they will not listen to anything. They are as stubborn as stone; you cannot argue with them. Here is a pitiful case, which should receive sympathetic consideration. No; the pension award is S3.75 a month. Another man may have had his lungs injured by shrapnel; he may have spent a long time in a hospital. To all appearances he is husky and strong. The commission do not know his condition, how sick he is; they say, "You are well. You are just a lazy fellow. You are all right. You do not need a pension." The man receives a message on a long sheet of paper, telling him to go back home; they suggest that he should go to work, as though they were passing judgment on his disposition instead of on his disability, which is altogether different.
I have the utmost sympathy for those men who were promised so much by the Union government from 1917 on. Those soldiers were told that they would get anything they wanted, that the land would be theirs and that they would be looked after by the government. Of course exaggerated statements were made at that time, which amounted to deceit with regard to these men. On the other hand, however, they had the right to expect fair treatment by our government.
I admit there have been men fairly treated; but though a hundred or a thousand men are treated well-and some of them have been treated too well-I shall never be satisfied while others receive none of the benefits they were promised. If there is one place where there should be no favourtism, no nepotism and no patronage of any kind, it is in connection with our soldiers, who make equal sacrifices. That is my humble view.
Then there is something else, Mr. Chairman; it is the absurd things that have been done. One of these is the preference which is given under other legislation to men who have been disabled, which means men who have pensions. I wonder whether all hon. members are familiar with that legislation, by virtue of which a man is considered disabled only if he has a pension. Take the case of a man who was fortunate enough to get a pension although he was not wounded, although he did not feel any pain or suffer any hurt. He receives a preference over another man who was disabled and who still feels the hurt of his wounds. I find this absurd, but that is the situation under sections 28, 29 and 30 of the Civil Service Act. Then the man who has a pension is given a preference over the returned man who has no
pension. That means there is a double preference. Many hon. members do not know this. For instance, if at a civil service examination a returned man who is in receipt of a pension, although he suffered no disability, obtains one hundred per cent while another returned man, who was wounded, obtains only enough marks to pass, it is the second man who is placed at the head of the list, at the expense of the first one. And if a civilian obtains one hundred per cent on a civil service examination, as against a returned man with only 70 per cent, the returned man goes to the head of the list. This is why the standard of the civil service is lower now, as everyone admits.
I want the soldiers to be well looked after by the state. One of the taxes which would become popular would be a tax for returned men; it would be a tax specified for the returned men; and everybody would pay that tax gladly as an honour and a tribute to those who have done so much. But now the taxes come from the melting-pot, and there is a limit to the payment of taxes. My idea is that the returned man should be well looked after for the simple reason that he deserves it. There should be a check made on the pensions paid, so that there may be no abuse, and so that the state would have to pay pensions to those deserving of them and who have not yet received them. There should be justice; there should be fairness.
I would give a last chance to the commissioners. I want them to have a free hand for six months, or until the house resumes its sittings, to see what they can do. I do not place any blame on the minister; he is my friend, and I have the greatest respect for him. I wish him good luck. But he knows that there are other considerations in the department. I would give the commissioners a free hand for six months, and I should like to know what will happen at the end of that time. Would we have an opportunity to examine each case on its merits? In addition, the commission should be empowered to make a check on every payment made from that branch of the department.
I do not appeal to the sympathies of hon. members, but I must point out that each case should be considered on its merits. When a man receives a wound, or a disability-any wound or any disability-his case should be considered with the greatest and deepest attention.
I hope everybody has accepted my remarks in the same spirit in which they have been given. In these dire times I want all to be as happy as possible. Of course it is impossible to promise Eden to all the returned men. But now we have another war to face, and
Pension Act

each man in each branch of the armed service has a right to expect justice. I hope all will get it.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Before section 1 is
agreed to, and while we are having general discussion on the principle of the measure, I wish to make several comments. Some months ago we sent Bill No. 17 to the committee. In the light of certain facts, that bill was a travesty on justice. On March 6 I condemned it, using some rather strong language, the prominent words of which were the words "disgrace" and "insult." The minister became indignant and accused me of exaggeration. These are his words, as they are reported at page 1295 of Hansard:
I am not going to endeavour to reply to the extremely extravagant and to my mind unjustifiable language used by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blaekmore) with regard to this measure. I venture to suggest to my hon. friend that he has not given a wide study to the terms of this bill. If he had, he would have been more conscious of his definite responsibility as a member of this house than to use such extreme and extravagant language.


Mr. TURGEON:: From whom was the
hon. member quoting?


John Horne Blackmore: Those are the words
of the Minister of Pensions and National Health.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Of course the hon. member is out of order, Mr. Chairman, when he reads from a previous debate in the same session.


John Horne Blackmore: The bill now before the committee is a great improvement over that which went to the special committee for examination. I submit that the condemnations pronounced upon this bill by the hon. member for Vancouver South are so serious that they constitute a stern indictment of the bill as it stands to-day. I submit also that all the language I used on March 6 with respect to the previous bill could be applied with complete propriety and moderation to the bill now introduced. In the light of certain facts, even the present bill constitutes in my mind a callous betrayal. It is a disintegrating breach of faith, the deleterious effects of which cannot at the present time be even abstractly calculated. It is a nauseating and disillusioning disappointment to public-spirited Canadians from coast to coast.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Any more adjectives?


John Horne Blackmore: The first thing to be borne in mind is this: If the minister had taken the trouble to answer certain questions in this matter, I believe he would probably 
have appreciated why I said what I did say. Canada can supply a comfortable standard of living.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Hear,
hear.


John Horne Blackmore: And now I will ask any hon. member in the committee, including the leader of the opposition, whether that statement is true or false.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: Is this a quiz contest?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are we getting into a discussion of social credit?


John Horne Blackmore: We must look at this matter realistically. Can Canada supply a comfortable standard of living to all her people, even in war time? I do not think there is an hon. member in the committee who will be sufficiently reckless with his reputation to say no. Very well, then; we will lay that down as the first principle. What do we mean by a comfortable standard of living? I do not believe the ordinary Canadian is thinking of comfort in the sense hon. members know comfort. The average person is asking for a sanitary house, wholesome food and adequate clothing. This bill, sir, does not and will not either directly or indirectly ensure those three essentials to large numbers of returned men, returned men's children and returned men's wives. I will challenge any hon. member to contradict my statement on that point.
Since the bill fails when gauged by those three simple tests, it must stand condemned in the eyes and in the minds of hon. members of the committee. It is one thing to say we cannot afford a thing; it is another thing altogether to face the facts as they are, and to say whether or not we can do a thing. To-day we hear from end to end of the Anglo-Saxon world discussions such as those in which we hear Dorothy Thompson engage.
I am not committing myself to Dorothy Thompson's views or associating myself with her in whatever plans she has, but certainly this lady has awakened the people all over this country to the fact that we fight and live on goods, and where the goods are, or where there are the means of producing them, we can have those goods and use them for whatever purposes we choose. Just as soon as these principles are laid down, then we are on the ground, we are on basic realities.
The minister implied that I had not studied the measure. I am afraid I have studied it a little too much and that is why I made the remarks I did; I am prepared to back up everything I said. Indeed, I will go a good deal further than I went and still I shall be

Pension Act
speaking moderately; I shall be only discharging my responsibility as a member of this house in whose constituency there are scores and scores, I believe hundreds and hundreds, of sufferers from the last war-sufferers not merely in the sense of pain or of mental disquietude but of anxiety and physical want. May I read a statement which was considered of sufficient significance in this connection to be embodied by the veterans' assistance commission in their report of 1937. It will be found at page 27. Hon. members are all familiar with it, but it will do our souls good to contemplate for a few moments the things that are said in that statement. I quote:
Sir Robert Borden addressed the Canadian fighting forces at Vimy Ridge in 1917 in words ascribed to him as follows:
"You are men actually facing the enemy day and night. You are suffering greatly from fatigue, over-strain and the lack of rest. The marvel of it is that men could undergo such a strain without breaking. But you have never yet broken, and history will appreciate that in days to come. You men are about to enter one of the most serious engagements that ever faced the Canadian corps. I cannot at this moment give any information as to where this attack will be staged, whether it be successful or not. It is to be borne in mind that it will not be an easy success. We feel confident that you will succeed where others failed, for you have never yet failed in anything you have set your hand to as a Canadian corps."
May I stop here to draw the attention of the committee to two things which I consider of vital importance. The first is that Sir Robert Borden acknowledged that these men had been under such a strain that the marvel was they were able to stand it. I ask whether anyone believes that any man can go through such a strain and still be the same kind of man he was before he went through it. The second important point is that these men have never failed. I will make that declaration solemnly on this floor to-day. These men never failed. The failures began when we took a hand in it as a government. I continue the quotation:
"You can go into action feeling assured of this, and as the head of the government I give you this assurance, that you need have no fear that the government and the country will fail to show just appreciation of your service to the country and empire in what you are about to do and what you have already done. The government of the country will consider it their first duty to see that a proper appreciation of your effort and of your courage is brought to the notice of the people at home, and it will always be our endeavour to so guide the attitude of public opinion that the country will support the government to prove to the returned man its just and due appreciation of the inestimable value of the services rendered to the country and the empire; and that no man-
Note these words:
-no man, whether he goes back, or whether he remains in Flanders, will have just cause to reproach the government for having broken with the men who won and the men who died.
May I now read what the veterans' assistance commission said:	'
Sir Robert, on behalf of the government, entered into a contract every whit as binding as that between Canada and the holder of victory bonds. In a certain sense the contract was more solemn. The victory bonds were after all pretty much a business transaction. The contract between Canada and her men going overseas reached beyond business into the realm of the ideal.
Those words were uttered. They are on record, and in the light of them I will ask the minister whether he thinks we have been just to our fighting men. I know he will feel we have not. He will argue that he has done a great deal for the benefit of the returned men. I will grant that. I was not discussing what the minister had done or what he had not done. The hon. member for Temiscouata a minute ago half slightingly-I wish to be fair to him-referred to these promises which the administration made between 1914 and 1917. Let us suppose they were exaggerated. It can be argued with equal justice that the high interest rates promised the people who bought victory bonds were exaggerated. But I ask you, sir, whether anyone wishes to modify those bonds or cut them down, or has done so up to the present time. The answer is either a significant silence, or no. Well, then, if we hold ourselves so rigidly to our contract with respect to victory bonds, why is it we have not held ourselves with equal rigidity to the contract we made with our men? We have not failed in our bond interest, nor have we repudiated any of our bonds as a Canadian government. I am aware that the committee knows all these things, but what amazes me is that the members of the government can do the things they do realizing that what I have read is true. Let me read to the committee a little statement which I believe is probably quite unbiased. It is reported on page 12 of the issue of May 1 of the Western Producer, under the caption "Mission worker tells of poverty in Saskatchewan." My object is to indicate to the committee how admirably we are fulfilling this pledge which Sir Robert Borden made.
Captain A. Hutchins of the Canadian (Anglican) church army describes conditions of poverty and want that exist among the settlers in his northern mission field in Saskatchewan.
He is speaking before the St. Johns W. A. of Saskatoon, presided over by Mrs. W. A. Ferguson, at its meeting in the parish hall on Tuesday afternoon. The reason why I
31S6
Pension Act

mention this is to indicate that there is no politics in it at all. It is possibly a fail-statement of facts and, therefore, very valuable.
He says:
I have seen the slums of London and our eastern cities, but I have never seen the abject poverty and want that exists among the settlers of northern Saskatchewan.
May I stop there for a minute to point out that when the hon. member for North Battler ford (Mrs. Nielsen) cried out against these conditions, she was rewarded by having members of this house call her a communist. I go on to read the report:
He was speaking of that block of bushland, measuring about thirty by thirty miles around Prairie River, approximately 200 miles north of Saskatoon. It is this block of land that he tours summer and winter as young missionary for the Anglican church.
In this vicinity is the old soldiers' settlement: Land which the government deeded to returned soldiers. These soldiers were city-bred watchmakers, shoemakers and craftsmen who had never lived on the farm. The result was chaotic. The hardier ones were able to pull through but the majority lost faith in the land and themselves. This section is hemmed in by forest and reserves. Names like Blighty, Somme, Caragana, Mosquito and Shady Lane tell their own story.
There is also in this section the land given to farmers who have moved north.
From here on we are unable to tell whether he is describing returned soldiers' families or the families of farmers who have gone north, but in either case these conditions are a great disgrace. I quote:
These farms are covered with bush and at best only twelve acres a year can be cleared. The families get little relief and there are from six to eight children in many homes. In one home with eight children that Captain Hutchins visited there was a girl eleven years old with only one garment and children of four and six who went about the house naked. In this home the stovepipe was made of lard tins placed together. The mother had six children of her own but when her neighbour was taken away, insane, she took the other family's two children into her poor home.
The schools are two room log affairs not large enough to accommodate the "awful lot of children" (as the captain expressed it) in this fi'ontier district.
I do not know what the ministers think about that, but I believe the future generation will certainly look back upon such conditions with deep regret. "Awful lot of children". Those were the finest men we have had in Canada and yet we do not bother to raise their children. We place no value upon children in this country 1 Apparently we do not need them any longer I The only ones who need children are the Italians, the Germans and the Japanese. We do not need any more. It is astonishing, is it not? Yet

that very tenor, that very thought is in this regulation which indicates that men are not to be rewarded for the children born after 1933. I consider that a terrible disgrace. That is one of the things we have done. What do the returned men themselves think about it? I may mention that I had the statement I am about to read under my hand when the minister made his scathing remarks a short while ago about the statement I made then. I intend to read from a statement put out by the York (E) veterans' social welfare club of 2209A Queen street east, Toronto, which city is claimed as being the most loyal in Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Which city is that?


John Horne Blackmore: Toronto the good. This reads:
We respectfully submit to you our humble representations, and pray that you will use your good offices on behalf of those who are suffering privation, semi-starvation, and continued degeneration as their reward for the service rendered by their husbands in the defence of Canada and all that our constitution so stands for.
We respectfully crave that you will give serious thought to the application of the pension statutes, the whole being in contradiction to that for which our husbands fought-
"Disgraceful"? "Disgusting"? I would rather think so!
-bled and died, and as contrary to that for which our sons, and kin are so now prepared to die if called upon so to do.
We are respectfully of the opinion that British justice, and the right by statute of the individual is assailed which permits a commission to be judge, jury, and court of appeal at one and the same time, as at present operative, and which deprives the applicant the right as is said applicant's basic right, to appeal against such decisions of this body.
I am reading the next paragraph to indicate how calm this statement is. The minister replied that nothing was ever achieved by being extreme. Here is plenty of calmness, but apparently it did not get very far. I quote:
We do respectfully agree that in its composition, the pension statutes are all to the benefit of those for whom said statutes are compiled, but the entire benefit of said statutes are set aside when the whole power of interpretation and final decision of entitlements are vested in the commission as the sole body of adjudication and these said statutes are without value, when regulations as drawn up and operated by the Canadian pension commission are used to offset the benefits of said statutes.
'The hon. member for Temiscouata conveyed to me the impression that the blame for these adverse and hurtful regulations should be placed upon the pension commission.

Pension Act
In my opinion that commission is not responsible at all. The responsibility lies upon the instructions which they probably receive behind the cupped hand.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Behind the what?


John Horne Blackmore: Does my hon. friend not get the significance? I think he probably gets what I mean by "behind the cupped hand". That is where the responsibility lies for the regulations which are laid down and for the way in which those regulations are put into operation. I have never found any of these men callous; I have always found them ready to do anything they possibly could within the law.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who is the villain in the piece, then?


John Horne Blackmore: We are hunting for him. I am not quite prepared to say yet, but probably we shall smoke him out after a while. I do not think it is the Minister of Pensions and National Health; I do not think he is callous enough to do the things that are done. I refer to the statement made by the hon. member for Temiscouata. The evidence adduced here this afternoon is enough to condemn the whole pensions set-up in this country. It was pronounced in a calm way, and according to the minister it should have been most efficacious. But it was listened to with a patient shrug.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


John Horne Blackmore: When the committee took recess, I was endeavouring to show what the returned men and their dependents think of what is being done and what has been done as a result of the operation of the Pension Act. I have read one excerpt of a statement of one group of people in Toronto. I should like to read another letter. I am not sure whether, before doing so, I should apologize for the harshness of some of the expressions, but I will merely say that they are the words of a responsible group of people who are representing the men who served Canada in the last war.
Woodstock, N.B.
February 21, 1941.
Hon. Sir:
May we draw the following to your attention for your consideration in the light of present conditions,-
That the War Veterans' Allowance Act is a disgrace to Canada and an insult to the veterans and their dependents you can see from reading it over.
You must surely know that no helpless unemployable war veteran can live and keep a family on $40 per month. How is this spent? Rent, $25; milk, $5; wood, $10; total, $40. For food, clothing and medicine they must depend on charity. Is this what you have in store for those now serving?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that
the whole letter?


John Horne Blackmore: Not by any means.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to know who wrote that letter.


John Horne Blackmore: Usually the signature comes at the end of a letter: it does in this one.
The veteran's wife is forced to neglect her own home and family and work for others to help support the family of this helpless war veteran by washing, scrubbing, cooking or whatnot; and you send your gestapo around to see if this slave-wife has been working hard enough that you can deduct part of the veteran's allowance, and they are asked to keep a record of their earnings so that this can be done. Rent paid and 50 cents a day to live and keep a family, and you call yourselves men. We went through hell and could get no pension for our disabilities but dunged on for our sacrifice. We are still sacrificing and lost the things we fought for. We have slavery for our wives and poverty and rags for our families.
We demand the following changes in the War Veterans' Allowance Act:
Some may say that we are not discussing the War Veterans' Allowance Act; but I contend that, if the Pension Act were what it ought to be, there would be no need1 for a War Veterans' Allowance Act.
We demand the following changes in the War Veterans' Allowance Act:
1.	That the allowance be increased as follows: married men, $75 per month; single men, $35 per month.
2.	That an allowance be made for each child, as under the Pension Act.
3.	That the allowance be paid to the veteran's widow until she marries, as under the Pension Act.
4.	That the earnings of the slave-wife have no bearings on the veteran's allowance for his war disabilities.
The chairman of the board receives upon retirement the same amount as the allowance for five families of war veterans with five rents to pay, five homes to heat, twenty-five people to feed, and twenty-five people to clothe. Also to keep the children in school and taxes paid. Is this the kind of democracy we fought for? Why honour the dead and curse the living? Twenty-five people to be kept in poverty so that one may live in luxury. God save Canada. We want a square deal, nothing more, nothing less.
Yours respectfully,
P. M. Tamlyn,



W.V.P.U.

[Stage Direction]
I have purposely selected, Mr. Chairman, two of the many documents which have reached my desk, one from New Brunswick
[Stage Direction]
Pension Act
[Stage Direction]
and one from Ontario. I believe that these two provinces are ordinarily looked upon as among the most loyal provinces in the dominion. I regard these statements as of great significance indeed.
There may be only a few cases like this in Canada, as some men say, but the fact that there are any, in a land of such abundance as this, is a serious reflection upon the wisdom of the men who have governed and are governing Canada.
There is one matter which I believe altogether too few people appreciate. I have mentioned this once or twice already in this chamber. Only two or three days ago I received a letter from a man out in British Columbia. What he wrote was to this effect: "I have a 15 per cent disability, but that 15 per cent disability keeps me out of every kind of employment I seek to get. I might just as well be in gaol for all I can earn, because no one will hire me; and if I try to run a business for myself, I have not the strength to stand up to the strain. The result is that I am a one hundred per cent disability, but all the compensation I can get is for 15 per cent."
This difficulty arises from the fact that we are now in an age of abundance and have no need of the efforts of a great many of our people, suoh as we had twenty years ago. It is because the people in charge of the administration of this act, as well as those who drafted and framed it, did not realize this fact that they failed to appreciate the serious injustices which are visited upon the veterans by reason of the whole set-up through which we deal with our returned men. We are in an age of unemployment; and it would not matter if I had no disability at all, if I could not get employment I could not live, and if I could not earn my living I would immediately become an object of charity.
The same thing applies to the women. Only in the last few days there was in my office a woman from Toronto representing the war veterans' widows. This woman said', "I am sixty years old; I am strong and vigorous, but I cannot get work because no one will accept me for (work. The result is that I simply have no way of living." Let that fact impress itself upon the mind of every member of this committee and of every responsible person in Canada. Industries are now refusing offers to work by men over fifty years of age. One returned man told me on the streets of Ottawa two or three days ago-I did not have a chance to go and check with him- "I can go down to a certain park in Ottawa any day and find you fifty returned men, any one of whom can do carpentry work, but not one of whom will be given a chance to do that or any other kind of construction

job. All these men are strong enough to work, but merely because they are a little too old, they are not accepted." Let that fact be borne in mind in dealing with this whole situation.
The next thing is the difficulty of selling goods. I have a letter from a constituent of mine, a man who has settled on a farm as a result of his services in the last war. He says: "I have had a sufficiently difficult time to keep the wolf from the door and to keep up my payments. All during the depression I suffered and was in constant danger of losing my farm. Now, just as the depression is apparently passing, I am unable to sell my wheat. How can I possibly discharge my responsibilities financially? How can I save my farm?" I have not been able to find an answer to this question; I hope that someone in charge in Canada can.
Thomas Langton Church: What changes would the
hon. gentleman suggest in the new pension bill which goes much further than the old one?


John Horne Blackmore: I did not really come prepared to make suggestions as to what might be done, but I would extend the application of the Pension Act and the War Veterans' Allowance Act so that there would not be a needy sufferer in Canada either as a war veteran or a dependent of a war veteran. I do not mind seeing a war veteran go to work if there is work for him to do; but when there is no work he can do, then certainly something must be done about the matter. I was told about one man who lost his hand in the last war. I do not know what percentage of disability that gives him-15 per cent or thereabouts, I suppose. That man has a job as a postal official. He is able to make a living. But suppose he had not a post office job and had to be on a dairy farm; suppose he had to handle horses, or suppose he tried to get any one of a hundred jobs that one could name. How in the world could he get a job when no one would accept him? That man is as good as a total disability, because if he cannot get work that he can do, such as running an elevator or something of the sort, there is no hope for him. He certainly should be included within the War Veterans' Allowance Act or the Pension Act, so that he would not need to worry about a living. I believe I have laid down a principle there. I have not worked out the details, but I could do so if I had time. That answers the hon. member's question.
We are now facing another difficulty. It is becoming almost impossible for a man to establish a business, when we remember all the regulations and restrictions and taxes which are being imposed by the Minister of Finance.

Pension Act
At the same time there is a rise in the cost of living. I have not yet heard of a single case in which a veteran has been granted an increase in his allowance or pension by reason of the rise in the cost of living. Two or three times a bonus has been awarded to men working, to meet the increased cost of living; but nothing has been done for the veteran. Are we assuming that he has to cut down his standard of living in accordance with the rise in the price of goods? If so, how can we possibly justify ourselves?
Taxes are being applied to the veteran, and that again is raising his costs and increasing his difficulties. The sugar tax, the sales tax, all the other nuisance taxes of which we have an abundance in the country to-day apply to the veteran in a blanket fashion, with no provision or allowance or exception made whatsoever.
I have not heard up to the present time of any special provision being made to avoid having the soldier lose his farm. In Alberta or Saskatchewan, or in any of the western provinces where farmers have established farms and have been struggling to make a living, when the dominion government makes it so that they are unable to sell such wheat as they grow, and gives them a little less for the production of wheat than it costs to produce wheat, the dominion government has made no provision to prevent their creditors closing in on them.
Is it not high time we began to take cognizance of all the confounding difficulties that are developing round the veteran? When are we going to face facts in this house with respect to veterans?
Some will say it is impossible to do all these things. After I gave my last speech, there were several smart-Aleck newspapers in the country that made remarks about how easy it was for people like me to come here and say how the government should spend the people's money. The point is this: Let us come here and set forth what needs to be done and then let us find the money. People will say it is impossible to do this. I maintain it is not impossible to do it. The only reason why it is impossible is that we insist on controlling what we do physically by what we can do financially. We do not attempt to make what is physically possible financially possible.
I was interested in a statement in Dorothy Thompson's article, which appeared-


Thomas Langton Church: What paper? Whose arguments are they?
14873-201i
Mr. BLACIvMORE: I do not quite get the significance of the question. They are my arguments. As I was going to say, I was interested in her article appearing in the Ottawa Citizen of May 26 on page 2. May I read a statement which indicates how she is beginning to face the situation:
What we needed was the impossible. Possible and impossible are all relative terms. What is impossible under one kind of organization, one sort of moral awakening, one sort of programme of leadership is perfectly possible under another type of organization, morale and leadership.


Jean-François Pouliot: You are much better than she is.


John Horne Blackmore: I hope so, let her be as good as she might. Let it be borne in mind that we are growing richer as a result of the war, so far as our ability to produce is concerned. Every new factory established makes us richer. Every new increase in productive capacity makes us richer; for the riches of a country must be measured by the ability of that country to produce goods of all kinds. Therefore we are growing richer. We have a set of debts that are troubling us, but the productive capacity of the country is going to be here after the war if we have vision and wdsdom enough to make use of it instead of destroying it as we did during the depression. If we are getting richer physically, and shall continue to do so, why can we not devise some new way of dealing with these riches so as to allow the returned men both of the last war and of this war to participate in these riches?
Canada, as long as she will give patient consideration to a bill such as this, is yet far from playing fair with her soldiers, whether past, present or future. Great changes are due and must be made-changes in the provisions and purposes of the bill, changes in the administration of the bill. Only thus shall Canadians make financially possible what is physically possible for Canadians, and so keep faith with those to whom Canada is pledged.


Mr. McOANN:: It is not my intention to make a lengthy speech with reference to this bill. We should, however, bear in mind that its provisions are, I think, very generous. It should be remembered that in the last twenty years Canada has paid out over a billion dollars in pensions to those who served in the last war. That amount can come from only one source, namely, the general taxes of the people of Canada. There should be from time to time a general review of those cases that are receiving pension. It does not necessarily hold that because a man has been designated
Pension Act

as eligible for pension, he has a permanent disability, either partial or complete. In these days, with modern medical science and surgery, disabilities may obtain for a few years and be removed. That is the type of case which should be reviewed. I want it understood that I am in general accord with the granting of liberal pensions to deserving pensioners. But I am equally sure that there must be many people receiving pensions who are not as much entitled to them at present as when the pensions were awarded. The proof of that is that we have men enlisting in this war who are pensioners from the last war; they got a pension because they had some disability as a result of the last war, and up to the date of enlistment in the present conflict they have been receiving that pension and are receiving it now, yet they have been passed as A-l. Surely that is conclusive evidence that a number of these cases should be reviewed.
May I now say a word as to hospitalization. A pensioner is entitled to hospitalization if he is ill or has some disability which requires treatment. According to our present system the country is zoned, and pensioners within a certain district have to receive treatment in specified areas. For instance, in the Ottawa valley, the Ottawa hospitals, the civic hospital, and the general hospital, are the specified hospitals. I submit that throughout this section

and I have no doubt the same situation obtains in many other sections throughout the country-there are hospital facilities and men practising medicine and surgery who are competent to do the work that has t" be done, and to have these pensioners brought to a centre like Ottawa is added expense. I do not know whether that is a matter of the statute or of regulation; at all events it is one that should be remedied, to the benefit of both the pensioner and the institutions in smaller communities.
Another matter has to do with workmen's compensation. It appears now that a man who is perhaps a full-time pensioner, after a few years is in a condition physically to take a position in industry. Some accident happens to him and he comes under the workmen's compensation board. Under the provisions of that board in Ontario, any one who is injured in industry, after seven days' disability receives free hospitalization, free medical care and two-thirds of the wages he had been earning, with a minimum of $12.50 a week. If that man is a pensioner and is receiving one hundred per cent pension he goes in hospital and is attended, and in addition he receives from the workmen's compensation board free medical attention, free hospitalization and two-thirds of his wages. I understand that in [Mr. McCann.J
Ontario the practice has been to send the bill for the hospital to the Department of Pensions and National Health and it is paid by them. In my judgment that is not as it should be. That should be an obligation upon industry and upon the workmen's compensation board of Ontario, and should not be passed on to the federal authorities. I agree that that man is entitled to all the benefits of the Workmen's Compensation Act, but I see no reason why the cost should be passed on to the federal exchequer and come out of the taxes gathered by the federal government. I may be wrongly informed on that. I should like to have a word from the minister with reference to it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend is quite correct; it is under order in council passed in 1922 and continued from time to time ever since.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On section 5-When pension of member may be granted.
Richard Burpee Hanson: When this bill was before the house on an earlier occasion I took exception to the provisions of section 5. This is a special clause in the bill which has nothing whatever to do with pensions as such, but is designed to provide a more generous pension for one individual. That is what I believe it to be. If I am incorrect, the minister will have to clarify the position.
If my major premise is correct, I suggest to the committee that this is the worst possible kind of legislation that could be introduced into a general pension act. The minister shakes his head. What is the position; what is the necessity for this section? Are the pensions given to administrative officers of the pensions commission or the boards set up from time to time not generous enough, without legislating to give them more? There is no doubt that that is the intention of this section, to give some one person or some small group of persons a pension on a larger scale, to which they would not be entitled under the present law?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend is quite mistaken in his interpretation of the intention of this section. Section 9 of the act reads:
9. (1) The governor in council upon the retirement of any member of the commission, or the court, who has served upon one or other of such bodies or as a member of the Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada or of the pension tribunal, during at least twenty years, or who has so served during at least ten years and has reached the age of seventy years, or is physically or mentally incapacitated, and is

Pension Act
not entitled to superannuation under the Civil Service Superannuation Act, may grant to him a pension for his life not exceeding one-third of the salary to which he was entitled as such member.
That would be not exceeding $2,000 per annum. This is a purely permissive_ clause, not conferring any right on any commissioner. The only intention of the amending section is that service upon the old federal appeal board will count with service on the board of pension commissioners or the pension tribunal for the time limitations mentioned in section 9. There is, I assure my hon. friend, no right to pension conferred by the amending section. It was considered carefully by the committee, and I believe the opinion of the committee was that it was a fair and reasonable amendment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course I understand the first point made by the minister, when he said that this does not confer an absolute right to pension. That question is left in the discretion of the governor in council. That is true as the bill is written, but does anyone believe for a moment that the government inserted this provision without having been asked to put it in for the benefit of some individual or individuals who are barred from getting a pension under the law as it is to-day? There is no doubt about it; this is adding to the service of someone time spent on a government board in the pension administration who to-day cannot get a pension, or who could not get a pension as large as is contemplated by this section. Otherwise this section would not be in the bill at all. Certainly it is no part of the general law of this country with regard to the returned soldier problem. This is special legislation on the face of it, and of necessity it must be for the benefit of one or more individuals. I have made some investigation into this, and I think it is true that it is for the benefit of one or more individuals. It is true that it is not mandatory on the government to pay this man this pension; but I venture to say that, if this section goes through, before the snow flies this gentleman or these gentlemen, whoever they are, will be in receipt of pension at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I can assure my hon. friend that there is not the slightest foundation for that statement. The only principle involved here is this. The only individual who should be affected by this amendment served eleven years with the old federal appeal board and four and a half years with the present commission. The only purpose of this subsection, which was carefully examined, is that service with the
federal appeal board should count just the same as service with the old pensions tribunals which were abolished. Surely that is based upon principles of equity. I cannot see anything in it except the removal of an unfairness. Certainly I can assure my hon. friend that there is no intention of conferring any pension upon the individual concerned.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, I
have made my protest.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Disabilities in respect of which pension claimed.
Howard Charles Green: -I should like the minister to explain again the provisions of subsection 3 which appears on page 6 of the bill.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As I tried to intimate this afternoon, subsection 3 is a compromise between two points of view. One would be the application of the so-called insurance principle to all those serving in Canada, no matter in what capacity; the other would be the application of the "due to service" principle in Canada. This subsection is intended to meet a group of cases that may be on the border-line, and I think it involves two principles. One is that the injury, disease or aggravation has resulted in serious disability or death; the other is that the widow or children are in necessitous circumstances. Those are the two conditions involved; the one, a substantial injury, and the other, the matter of need. Hon. members who have followed the proceedings of the select committee will find that at page 407 of those proceedings practically the same provision was advocated by the spokesmen who appeared on behalf of the Amputations Association of Canada. I do not know if my hon. friend wants any further comment than that.


Howard Charles Green: This afternoon I understood the minister to say that he thought the majority of the committee would have preferred a provision which would bring under the insurance principle all those men who were going to go overseas and do the fighting. That was also my impression of the wishes of the committee. Then the minister went on to say that it had been found impossible to draw up a section which would meet that wish. I suggest to the minister that it is only fair that the men who are going to do the fighting should be covered by the insurance principle. I am not urging that the men who will not be going overseas should be so covered, but I do suggest that the men who are going to do the fighting for Canada should be covered while they are in training here, waiting to go overseas. I would urge that the
Pension Act

minister have one more try at drawing up a section to meet that situation, instead of putting into the act an expedient which obviously will meet only a few border-line cases, and which is founded entirely on a hardship basis. I realize the difficulty of drawing up such a section, but I suggest that the minister allow this part of the bill to stand overnight and make one more attempt to draw up a provision that will be more inclusive in its application, and cover the men who are going to do the fighting for this country.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend expressed in the committee the same view that he has expressed this evening; and it is equally true that the committee and its legal advisers explored every possible avenue in seeking a solution along the lines which were then advocated by the hon. member and supported by quite a substantial number of the committee. The language of the subsection we had drafted at that time was as follows:
-on the strength of a unit in Canada in active training for the purpose of service in a theatre of actual war.


Howard Charles Green: -"and in active training for the purpose of service in a theatre of actual war."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 
Howard Charles Green: That means, in plain language, that the easy way out has been taken; because in a search for a formula to meet the obvious requirements of justice for these men the government were unsuccessful. They have found no formula. There must be a point in respect of all of those forces-the navy, the army and the air force-when it will be possible to say that a man is bound for overseas. The provision with regard to the navy is very broad in any event, because the definition of service in a theatre of actual war, so far as the navy is concerned, includes service on the high seas. That means, of course, that practically every man in the navy on board a ship, even on the Canadian coast, would be included.
As for the air force, perhaps for a period during training it is not known who are going overseas and who are not. But there comes a time when it should be possible for departmental officials in one department or another to say that such and such a man will go overseas. I suggest that the same thing should be possible for the army.
Surely we are not going to throw up our hands and fail to give these men adequate protection because so far it has been impossible to find a formula in the English language to cover them. I repeat my suggestion to the minister, namely, that he allow this section to stand overnight, and make one more attempt to work out a section which will meet the requirements.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not
quite appreciate the difficulty the minister has visualized and explained at some length. Does the difficulty lie in the acceptance of a principle or of a set of principles? I never have had any trouble in my practice or in my experience in clothing a principle with language which would be appropriate, intelligible and workable, if I could once define the underlying principle with which I was attempting to deal. I admit at once that I think it would be difficult to find one formula which would cover every class of case to which the minister has referred. I agree that that would be mechanically impossible. I suggest, however, that if the committee, the minister and the department could sit down together and define a certain set of principles covering each category, and have it flexible enough so that when a man departed from one position to another there could be agreement as to the principle of pensionability, and that this could be done at the exact time when a man could move from one category to another, there should be no great difficulty in finding a formula upon which proper administration could be worked out.
Is it suggested that the government's decision that the matter is hopeless, because, after all, that is the minister's position, is based on the theory that the department is of opinion that these men should not be pensioned? Let the minister come out in the open and tell the committee frankly whether it is the considered opinion of the department that men in the army, we shall say, such as have been described by the hon. member for Vancouver South, should not be pensioned at all. If that is the position, then let the minister say so. Could the minister say it?	_
If, however, there is a sincere desire that men in Canada who are training should be given some protection from public funds and under certain properly defined principles- not adhering strictly to the underlying principle, we shall say, of the Workmen's Compensation Act, but rather on the insurability principle, or the absolute principle to which reference was made to-day-I see no great difficulty in finding a formula. The same observations would be true with respect to the navy. I see no great difficulty there at all. The same would apply to the air force.
Some of the men may be in purely administrative positions. For instance, let us say that one young man is a very clever young man working as an accountant in a bank, and desirous of serving his country. Perhaps I can better illustrate my point by a specific case than by a general statement. Let ue
Pension Act

suppose that this young man. comes into the air force, and finds after enlistment, examination and preliminary training that he is not qualified to be an observer or a pilot. Possibly he is too old, or is not satisfactory for actual flying for some other reason. This young man may be transferred to the paymaster's branch. As a matter of fact, I have just such a case in mind. The man I am thinking about is doing wonderful work in auditing, and because of his ability efficiently to perform the service in which he is now engaged he has been promoted.
That man should not, in my opinion, have a pension. I would not be willing to pay him a pension. He is on leave of absence from the bank; and when the war is over, unless in the meantime he drops dead, he will return to his job and receive his promotions in the bank. Certainly he should not have a pension. On the other hand, however, there are large numbers of young men who have enlisted and are looking forward to going overseas.
The point at issue here is this: Should they have a pension if they are injured while training in Canada in anticipation of going overseas? If we can agree on the principle, then I say to the minister that with all the expert draftsmen employed by the government it should not be at all difficult to find a formula. It cannot be done in one formula, and the various categories and classes will have to be dealt with as they arise. I suggest that this is quite possible.
Much would have to be done by regulation. That is why on occasions authorities are given permission to legislate by regulation. They must do so to meet a great diversity of cases relating to one specific subject matter or substance. I say to the minister it would not be impossible for skilled draftsmen to meet such a position, and I must support the hon. member for Vancouver South in his suggestion that the position be reconsidered in the light of the plea which has been made.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A suggestion was made in committee by the hon. member for Vancouver South, and an honest effort was made to discover the possibilities of the suggestion. It was, however, found to be absolutely impracticable, and subsection 3 was evolved as another way of meeting the problem. Because of the difficulties of defining active training, if the insurance principle is to be applied to that group we shall have to take in a much larger group which it was not the intention to take in. It is my considered judgment that this is a better solution of the problem, and I believe it will work out in a fair and equitable manner to all concerned.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the minister has given the answer, that it is feared that a large group would come in under the legislation.


Mr. MACMILLAN:: Not feared.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The idea was that there would be brought under the legislation a large group which it was never desired should be pensioned. The minister is not to be blamed for adopting that attitude, nor can he be blamed for the fact that there would come under the legislation another large group which it was never intended should be pensioned. I illustrated that by the point I made. The minister has fallen back upon what he himself has frankly conceded is a compromise, and I am prepared to accept that if we cannot get the better position. There is just one thought that occurs to me in connection with subsection 3. This is a new principle in pension legislation and something which, I believe, is incorporated in the veterans' allowance act.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is what in England is commonly called the means test. The subsection has merit, and speaking only for myself I am prepared to accept the principle of the means test in the absence of something better. But I say to the minister that the greatest possible care will have to be taken by the commission when it comes to exercise its discretion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I agree entirely.	[DOT]


Richard Burpee Hanson: So far as I am concerned, I hope that if the commission errs, it errs on the side of generosity and does not lean the other way.


Mr. GRAY:: Had the leader of the opposition made his last remarks first, I would not have risen. I agree with him that considerable discretion must be left with the pension commission under subsection 3 of section 6 of the bill. In the first part of his remarks he seemed to be intimating that we had not considered subsection 2 of section 6 in the light of the manner in which that paragraph is now written.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I was not finding fault with anyone; I was trying to be constructive.


Ross Wilfred Gray: If there ever was a section discussed before the committee, it was that one. The hon. member for Vancouver South

Pension Act
and others were most insistent that subsection 2 should be in the bill in this particular manner in order to allow some latitude to the pension commission. As the leader of the opposition has pointed out, subsection 3 gives that latitude. The members of the commission heard the views of the members of the committee, and I have no doubt that they will carry them out. If they do not follow the wishes of that committee, then when the bill comes before us again I shall be glad to follow the lead given by the leader of the opposition.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is an amendment to subsection 3 of section 6, that after the word "may" in line 27 the words "from time to time," be inserted.


Charles Gavan Power: I move accordingly.


Thomas Langton Church: This is an entirely new subsection, and in my opinion it does not meet the new war and is most unwise. We are simply carrying further the exemptions in the old act. The question of various kinds of necessitous circumstances as covered by subsection 3 should be treated as a matter of right and not be left to the discretion of any commission. Parliament should assert itself and make it quite clear that those who serve in his majesty's forces should be given a pension as a right and not because of any ruling by any commission appointed by this parliament. In all cases of necessitous circumstances, keep faith with those who enlist.


Mr. QUELCH:: I was not here this afternoon because I went to Petawawa camp, and therefore I am not familiar with the discussion that took place. I take it that that discussion was on the general principle of the bill, and I shall try to avoid any repetition. I should like, however, to make a few remarks on section 6. First of all, I wish to voice my appreciation of the very fair and efficient manner in which the chairman of the committee conducted its business and also of the services contributed to that committee by the chairman of the pension board. I think the minister has announced the fact that the report was not unanimous. I was not able to agree to a unanimous report because of certain sections in the bill which did not change the principle of the Pension Act. I thought there should have been amendments to correct certain injustices that exist in the act. Consequently my quarrel is not so much with the bill as with certain injustices which exist in the act and which have not been removed by this bill.
Generally speaking, I am in favour of this section. I believe all members will agree with me when I say that this section is a great improvement over the section first submitted to the committee, but it is not as broad as the section was prior to the order in council which was passed last May. At this time I wish to voice strong criticism of the practice of this government of passing orders in council that destroy certain acts which have been passed by parliament, especially when that action is taken during a session. It does not seem to me that that is the democratic way of doing things. At the present time we are engaged in a war between the democracies and the totalitarian states. I deplore the fact that this government is becoming more and more fascist in the way it is dealing with the enactment of legislation in this country.
My main objection to section 6 is the insertion of the word "serious' 'in respect of disability. That leaves a great deal to the discretion of the chairman of the pension board. I know some people will say that, in the past, section 21 of the Pension Act has not worked out satisfactorily. We must, however, remember that, in so far as section 21 is concerned, the words "meritorious" and "compassionate" are used, whilst in this case it is a question of need. Therefore I believe we can fairly well trust the pension board to deal with this matter in a sympathetic way. I do not blame the board for not having dealt with section 21 in a more satisfactory manner. The case was definitely defined in that section as to be of a "meritorious" character, and therefore their discretion was limited.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I inform my hon. friend that last year, under section 21, of all applications recorded, sixty-nine were granted and eighty-eight rejected.


Victor Quelch: That shows that quite a
number were rejected, and I take it that the reason for their rejection was the use of that word "meritorious." Had it not been in the section, perhaps those eighty-eight would also have received favourable treatment. I believe the minister will agree that there has been a great deal of criticism of section 21.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In the early days.


Victor Quelch: In the early days! Well,
people got so disheartened "in the early days" that I suppose they ceased to expect very much consideration any longer, under that section.


An hon. MEMBER:: And they died.

Pension Act


Victor Quelch: Yes, and they died. It was then too late for them to get consideration.
So far as this section is concerned, I do not believe that our returned men will suffer the same unfavourable treatment as they received under section 21, because in so far as the War Veterans' Allowance Act is concerned, the question of need has been dealt with very fairly.
I rose in my place simply to say that in so far as this section is concerned, I regard it as a great improvement upon the section as it was in the bill referred to the committee, but I wish to remind hon. members that it is not as broad as the section stood before the declaration of war and before the order in council was passed. Therefore we are not giving the soldiers anything by this section. All the committee has succeeded in doing is to remove a great injustice which was brought about when the order in council was passed last year. We are very nearly back to where we were upon the declaration of war. This section, however, at least guarantees that all soldiers and their dependents who are in need will get sympathetic consideration.


James Arthur Ross: I agree with the last speaker, at least to some extent. This is a step in the right direction, but as I said in committee, I do not believe it goes far enough. While I have some sympathy with the minister in the difficulties he has encountered in drafting the section, I still believe that it could be improved. The difficulties go farther back; they are inherent, as I have indicated to the Minister of National Defence, in the organization of our Canadian armies. We have two distinct armies, and I believe it was the opinion of the committee that this country should feel a deeper responsibility towards those who are going overseas to fight than to the members of the reserve army. That being the situation, there is quite a distinction between the organization of our active service force and that of the reserve army. I have never felt satisfied that, if we should have a sudden call for large reinforcements, our reserve army would be suitable to take the place of those reinforcements. The difficulty with which the Minister of Pensions and National Health is confronted is that he cannot so draft the section as to provide for this condition. We wish to provide for all those who are training in this country at this time for active service. They are interlocked; members of the staff are transferred back and forth, so that the situation cannot be properly covered.
I am still of opinion that the minister might well let the section stand until to-morrow 
and try, with his experts, to find some way of redrafting it in order to cover the ease of those people who should1 not have to apply as, so to speak, a matter of charity. The expression here is "necessitous circumstances." People who may sustain some injury while training to go overseas on active service should not feel in duty bound to apply for provision for their wives and children, almost as a matter of charity-which is what seems to be conveyed by the present wording of the section. Surely the minister can overcome this.


Thomas Vien: I should like to draw the attention of the committee to the amendment, so that it will be well understood. It is moved by Mr. Power:
That subsection 3 of section 6 be amended as follows:
In lines 26 and 27, drop the words "from time to time". In line 27, after the word "may" insert the words "from time to time."
So that the concluding part of the subsection will read:
. . . not exceeding the rates payable under schedules A or B to this act, as it may from time to time deem to be adequate in the circumstances.
Shall the section as amended carry?


Howard Charles Green: I doubt very much whether the minister would question at all the submission that a man in the third division-using that as an example-should be covered by the insurance or "incurred-on" principle. I should like to know whether or not he questions that submission.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have already informed the committee that as soon as it was suggested that, according to the phraseology which has developed in the committee, provision be made for those in active training for the purpose of proceeding to a theatre of actual war, for three days I explored the whole situation with legal advisers and officials of the department. It came up to the select committee on three different occasions; it was most thoroughly and exhaustively discussed, and I am convinced that the solution now before this committee of the whole is the only one which is practicable and reasonable in the circumstances.


Howard Charles Green: What I should like to know is whether the minister does or does not think that the men of the third division should be covered by the "incurred-on" or insurance principle while they are in Canada waiting to go overseas.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think the question which my hon. friend asks me, whether applicable to the third or

Pension Act
the fourth division, or the armoured division, or the tank brigade, is one which it is as reasonable for me to ask him. Does he believe that all those in sedentary occupations throughout Canada, with very little prospect of overseas service, should be covered?


Howard Charles Green: I am willing to answer that question with a simple "no", but the minister is not willing to answer my question by a "yes" or a "no".


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My whole contention has been, and I believe the conclusion of the committee was definitely, that the line of demarcation could not be drawn. It is not that the committee did not explore it; it is not that I did not explore it with the best legal opinion. The solution suggested by my hon. friend was found to be impracticable, and I still submit that this subsection 3 may be reasonably said to meet every possible situation.


Howard Charles Green: The new subsection 3 will meet only a very few cases of hardship, cases based on necessitous circumstances. The minister is willing to give the pension commission discretion to decide what is or is not a serious disability-which in effect gives them a very wide discretion. He is willing to give them discretion to decide whether the man or his widow is in necessitous circumstances-which again is a very wide discretion; it could not be much wider. I suggest that he would not be going nearly so far if he gave them the discretion to decide whether or not that man was in training for service overseas; in other words, was about to go overseas.
I see that the Minister of National Defence for Air is sitting with the Minister of Pensions and National Health; as we all know, the former is an expert on pension problems, having been previously minister of pensions and, I must say, a very good minister. I would suggest that these two ministers collaborate for an hour or two to-night or to-morrow morning. If they will do that, I am confident a section can be worked out to meet the requirements and to provide what I am quite certain the majority of the members of the house and of the Canadian people would wish to see put into the law.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Will the hon. member admit that he presented that forcibly before the committee?


Howard Charles Green: I am too bashful to make such an admission.


Mr. CLEAVER:: And will he admit that he was repeatedly asked himself to draft a clause that would cover it?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not his duty.


Howard Charles Green: It is not my duty to draft clauses. I am willing to help. We met in committee and we heard the statement, "We cannot draw a section; there is no use in trying further. We shall have to adopt this alternative." The hon. member for Halton might sit in with the two ministers and help. There should be no such thing as failing to protect the forces because of inability to state in proper language a provision that would meet the requirements. It should not be said that the minister and the officials of the department have not the ability to draw a section in proper language.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Will the hon. member admit that this was the best section we could possibly draft?


Howard Charles Green: No; I will not admit that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is a compromise, because the minister is not willing to go the whole length in principle, as advocated.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is the truth.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes; that is correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If he will not change his mind, I shall not take the time of the committee to urge him to do so.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: There is one difficulty that confronts me, and to illustrate my point I shall refer to two units that have recently been transferred to a section of the country from which the minister comes-Nanaimo. These men, notwithstanding anything the minister may say-and I am not casting reflections on the efforts of the committee-were enlisted twelve or fourteen months ago for overseas service. That was definitely intimated to them when they enlisted. Just before they left for the western coast they considered that they were part and parcel of the overseas units, and when this reaches them it does not fit in very well with the announcement we had on the radio to-night with regard to the urgent need for 32,000 men; for in a sense we have broken faith with these men, because all along they have considered themselves-and I know, because I visited the camps frequently-as a part of the overseas units.


Clarence Gillis: Either a good many people are twisted in their thinking on this section, or I am. I am, therefore, going to try to find out. I cannot understand the reasoning of the hon. member for Vancouver South so far as this section is concerned. To begin with,
319S
Pension Act

any man serving in Canada at the present time is protected under this bill against anything that may happen to him in the course of his duties. He has complete protection.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Under subsection 2.


Clarence Gillis: Exactly. If, as the hon. member advocates, complete protection for everyone in Canada who has enlisted for overseas is included, the provision is, in my opinion, restricted 50 per cent, compared with the section as now written, because by his suggestion protection would be given to a large number of people who hold office jobs and who have no intention of going overseas.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member misquotes me. I did not say everyone enlisting for active service. I said, in training for service overseas.


Clarence Gillis: I would construe it as meaning in training for service overseas. On the other hand, the problem we are trying to deal with, and at which this clause is aimed, being a step in the right direction, is the safeguarding of those people who cannot protect themselves, the men serving in Canada. Such a man goes out and something happens to him not in the line of duty. He is not protected except under this clause, which gives protection to his family if they are in necessitous circumstances. In the final analysis, that is why pension laws are enacted. It is to protect those who stand in need of protection. If something happened to the man who left his widow $25,000 or $30,000 or $50,000, under the meritorious clause, if he had won medals, she was entitled to consideration. The man who left his wife destitute was entitled to none. This clause protects the very people who need protection at the present time, but if you word it as the hon. member for Vancouver South wishes to have it worded, unless a man is in training for active service overseas, the protection will not be given.
I can construe that in another way. In my opinion it means a lever for conscription. You are telling the man serving in Canada that unless he is prepared to volunteer for overseas service you are going to hold a gun at his head. In order to get full protection he must volunteer for overseas service. But you still leave without protection a large percentage of people whom you must protect under any pension legislation, namely, the family who are left without any means at all.
So far as I am concerned, after hearing this clause discussed in committee and studying it myself, and having some experience in pension matters, I regard this provision as a simplification of the problem we have to handle now TMr. Gillis.]
and in the aftermath of the war. It protects the man whom I have heard mentioned many times-the man who goes on leave and is killed. It cannot be related to his military functions and, in consequence, his family are left destitute. Under the old act nothing could be done for such a man; under the bill as the hon. member for Vancouver South would have it worded nothing could be done for him; but under this section there are discretionary powers in the chairman of the commission and he can do something in such a case. I may be stupid, or I may be twisted in my thinking, but that is how I see this particular provision. I cannot understand the other angle.


Howard Charles Green: I should not like the hon. member to think I am against this subsection. I believe it covers a certain number of cases as it stands, and I do not wish to have them deprived of the rights they get here. At the same time, I suggest that there should be more ample provision for the other class, the men who are in training for service to do the fighting. I would not wish to be taken as wanting to take away the rights given here to the other groups.


Thomas Langton Church: Would the two ministers allow the section to stand until to-morrow and broaden it out? The government is looking for recruits, and this question is a vital point at the present time to a number of men. They want to know whether faith will be kept with them in the future, because with them, as I see it-and I have had a great deal to do with them-security is better than opulence, and they want to be assured of security. This is an important time, when every member has been asked to help in the coming campaign, which we trust will be successful, and I hope that nothing will be done to detract from its success. This is an all-important clause to service fighting men in training. I would respectfully suggest to the two ministers that something should be done to broaden out the clause and clarify it. Section agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
On section 8-When pension disability not to be awarded.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If a returned soldier of the great war has not made application for pension up to the present but now considers that he is suffering from war disability and is so advised by his physician, and perhaps further because of his mentality he had refused earlier to make application, can he now apply, or is it too late?

Pension Act


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think the select committee of 1936 fixed this time limit of 1936 for service in Canada only. In the same section in Bill No. 17 as introduced there was a deadline of 1942 for those who served overseas, except that application could be made after that date in the discretion of the commissioners. This committee abolished that deadline for service overseas in the great war and has not yet inserted any deadline for application for pensions in this war, but of course some day parliament will have to meet the situation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 9 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
On section 13-Pensions continued to minor children on death of wife.
Victor Quelch: This section has an undesirable feature. It reads:
.	. . and further provided that in cases in
which the pensioner in question is pensioned in respect of service during the great war, such children were born prior to the 1st day of May, 1933.
That is, for children bom after April 30, 1933, no allowance will be made. It has been said that the committee was unanimous as to that date being inserted. But we understand that there was a kind of compromise brought about-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I correct my hon. friend? There was a committee during the year when this provision was inserted, but this particular aspect was never considered by the main committee. This provision was inserted after a private conference with the Minister of Finance and those who represented the veterans of Canada.


Victor Quelch: Will the minister tell the committee why those leaders of the men agreed to that clause? Was it not a compromise; was it not stated that there would be a reduction in pensions, and in order that that reduction should not be made, the representatives of the soldiers agreed to this? The minister should state the full facts. The soldiers at that time were not in favour of this clause but were forced to accept it in order to avoid a greater evil being enacted.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I read from the House of Commons debates of May 12, 1933, at page 4951:
Mr. MacLaren: The committee will remember that some days ago the Minister of Finance referred to an agreement which had been reached with the associated veterans to the effect that no further additions should be made to the list of pensioners by way of marriages and births after May 1. As a result I am asking the Minister of Trade and Commerce
to move that the bill he amended, and I may say to hon. gentlemen that this amendment has been submitted by the Minister of Finance to representatives of the associated veterans, and they have expressed their satisfaction with it. The amendment is as fallows:
Then the amendment follows in detail.
Mr. Rhodes:	Perhaps I might confirm the
statement made by the minister to the effect that this is the amendment which was submitted to and accepted by the representatives of the associated veterans whom I saw, headed by the president of the legion, Major Roper.
Mr. Rhodes was the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver): I have no particular objection to this amendment-
I was on the committee.
-because of what the minister stated, but I do think this very important amendment might have been submitted to the committee which devoted several laborious days to the consideration of the other clauses. I am scarcely in a position to comprehend at once the significance of the amendment.
Mr. Rhodes:	It was purely a question of
procedure; this had not been referred to the committee and it would have required a fresh reference from this house. Otherwise that would have been done.
Then on April 24, 1933, as reported at page 4191, Mr. Rhodes said:
The whole position has been the subject of careful review at two conferences, the first held on March 24, and the second on April 19. At these conferences the following were present, representing their respective organizations:
Major John S. Roper, M.C., K.C., President, Canadian Legion, British Empire Service League; Mr. J. R. Bowler, Canadian Legion, British Empire Service League; Mr. Richard Hale, representing tuberculous reference section, Canadian Legion; Colonel W. C. H. Wood, Captain C. P. Gilman, Doctor P. B. Mellon, representing army and navy veterans in Canada; Mr. Frank G. J. McDonagh, representing Canadian Pensioners' Association of the Great War; Captain (Reverend) Sydney E. Lambert, Dominion President of the Amputations Association of the Great War; Captain E. A. Baker, M.C., representing the Sir Arthur Pearson Club of Blinded Soldiers and Sailors; Mr. Richard Myers, representing Amputations Association of the Great War.


Clarence Gillis: I also wish as a member of
the committee to register my objection to this clause. As the minister points out, at the time this particular matter was decided by the government of the day the decision was not satisfactory to the veterans. I happened at that time to be an officer of one veterans' organization, and I know there were mass meetings called over the section of the country where I lived, in protest against these arrangements. As I remember, the Minister of Finance at that time had decided that all men who were civil servants and exservicemen in receipt of pension had the alternative of discontinuing their pension or
Pension Act

losing their job or taking a reduction in salary which the pension would augment and level up to the salary paid for that position at that time. The heads of the veterans' organizations had to accept one or the other, either bow to the mandate of the Minister of Finance or relinquish the matter under discussion. That matter was strenuously protested, and there is still great resentment in the veterans' organizations over the action taken at that time. The reason given for it at the time was that it was in the interests of economy, that money had to be saved, and so forth. If this clause should go through now without discussion, the country would be led to believe that the veterans were favourable to this change. They were not. The heads of the association were forced into a corner and had to do one thing or the other. The veterans as a whole were sacrificed in order to protect their comrades who were members of the civil service organization across the country. As one member of the committee I object to this, and I think the former position should be restored. This clause is an injustice to the ex-servicemen. Let us say you are a pensioner; you have three or four children; two of them are pensioned; two more sit at the same table, but there is nothing for them. In the final analysis the pension is paid not only for the purpose of compensating a man for wounds received or disability suffered but for the purpose of augmenting his income so that he can provide for his family. As the years go by, a man who has a war disability finds that disability becoming greater; his earning power is decreasing; he is more in need of assistance to maintain his family to-day than in 1920 or 1923. This clause should be seriously considered. I do not think it means much additional expenditure. The children are dropping off, and the few who would come on from now on would make very little additional outlay. I object to this going through. It should be reconsidered.


James Arthur Ross: I am very much
opposed to that deadline. I discussed it this afternoon and I wish again now to state my position. I do not think there should be any deadline at all; it is a discrimination against those children bom after that date. I do not wish to weary the committee, but I just register my objection.


Howard Charles Green: Is it not a fact that every
returned soldiers' organization which made representations before the committee with regard to these children born after May 1, 1933, urged that the deadline be withdrawn and that the pensioners be allowed to draw that allowance for these children?
[Mr. Gillis.l


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes; I think that has been the situation on several occasions in this and previous committees.


Victor Quelch: This clause was the main
reason for the failure to get a unanimous report from the committee. This is the clause on which we chiefly disagreed. The hon. member for Cape Breton South has pointed out that various soldiers' organizations accepted this as the lesser of two evils, but they were not in favour of it, as the minister would lead the committee to believe.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Clarence Gillis: Certainly that was the
impression I got.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I just read the record.


Clarence Gillis: I wish to point out that this is rank discrimination against many of the younger soldiers of the last war. Why should we say to a man who enlisted towards the end of the war, when perhaps only eighteen years of age, that we will not give him any allowance for any children born after 1933? If this section is carried, what will happen in future? It is true that we have removed the deadline so far as the soldiers of this war are concerned, but future committees will be told this house was in agreement as to a deadline for the soldiers of the last war; and that being so, they will say, "Well, we should also have the same thing for the soldiers of this war." We have been told that at least the deadline has been removed in connection with soldiers of this war and that, therefore, we have made some advance; but it seems to me that we are doing that with our tongues in our cheeks, because we know very well that we shall have plenty of time within the next ten years in which to put back that deadline. I wish to register my protest as strongly as possible against this action being taken at this time.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any reason for maintaining this deadline against these children, other than reasons of economy?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is the reason which I stated before the committee. This has been in force now for eight years. Between 1933 and 1939 would have been the proper time to lift it, if at all; and in the opinion of the government this is not the proper time for that step to be taken.


Howard Charles Green: Of course the minister knows that ever since 1935 we have been trying, without success, to have the deadline lifted.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

Pension Act
On section 14-Pensions for pulmonary tuberculosis.
John Ritchie MacNicol: This section deals with pensions for pulmonary tuberculosis. In my contact with a great number of veterans' cases for some yiears now, I have found that many of them were suffering from tuberculosis to a greater or lesser degree but that in many instances it was impossible for them to establish that their tuberculosis was due to the war. I have often thought, and I wish to say here, that very few doctors could say definitely that a man who during the great war stood daily in the trenches for weeks at a time up his knees in water, mud, blood and muck, and who later contracted tuberculosis, did not suffer from that disease as a result of his service in the great war. I have in mind the case of two brothers who came from Scotland. They came from a strong, rugged, healthy family in the highlands, and following the war both contracted tuberculosis. Both of them fought for pensions for several years but were always told that their tuberculosis did not relate to war service; finally one died. The other brother is now in hospital suffering from the same disease. I hope that from now on more consideration and more benefit of the doubt will be given such poor fellows who came back from the great war only to be taken with tuberculosis.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I entirely agree with my hon. friend. In a word, this section simply applies to the present war the principles that were embodied in the old act. It has been examined by the tubercular veterans' association, and they approve the wording.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 15 agreed to.
On section 16-Widow of a pensioner entitlement.
Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain the new provision with regard to the limitation on the payment of pensions to widows of members of the new forces?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does my hon. friend mean the marriage provision?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Section 16 is intended to prevent what are called death-bed marriages. This provision is very much wider than that which was embodied in the pension legislation immediately after the great war in relation to those who were overseas at that time, but there is
contained in this section a new provision which will be found on page 13 of the bill, in subsections 1 and 2. That provision is that if the death of the husband has occurred more than one year subsequently to the date of marriage the widow is entitled to pension; and even if the death of the husband occurred less than one year subsequent to the date of marriage she is entitled to pension if the commission is of opinion that at the time of marriage he had a reasonable expectation of surviving at least one year thereafter. In the previous bill there was a deadline limitation which was deleted by the committee. Therefore this is the only restriction, and it is applicable only to what might be called deathbed marriages immediately after the war. This would not meet the problem we had previously with regard to what were called old-man marriages, which is a problem yet to be dealt with.


Victor Quelch: Would the minister make a statement with regard to widows' pensions. As hon. members are aware, to-day there is a great public demand for pensions-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend was out of the house this afternoon, attending to his duties elsewhere, when this question came up. That matter is still before a select committee of the house, which committee may or may not bring in a report with regard to it. Therefore it is not in order to discuss that subject in committee of the whole at this time.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Do I understand that subsection 2 applies only to widows of soldiers who in their lifetime drew more than 50 per cent pension?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Therefore, if I asked a question with reference to widows of soldiers who drew less than 50 per cent pension, I would be out of order?


Clarence Gillis: Perhaps the minister would answer a question for me having to do with subsection 4, which deals with divorces. According to this subsection, the woman is protected in a case of divorce. I have in mind a divorce granted in the United States. The mhn resides in Canada, and he marries again. If my information is correct, under Canadian law he cannot obtain a pension for his second wife without going through the legal machinery of Canada with respect to divorce. Is that correct?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This subsection deals with the conditions under which a divorced or separated wife may
Pension Act

obtain a pension. The principle is that alimony or an alimentary allowance shall have existed. The amendment is intended to clarify and broaden the present wording. The original act mentioned wives who had been divorced or legally separated. The amendment adds women who have been separated by agreement. This is necessary because of differences of legal interpretation as between judicial and agreed separations.


Clarence Gillis: Then do I understand that a United States divorce is recognized?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My information is that if the man was domiciled in the United States and obtained his divorce there, he would be protected.


Clarence Gillis: The question I had in mind was this: A man resides in Canada; his wife goes to the United States and divorces him; he marries again in Canada. The second wife cannot get a pension unless he puts in motion the legal machinery of Canadian law, and goes through divorce proceedings in this country. Is that correct?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Clarence Gillis: We would have to change the laws of the country to solve the problem I have in mind?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Clarence Gillis: I will take that up with the Minister of Justice.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 17 agreed to.
On section 18-Supplementary pension on disability of members of his majesty's forces other than those of Canada.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Are we still on section 16?


Thomas Vien: No; we are on section 18.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to compliment the chairman upon the expeditious way in which he deals with the sections of the bill, and in what I am about to say I shall not hold up the committee. I had, however, asked a question on section 16, and I have not yet received an answer. I had asked about widows of soldiers who in their lifetime drew less than fifty per cent pension.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes; they constitute one of the four categories included in the representations made by the Canadian Legion to the select committee. They are not affected at all by this section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 19 agreed to.

On section 20-Benefits of act extended.
Howard Charles Green: This afternoon mention was made of the difficulties facing a Canadian serving in the Royal Air Force who must establish his right to pension under the pension laws of Great Britain. As I said this afternoon, all of the young Canadians serving under the British commonwealth training plan are to be pensioned under the British rather than the Canadian law. What steps has the minister taken or what steps will he take to make the situation one whereby these airmen may apply for pensions in Canada and prove their cases here without having to prove them in Great Britain? It would make it extremely difficult for them if it were necessary to establish entitlement to pension in London, for instance, rather than in Ottawa.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This matter was discussed in the select committee, and for some time has been discussed by veterans' organizations. The situation is that whereas we are supplementing the quantum of pension to the Canadian, there are certain benefits attendant upon Canadian pensions which are not attendant upon imperial pensions. We could not remedy the existing condition by legislation, but I believe that negotiations can be commenced with the British pensions ministry by which they could either allow us to decide upon the basis of entitlement, according to provisions in the Canadian Pension Act, or failing that, send a representative over here to sit with our pension commission to decide upon the cases involved. In any event I promise my hon. friend that immediately after the session is concluded I shall commence these negotiations.
.Mr. GREEN: Would an airman who went over to serve with the Royal Air Force before the war and who crashed a week or two before war broke out be covered by this section?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not think so. The intention of inserting a clause containing a provision for four years before the war was the result of a discussion which took place on second reading of the bill in the house. Hon. members will recall that many of our Canadians took short service commissions with the intention, after four years of service with the Royal Air Force, of coming back to Canada and residing in this countiy. I do not believe the case mentioned by my hon. friend would be covered by the section as it is now drafted. The reason is, of course, that this act is designed mostly to deal with the war itself.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister not think it would be wise to extend the provisions to cover those whom I have mentioned?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

Export of Game
On section 21-Repeal.
James Arthur Ross: This gives power to the commission to rule on almost any case not covered in the act?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No. Section 21 repeals only some rather archaic provisions in the act which are no longer in force.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 22-When certain pensions not payable.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I would make one last plea to the minister to do all in his power to see to it that widows of soldiers who have died and who during their lifetime drew less than 50 per cent pension, receive some consideration as speedily as possible. Apparently there is nothing in the act under which they may have relief. The whole committee is, however, unanimous that they should receive some consideration. I hope the minister will take that fact into consideration and provide something for those non-pensioned widows who have lost their husbands, which husbands during their lifetime received pensions.


Howard Charles Green: It would be well to place on record the fact that many of the members of the committee are opposed to this section for the same reason that they are opposed to certain other sections, namely, that it prevents a pensioner from receiving an allowance for his wife if married after May 1, 1933, and for any child bom after that date.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I understand that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 23 and 24 agreed to.
Bill reported.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 1, consideration in committee of Bill No. 16, to control the export of game-Mr. Crerar-Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 5-Oath of game officer.
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to section 5. Hon. members will recall that when the bill was in committee before, objections were raised to several sections. Those sections have been carefully reconsidered, and while the bill in the form
in which it was introduced had been approved by the provinces, we feel certain they will not object to the amendments I now propose to offer to the sections indicated.
Strong exception was taken to the provision in subsection 2 of section 5 which endowed police constables with the powers of magistrates. It was pointed out that such constables might lay informations, and these conceivably, might try such cases. The amendment I have to propose is that subjection 2 of section 5 be amended by striking out all the words after "constable" in the third line thereof.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I move accordingly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The effect of this amendment will be to remove the objection which some hon. members had to this bill, and I think it should be acceptable to the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 8-Search warrant.
Thomas Alexander Crerar: When this section was
under consideration before, it was suggested that before proceedings were taken, an information should be laid. In order to meet this objection, I shall ask my colleague to move that section 8 be amended by adding after the word "satisfied" in the first line thereof the words "by information."


Pierre-François Casgrain: I move accordingly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think
this amendment will adequately meet the objections raised on the previous occasion. An information must be in writing, and it would be under oath, and, therefore, much more regular. I commend this amendment to the consideration of the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 10-Information and complaint.
Thomas Alexander Crerar: I shall ask my colleague to move that this section be struck out.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I move accordingly.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury:	I must
congratulate the minister upon this amendment. The general provisions of the law will now be in force and effect in connection with prosecutions under the act, and there will be no exceptions as was contemplated by the provisions of this section. If this section had come into effect, it would have meant that there might be any number of complaints for any number of matters, whereas
Export of Game

the general practice is one matter of complaint, one information, one charge and one conviction.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
On section 12-Fines cumulative.
Thomas Alexander Crerar: There is an amendment to this section. As it appears in the bill it indicates clearly that the penalties imposed shall be computed in respect of each such article, as though each such article had been the subject of a separate complaint. I shall ask my colleague to move:
That section 12 be amended by the insertion at the beginning thereof of the following words: "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in section 11 hereof contained";
and that the word "shall" in the second line be changed to "may";
and that there be added after the word "shall" in the fifth line the word "then".


Pierre-François Casgrain: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 13-Bringing into force by proclamation.
Thomas Alexander Crerar: There is an amendment to section 13 which I think clarifies matters in accordance with the suggestions made when the section was under consideration in committee before. I shall ask my colleague to move:
That section 13, subsection 1, be amended by striking out the words "as often as occasion requires" in the first and second lines thereof, and substituting therefor the words "when requested by any province so to do," and by striking out the word "any" in the fourth line thereof and substituting therefor the word "the".
This makes it operative at the request of the province.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
. Mr. CRERAR: There is another amendment to this section. It will be recalled that exception was taken to subsection 2. When the matter was under discussion, one hon. member vividly expressed things by saying that the legislation would be on again, off again. In order to meet that objection, I shall ask my colleague to move:
That subsection 2 of section 13 be struck out and the subsection renumbered accordingly.
Pierre-François Casgrain: I move accordingly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I agree with^ this. I have no doubt the minister is cognizant of the fact that should this section
[Mr. R. .B. Hanson.J
pass as it now stands, the act would be in force in any province as soon as proclamation was made and remain the law until repealed by statute; it could not be removed by proclamation.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is quite right.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved the second reading of Bill No. 24, to amend the Indian Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 1-Regulations controlling the buying of wild animals and skins from Indians.
Richard Burpee Hanson: This bill has not previously been before the committee of the whole?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister make just a brief explanation? I do not believe I have had an opportunity of looking at this bill.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: When the bill was first introduced I made a brief explanation of its purpose. It is intended to provide a measure of protection to Indians in the more remote parts of the country in the sale of their fur catch. Practices have developed, particularly in recent years, whereby traders, often more or less unscrupulous in character, journey to the remoter reserves, usually by aeroplane, at the time the Indians have their fur for sale. The Indian is not fully aware of the value of his fur, and the result is that often he disposes of it at prices very much below what it is worth. It is sought by this measure to bring such trading under proper control, by providing that the governor in council may, on the recommendation of the Indian affairs administration, create regulations which shall cover such traders, and under the regulations permits to trade will be provided before such traders can go to these remote reserves and do their bargaining with the Indians. It is intended, further, that the regulations shall provide that traders shall make a report to the Indian affairs administration of the furs they purchase and of the price they have paid

Export of Game
for them. In that way we can bring about a measure of control which to-day is very badly needed.
The importance of this measure will be apparent to the committee when I say that practically one-third of the Indian population of Canada, which now numbers approximately 118,000 or 119,000, lives in the more remote parts of the various provinces, particularly Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, and in the Northwest Territories. These Indians have no means of subsistence other than their fur catch. It is consequently to them, and:, I might add, to the government, a matter of great importance that as far as possible they shall secure the full value of their fur catch.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They are supposed to be self-supporting?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In order, as the leader of the opposition has interjected, that they may become as far as possible self-supporting. To the extent that that can be brought about, their dependence upon government assistance in the way of relief is reduced. That, briefly, is the purpose of this measure.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have no intention of delaying the measure because we are going to 'adjourn in a moment. On the face of it, this is a very fair proposal. It is intended, of course, to assist the Indians by preventing unfair dealings. I am just wondering whether in line 9 of the bill, in view of the minister's explanation and in view of the explanatory notes, and the provisions of sections 40 and 41, the word "prohibit" is necessary, because the whole context looks to control, not to prohibition. It seems to me, having regard to what has been said, that the section might read:
The governor in council may make regulations to control the buying or otherwise acquiring from any Indian. . . .
The word "prohibit" does not seem to be consistent with the text of the section or intended to be in the section. According to the explanatory note, there is provision now under sections 40 and 41 of the Indian Act to "prohibit the buying or acquiring from any band or irregular band of Indians or from any Indian of any cattle, other animals, grain, root crops or other produce on reserves" in certain provinces "without the written consent of the Indian agent." This amendment does not purport to go that far. I suggest that the draftsman has unnecessarily inserted the word "prohibit," because apparently it is not intended to prohibit; it is intended to control. The regulations visualized by the succeeding portions of subsection 1 are regulations looking to control, not to prohibition.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Practically the same provision obtains now on certain reserves. Indeed, I believe that on all reserves in the prairie provinces, Indians who acquire property in the way of cattle or horses are prohibited from selling them except under conditions laid down under the act. I do not think any harm will be done by leaving the clause as it is. I can scarcely imagine circumstances where prohibition would be enforced; but there might be a trading company, for instance, whose practices had become so notoriously bad that an order would be issued to the effect that they could no longer, or for a certain period, trade with a certain band of Indians.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then, of
course, under section 42A (1) the agent just withholds his permit. That would take care of that situation.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Sections 40 and 41 entirely prohibit the buying or acquiring from any band or irregular band of Indians of any cattle or other animals, grain, roots and other commodities.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Without
the written consent of the agent.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have not looked up in
Hansard the discussion which took place when these sections were incorporated in the Indian Act. I believe it is a fair presumption that they were placed there to put a ban on traders who might persistently and systematically be defrauding the Indians. I should prefer to have the section remain as it is. The committee may rest assured that the administration will be wisely carried out.
I have an amendment to subsection 5 of section 42A. Subsection 5 of that section reads:
Every order made by the superintendent general under the provisions of this section shall be published in the Canada Gazette.
Regulations will be promulgated to give effect to the act, and I think it is desirable that the regulations should also be published in the Gazette. I will therefore ask my colleague to move the necessary amendment.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I move that subsection 5 of section 42A be amended by inserting, at its beginning, the words: "The regulations made by the governor in council and." The subsection will then read:
The regulations made by the governor in council and every order made by the superintendent general under the provisions of this section shall be published in the Canada Gazette.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The Late Hermas Deslauriers


[Stage Direction]
Mr. CRERAR moved the adjournment of the house.
He said: The understanding was that the house would adjourn at a quarter past ten to give hon. members an opportunity to listen to the radio address shortly to be given by the President of the United States.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.15 p.m.
Wednesday, May 28, 1941.