1944-06-14

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of bill No. 83. to establish a department of veterans' affairs.
Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Well, Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the arrangement was that on the motion for second reading the Prime Minister would make some introductory remarks, and then that the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) would make a statement. I rise only to draw attention to that understanding.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I think my hon. friend is misinformed in respect of any understanding. WThen the resolution was before the house the minister made a lengthy statement respecting the measure. I too made a statement at the time. That was on April 17. At that time 'it was made clear that the bill was introduced for the purpose of establishing a new department of government, and I think all agreed on the principle. In committee the Minister of Pensions and National Health, who had most to do with the preparation of the bill, and who indeed some time ago suggested the creation of the department, took charge of it, and made a full statement.


Gordon Graydon: I have no desire to urge my understanding in the matter. I do know however that some members are prepared to speak on the motion for second reading, and I understood that because of that the minister wished to make a statement before those speeches were made. That is the reason I raised the point.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the hon. member not want the motion for second reading to pass at once?


Gordon Graydon: That is it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If any members wish to speak on the second reading, they should feel free to do so. Probably the house will excuse me, as I find it necessary
to attend a meeting of the war committee. I came in only to be present at the opening, and to move second reading.


Gordon Graydon: The arrangement we made was that the Prime Minister would not have to be here.


Thomas Vien: Then the motion is for second reading.


Mr. JAMES SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, my first speech upon returning to this house from overseas was in respect to veterans' affairs, so that perhaps it is only fitting that my last speech before returning to service should also be on the same subject. I am grateful to the air force for not only giving me very generous leave, but extending it so that I can discuss this bill.
I am most heartily in favour of the consolidation into one department of all branches of government activity relating to soldiers' affairs. Nothing is more disheartening to persons seeking information or help from the government than to be passed from department to department to department. That is what now happens in connection with veterans' affairs, which are now handled by five departments. When the new department is established every ex-service man in Canada will know exactly where to apply for help or for assistance. Such consolidation will also make possible something which every veteran believes highly desirable, namely, that all the officials of the department shall be returned soldiers who know the affairs and circumstances of returned soldiers.
One thing that concerns me somewhat in respect of the new department is its name. It is to be known as the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Since the last war the word "veteran" has been used a great deal in Canada, and as the years have passed there has attached to it an association of age and disability. Yet the greatest part of the work of this new department will be for men who are neither aged nor disabled. On the contrary they will be the youngest and most vigorous of our manhood. The dictionary confirms this definition of the word "veteran". I do not know whether a more applicable single word exists. "Ex-service men" is too much of a mouthful, and "soldiers" is not applicable as they are no longer soldiers when the new department takes over their affairs. While accepting the name "Veterans' Affairs", I sincerely hope there will be nothing aged or disabled about the approach by the new department to its work. In this connection I feel it most important that the department
Department of Veterans' Affairs

recruit a considerable percentage of its officials from among the young veterans of this war. I am not referring to the brass hats; rather I have in mind the junior officers and men in the ranks, men with a fresh and sympathetic approach to the problems of the new veterans.
Most of the officials of the present department of Pensions and National Health have been handling veterans' affairs for the last twenty-five years, and are pretty well set and hardened in their ways. Some time ago the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) announced retirements from his service of senior air officers, so as to keep his air force "young, virile and dynamic." I think that this principle would be most desirable in the new department of veterans' affairs.
I intend now to comment briefly on some phases of the activities of the new department. I did not enter into the debate when the pensions estimates were before the house, because I felt I could add nothing to what was being done so well by senior members in all parts of the house. Most of those members who did speak were old returned soldiers themselves, and have been fighting the cause of the old soldier in parliament and through veterans' associations for the last twenty-five years. Most of them know the Pension Act line by line.
I have found, and I am sure most hon. members have found that the most distressing part of our duty is that of dealing with pension cases. Members of parliament get those cases only as a last resort, when all other processes have failed. It is perhaps only natural that we should have few successes in these cases. I find it particularly heart-breaking to have to write to men who, I know, are aged, disabled or crippled, men- who, in the prime of their lives, offered everything to their country, life itself, and tell them that they have been denied that pittance which would mean security to them in their time of need. It is not as though any great saving were effected by this policy, because these men generally have to be supported by public funds, from some source or another. How much better, for the self-respect of these men and of their dependents, and, what is more, how much better for our self-respect as Canadians, that they receive this help as a right, in gratitude for their services and not as public relief or private charity because we are too Christian to see them starve.
I do not wish this to be taken as too broad a criticism of the Department of Pensions and National Health. I know our legislation is as good as any in effect anywhere. I know that for every one of these pitiful borderline cases the department handles hundreds of cases success-

fully, and about which we hear nothing. This merely adds weight to my observation that it is so petty to be niggardly to so few because the cost would be so little, especially at a time when we think nothing of spending billions for the implements of warfare. Yet we are hesitant about spending just a little more to bring security to the few casualties of warfare whose disabilities cannot quite be proven to come within the scope of our present pensions legislation.
Whenever I get too despondent about how impotent my efforts are in these cases I think about the load carried by the Minister of Pensions and National Health. He carries the load of every single member multiplied by the two hundred and forty-five ridings. I know he has done his best to liberalize the pensions legislation, and I know that throughout his long career in public life he has fought very hard for his old comrades. It is not because of any lack of sympathy on his part that these borderline cases fail. It is rather because of the economies of the treasury board in the background. I intend to speak more fully on that in a moment.
At this time perhaps it would be appropriate for me to thank the minister's secretary, Miss Dixon, for all the help she has given, through me, to the old soldiers in my riding. Her courtesy, her patience, her willingness to help in every way, and her wide knowledge of departmental affairs have been of great help to me, and I am sure also to many other members of this house.
The whole problem of the return and the proper reestablishment of our fighting men after the war is a secondary one. It depends on one prime consideration, that the programme of reconstruction shall eventually provide adequate employment for all those who are willing and able to work. Included in this programme must be the war workers, but any plan big enough to provide employment for our veterans will certainly include the war workers. After all they are a preferred class, having practised civilian trades throughout the war in civilian life. Therefore, our entire programme of rehabilitation should be based on the assumption that adequate employment will be available. If that is not so, our programme of rehabilitation will be nothing but a programme of glorified relief, with a little training thrown in to pass the time away.
The object then is to return those who had civilian jobs to those jobs, to find jobs for those who have trades and skills, and to provide training for those who will need or want such training to fit themselves for employment. The training aspect is especially important because so many of our fighting

Department of Veterans' Affairs
men are young men who joined up before they had learned a trade or profession. If this training is not given they will be condemned to a life of unskilled labour because of their war service.
There are some who deprecate any talk of post-war planning, reconstruction and rehabilitation at this time, because, they say, our whole energies should be concentrated on winning the war and that such talk gives the impression that the war is practically won. The tragedy of the united nations in 1939 was that we were unprepared for war even though it had appeared on the horizon since Munich. It will be a much greater tragedy if we are unprepared for peace, if having won the victory on the battlefield we lose it in chaos at home through unpreparedness. No better lift to the morale of the men now fighting can be given than the assurance by the government that it is now planning how to rehabilitate and reestablish them in civil life when the war is won.
The task is scarcely one just' for the government. No soldier is going to be rehabilitated and reestablished just by government legislation or government enactment. It is up to the government to lay the foundation and from then on it is up to the soldier himself, to the community to which he returns and to private industry. May I here pay a tribute to the very fine work being done across Canada by the citizens' rehabilitation committees. After all, the first job of rehabilitation is to fit the veteran back into the social life of the community to which he returns, and these citizens' committees are doing a very fine work.
Very little has been said about the part industry must play in this programme of rehabilitation. The Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act of 1942 lays down the bare minimum, a minimum a great deal less than many soldiers realize. While the act provides that any man who left a civilian job to enlist shall get that job back after the war under conditions not less favourable than those that existed when he enlisted and with his old seniority, it does not mean that every soldier who had a job when he joined up is going to get his job back. When industry has had employees who enlisted, and who were replaced by others who later enlisted, it cannot be expected to have these junior service men displace senior civilian employees who have stayed with the industry throughout the war and who have seniority.
Another major factor is that a great many of our men do not want to go back to their old jobs. They have advanced in the service and in their knowledge of trade skills and in
ambition, and they have no wish to return to their old jobs. If private industry tries to get by by doing only the minimum required under the act, it will be of very little help in the programme of rehabilitation. However, if private industry tries to carry out the spirit of the act in the most generous fashion it will prove an important factor in the reestablishment of our fighting men.
In this regard I should like to mention one company and what they have done. When I last spoke on rehabilitation I was treated very kindly by the gentlemen of the press, and as a result I received a considerable volume of mail from soldiers, soldiers' organizations, unions, service clubs and so on. I received one letter from the president of the Canadian branch of one of the largest companies in the world, Lever Brothers. He enclosed a booklet which they had sent to all their employees who had enlisted. I was very much interested in what they were doing, and took the opportunity of visiting their main plant at Toronto, where I met men who had been discharged and reemployed, and I was told what this company were doing in an effort to reestablish their employees who had enlisted.
When a man leaves this company he receives the same sort of send-off that a man leaving any other company would receive. The employees in his section wish him well and the company tells him that his job will be there when he gets back. During his absence he receives parcels, cigarettes, news, and so on. The management of this company believe that when these men return it will be much of an anti-climax if they have to go round to the time office and tell some junior bookkeeper whom they have never seen before, "Here we are; we want our old jobs back because the government says you must give them back to us." This company feels that the man returning should have as personal a welcome as he had a send-off, and so they have set up a welcome and placement committee consisting of a director, the personnel manager and a senior employee who is a veteran. They meet the returned man by appointment in a comfortably furnished office; they talk with him informally about what he has done in the war, where he has been and what he would like to do. Their aim is not to fit him into the job he had before the war, but into the job for which he is now best qualified. They intend to place every employee who enlisted, whether or not he is legally entitled to his job back. Other jobs will be provided for men who are disabled and cannot take over their old jobs, and their pay will be made up to their old rates.
Department of Veterans' Affairs

They have found one serious difficulty in carrying out this policy. When a man comes back, the company knows everything about him before he joined up, how he worked, where he worked, and so on. They had a full record of how he had served them, what his education was, and so on. But when a man comes back, so far as the company is concerned his years in service are an utter blank. All the man has is his discharge certificate, which gives his name, number, rank, his physical description, his character, which is given in two words, and his trade assessment, which is also covered by two words. During his period of service the man may have taken many courses and obtained valuable training. His record may show that he had a real flair for leadership, but of this the company knows nothing. If they are going to place him in a proper job they should know this.
As an example, a boy who wrapped soap before enlistment has risen to the rank of captain in the army. The company does not want him to go back to wrapping soap, nor does the man want to do that. As far as the company is concerned his record is a complete blank. Of course, all this information is on file in the Department of Pensions and National Health and the Department of National Defence on one of those many, many forms by which paper wars are fought. That information is at headquarters, but it is not given to the man, on the ground that there is considerable confidential information such as his medical categories, his pulhems profile, whatever convictions or courts martial he had, and whatever punishment he may have received.
The employer is not interested in these negative factors. What he wants to know are the positive factors, how the man has improved himself during his service career. In the United States they gather the same information on the same number of forms, but they make a distinction between what they call the positive factors, which are of help to the man in getting employment, and the confidential factors. The man is given a complete record of his service for himself so that when he meets his employer, his employer will know exactly what he has done in his period of service. I have already raised this question with the minister and his department, and I hope that the Canadian authorities will soon take similar action.
I now turn to what is to me the most important feature of our entire programme of rehabilitation, and that is finance. I spoke on this earlier in the session and I do not intend to weary the house by repeating my arguments of that time. I said then that I thought the

programme was very fine but that few soldiers could afford to take the training, and four months' study has confirmed me in that belief. No returned man can say that training to fit him for any desired vocation or profession was not prepared. My criticism was that few soldiers could afford to take this training, and figures given right in this house since that time certainly have confirmed that criticism. The minister of pensions, when the pensions estimates were up, said that over 135,000 men and women have been discharged from the services. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) said that less than 3,000 of these have taken training-less than 2i per cent. It is no answer to say that most of them have chosen to go direct into war industry and intend to take training at some later time. I have made it my business to talk to every man I could who wears a discharge button and asked him about this, and almost inevitably the answer has been, "I would like to have taken some training but could not afford to take it under the present allowance, and so I took the first job I could get." These men are sufficient realists to know that if they are ever going to take training for the jobs they would like to have, the time is now, so that they will be trained and in those jobs before the great flood starts at the end of the war. But they cannot afford to take the training. I am very glad that since I last spoke the basic allowance has been raised from $4420 for men to $60 for trainees, and S50 for veterans who are unemployed because the government's reconstruction plan cannot yet absorb them, and $20 for a wife. While this is an improvement I say quite flatly that it is still not enough. I want to make my position quite clear in this respect. I am not the sort of soldier's advocate who, no matter what is given, will still howl for more. I desire to make my position clear. It is the position of most of the soldiers and sailors and airmen overseas, in what they think is a very reasonable request, and that is that when they return after having served their country to be trained for peace they should do so under conditions not less favourable than those under which they were first trained for war.
There is quite an agitation in this country at the present time for full pay and allowances in the service until a man gets a job. I do not believe that that is either desirable or attainable. First of all, as far as keeping a man in the service until he gets a job is concerned, most of our soldiers and sailors and airmen who are serving overseas are not professional soldiers but citizen soldiers who joined up to defend their country because it was their duty, and they are anxious to

Department of Veterans' Affairs
return to civilian life as soon as they can. The most common war aim over there is, "We want to get this bloody war over as soon as possible so that we can get back home." Any attempt to keep the majority of our fighting men in uniform one day longer than is required for military reasons will meet with the most violent opposition from the troops themselves. Full pay and allowances sounds very attractive, but I think it is unreasonable and undemocratic. In the army a man may be a major, a sergeant or a private, according to the job he does, but when the war is over and these men come under the Department of Veterans Welfare for rehabilitation training they are no longer majors or sergeants or privates but Canadian citizens who have done their bit on a common basis and they should get an allowance on that common basis. The same argument holds with regard to the payment of gratuities, which I mentioned last time and I shall not repeat what I said then.
I believe that the government is quite generous in setting a year as the maximum period for rehabilitation with the exception that those going to university will get a month additional for each month of service. That is exactly double what the United States allows under their bill passed a day or two ago. If our programme of reconstruction is successful, the great bulk of our returned men should be rehabilitated and reestablished within the year, and the problem of those who are not established will be a very different one, to be dealt with then in the light of the experience gained in the year. If our programme of reconstruction does not succeed in absorbing the bulk of these men by the end of a year, the country will probably be demanding a new government with a fresh approach to both reconstruction and rehabilitation.
To turn again to actual figures, the greenest rookie entering the army, air force or navy to-day gets SI.30 a day, plus board, lodging, medical care, clothes, et cetera. To those who have to live in lodgings during this training, as do the war emergency training plan entries to the air force, and as will all our peace-time trainees, an allowance of $37.50 for board and lodging is paid, which has been criticized by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) and others as inadequate.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I do not think I did.


James Sinclair: You did. I heard the hon. member, and he was quite right, too. Adding those two together makes $76.50 in cash, plus
clothing and medical care, and of course all tuition costs, plus $39.12 dependents' allowance to the wife and the standard children's allowances.
In the case of the veteran taking training, the government does give him an inadequate clothing grant, which will not tide him over the year. It also provides medical care for the year of rehabilitation, and tuition costs. But it pays only $60 to the trainee, $50 to those who cannot secure employment because the government's reconstruction plan is not ready, and $20 to his wife, with children's allowances the same.
I should now like to speak for a moment or two on the plight of soldiers' wives-a thing about which little has been said. A soldier's wife to-day gets $39.12 a month dependents' allowance, plus $20 a .month assigned pay from her husband, plus $12 apiece for her first two children, and lesser amounts for other children. Wives without children who get jobs in industry are comparatively well off and can save their allowances and assigned pay. Officers' wives, with their allowances ranging from $49.10 to $64.12 and much larger assignments of pay, can also get by. It is the young soldier's wife with children who cannot work who has such a difficult job getting by on these allowances. Few of them had homes before the war, and with rentals the way they are to-day and landlords able to pick and choose and most reluctant to take a soldier's wife with small children, it is seldom in the better districts of towns that we find these soldiers' families. They struggle along in the poorest and most crowded of quarters, soldiers' families doubling up to cut expenses so that they can make both ends meet. Others fall back on living with their parents or in-laws, thus forcing them to carry part of the burden which should properly be carried by the government. Every newspaper in Canada has carried desperate advertisements from soldiers' wives seeking the cheapest sort of accommodation.
Added on top of all the worries and trials of a young mother bringing up children without the help of a father; on top of all the troubles coming from poor accommodation and crowded quarters; on top of all the loneliness from separation and the ever-present fear of injury or death to her husband overseas-on top of all this is endless penny-pinching just to scrape by. There must be times when the bitter thought has crossed the mind of many a young soldier's wife, how much better off her family and she would be if her husband had not seen his duty and volunteered, but had stayed safely in Canada and got a job in some exempted priority industry and let others do the fighting.
Department of Veterans' Affairs

What now is to be the position, of these gallant wives-the real unsung heroines of our home front-when their men return from war and must fit themselves for peace-time jobs? There will be all the emotional difficulties of picking up family life after a long separation; all the strain of getting their men to settle down and accept the quiet routine of civilian life after the excitement of war; all the problems of fitting men used to barrack life into their already crowded family quarters.
The same woman and family, the same cost of food and clothing and lodging, an extra mouth to feed, her husband dropped from his service pay down to the rehabilitation allowance ; and a grateful country now rewards these women by reducing their dependents' allowance from $39.12 to $20 a month. It is the old, old story of a man with an axe to grind. It is, I think, an ominous indication of a return to the relief standards of the prewar period. This house will excuse me if I do not sound paeans of praise over the government's recently announced increase of this allowance from $18.20 to $20 a month.
All my objections to the present plan trace back to one feature-finance. It is not that the people of Canada themselves want to be niggardly to our returned soldiers. Every section of Canada has urged on the government that our returned men be treated in the most generous fashion possible. Not that the suggestion I am making can be classed as generous; if I were to suggest that they should come back on double pay that might be called generous. But all that I and the soldiers I know are suggesting is the most modest of arrangements, that they get the lowest pay and allowances they got when they were training for the army.
What will be the cost of this? If, as at present, only two and one-quarter per cent of our service men take this training, on the basis of the 800,000 now in service it would cost the government an extra $3,250,000, not each year but in total. If the more optimistic figure of the Canadian Legion proves justified, and 200,000 take training for a full year, it will cost the government an extra $36 million- a lot of money, but less than one per cent of what we are spending on war alone this year.
I believe the people of Canada would very gladly subscribe one peace loan at the end of the war if it were necessary to finance this rehabilitation programme.
Earlier I said that I believed that only veterans should handle veterans' affairs, a thing which certainly all soldiers believe. I am not one who claims that veterans should have every preference everywhere. After all, this war is being won not only by the fighting men, 
but by the war workers at home, and those who are keeping the wheels of everyday life turning in this country. I repeat, however, that everything connected with veterans' affairs should be in the hands of officials who themselves are veterans, because only men who have been soldiers realize the problems of soldiers. Yet the final control over all this great programme of rehabilitation is not in the hands of the Minister of Veterans' Affairs; it is in the hands of treasury board; and I find that of the six on the board, one only is a veteran. Here is the real stumbling block. Here is the inability to distinguish between the right of a veteran and the need of a relief recipient. I feel that if the minister could take problems to a special treasury board consisting of the eight cabinet ministers who are veterans, these old soldiers, knowing the problems of their former comrades, would see that justice was done to the fighting men of this war.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), in his memorable address to the British parliament at Westminster, mentioned that in the past the sacrifice of human life has been commemorated in monuments of stone and bronze. This time, he said, we should seek a more fitting memorial, and he suggested that it would be found in securing for others the more abundant life.
No one can deny that this is a glorious objective, well worthy of the sacrifices made, but it is an objective which may well take many, many years to achieve. I would suggest that a more immediate memorial, one closer to the hearts of those who have fallen, one within the immediate power of this government to achieve, would be to secure a more abundant life for the dependents these men left behind them, and to ensure that their comrades in arms who survive and return will be treated in the most generous fashion possible and have a real chance to reestablish themselves in the life of the country they have defended so well.
Throughout the whole story of warfare runs one familiar pattern. The men who fight the wars at cost of life and limb are lauded in the loftiest terms when the battle rages-one has only to recall our last victory loan advertisements or remember our last victory loan speeches to hear the old refrain-yet how the tune has always changed when the battle is won. Our leaders say, perhaps rightly, that our legislation in respect of rehabilitation is the finest in effect anywhere so far. This, I submit, is not the proper criterion at all, because the historic treatment of all soldiers, after wars, by all countries at all times has been very poor. Our standard should be a

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
simple one, a Canadian one. Are we to treat our men as well, when they return to be trained for peace, as we did when they trained for war in our hour of need?
A great deal is said about Canada becoming the leader of the small nations after the war.
I do not think the quality of leadership is at all dependent on size; rather is is dependent on courage, resourcefulness and imagination. No country in this war is in a better position to be generous to its fighting men than Canada, a country of tremendous natural resources, which has had enormous industrial development in the war and has been absolutely untouched by the physical devastation and destruction of war. She is one country that can afford to live up to the fine promises now being made to our soldiers. If we do so, such a course will have repercussions far beyond Canada. In every one of the united nations, soldiers' advocates will point to what Canada is doing for her fighting men as an example of what should be done for their own soldiers, and every soldier now fighting for freedom will have cause to bless Canada's leadership. It will be a real memorial to those who have fallen.
I do not propose to touch now on the dispute about whether a voluntary effort or a conscripted effort is best in this war, other than to say this. Those who express such pride in the fact that every Canadian overseas freely and voluntarily gave his services have a double obligation to see that this country is as free and generous to them when they return.
There is one more good reason why I feel that the government should immediately raise the rehabilitation grants to the basic level of army trainees, and this reason is almost entirely a civilian one. At the present moment in this country there are over two million people who can see no future for them or theirs when the war is ended-the war workers and their families; the soldiers who have no jobs to which to return, and their dependents, and the many extra workers in our war-swollen government services. Ahead of them they see no jobs, no security.
It is true that great plans for reconstruction are under way, that a new ministry of reconstruction is to be formed, that out of the agony of this war a brave new world is being planned, a world in which the unlimited resources of this country will be properly developed and there will be employment and social security for all. These, however, are but plans, and it takes more than plans to construct reality.
In this country there are Cassandras, almost entirely of one political group, who prophesy
nothing but chaos in the post-war period, who loudly proclaim that our whole present economy will collapse in the greatest of all depressions after the war. Nor are they content merely to limit prophecies of gloom to the post-war period. We already heard their leader proclaim last winter that this April would see 100,000 unemployed in the land. But his voice was strangely still in April.
There are others who believe that this country can surmount the difficulties of the post-war years with the same courage, resourcefulness and united effort which we have shown in our war effort. I subscribe to this faith, and I believe that this government, which has led this country in such magnificent fashion in war, can do the same in peace, provided that its slogan is unchanged: what is physically possible will be made financially possible.
Since my return I have spoken to this effect in many parts of the country, but everywhere I have found a curious apathy to this contention. Deep in the minds of the little people of Canada, the people who have given their sons and husbands and brothers and fathers to the armed services, the people who have toiled in the factories and the fields, the mills and the mines, the people who time and again have oversubscribed our victory loans and our Red Cross drives, the people who have borne without complaint a heavy load of taxation-deep in the minds of these people there flows a dark current of fear and mistrust of the future. Whilst they acknowledge the great achievements of the government on the production front; whilst they realize that what has been physically possible for this country to do has been done, they can remember a time when finances were not forthcoming for what was both physically possible and highly desirable. They read of the great post-war public works projects, but they can remember that long-sighted men suggested identical projects to bring badly needed employment and security to the people in the great depressions of the thirties; yet nothing was done because there was no money. They remember the days of relief camps, of mass unemployment, of so much to do and so little being done, when only the wages of money were sacred; and now they wonder, are we to return to those conditions after the war?
It is idle just to promise otherwise and to expect these people to believe. Public faith in the spoken word is at an all-time low throughout the world. The Canadian public has always been somewhat sceptical of political promises. The barefaced disregard of promises and treaties by European dictators weakened still further public faith, and now
Department oj Veterans' Affairs

the wholesale use of high-powered propaganda as a mighty weapon of warfare has brought public faith in the spoken or the written word to its very lowest ebb throughout the world.
Belief to-day is founded not on words but on actions. People in days of old might be content with some strange portent in the sky to foretell the future. People to-day want some tangible token of what is to happen. There is to-day one sure way for this government to allay this mistrust and fear that after the war we shall return to the economics of scarcity, and that would be for the government to announce immediately exactly how it intends to finance its great programme of reconstruction. We in this house, however, realize just how difficult that might be at the present moment, when no one knows how long the war will last or what new great drains there may be on the public purse. But there is one phase of post-war finance which must be faced now because it is occurring now, and that is the financing of the rehabilitation programme.
While the great bulk of this work will not come up until the war's end, we must face it now, because every day we discharge men from the services unfit, maimed and crippled. Here, therefore, is a golden opportunity for the government of Canada to give real proof to the people of Canada that it will face the post-war period with the same courage and vision that it has displayed in its conduct of the war, that henceforth no financial obstacle will stand in the way of what should be and what can be done.
Nothing could at this time convince the people of Canada of the government's postwar intentions more than for the government to announce that when our men return to train for peace they will be treated as well as when they trained for war, that the day of niggardly and parsimonious treatment of the fighting men, when the war is ended, is ended forever as far as Canada is concerned. Such an act will capture the imagination of all those who view the post-war period with fear and misgivings. It will be a real pledge, a pledge which will be accepted and believed, a pledge which will spur the people of Canada to face the great problems of the post-war period with the same courage and determination that we showed when we stood alone in 1940.
Some weeks ago I heard over the radio a speech one paragraph of which summed up everything I have tried to say this afternoon.
I quote:
The support of our fighting men and our debt to all who are near and dear to them must extend beyond the theatres of war. It must look beyond the end of hostilities. We owe it to all who bear the heat of the strife; we owe

it to those who are crippled and maimed; we owe it to the. many homes that are bereaved; we owe it to the memory of those who give their lives; to do all in our power to ensure that their service and their sacrifice shall not have been in vain.
These words were not said by some impassioned orator speaking before a veterans' gathering. They were not said by some smalltime politician seeking soldiers' votes. They were not even said by the leader of an opposition endeavouring to goad a government into action. They were said by the leader of a great country, the one man in that country who has "all the power to ensure that their service and their sacrifice shall not have been in vain." They are the words of the Prime Minister of Canada, speaking in the British parliament at Westminster last month.
If the government persists in its present relief standard of financing the programme of rehabilitation, these words will be rightly regarded by all the fighting men as just another empty political promise made to fighting men at war, on a par with Lloyd George's declaration to the British troops in the last war that they would return to "a land fit for heroes," on a par with Borden's declaration to the Canadian troops that "the pick of the land would be theirs on their return"-what the soldiers call just a bit of the old malarkey. If, however, the government does announce to the world that it will treat its fighting men as fairly and as generously when they return to train for peace as when they trained for war, then these words of the Prime Minister will go ringing down through Canadian history as the declaration on which Canada paid her debt of honour and gave leadership to the entire world in her treatment of her fighting men.


Mr. G. S. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: I would first like to congratulate the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Sinclair) upon the many fine and constructive suggestions he has made on behalf of the veterans in connection with reestablishment and rehabilitation after the war. Members of this house will recall the last time the hon. member spoke on veterans' affairs and the very fine picture and the information he gave to members from the troops overseas. There are one or two matters which the hon. member emphasized which I should like to concur in and to mention briefly.
One of the first points was that the officials and staff who are administering the new veterans' department should be veterans who have served, and in particular young veterans. We must consider the age of veterans in this war and the standard of their education,

which is much higher than that which existed in the last war. It has always struck me that one of the chief difficulties in the past administration of veterans' affairs in this country, and in particular the administration of the pensions' aspects, was that many of the officials are what the average soldier calls brass hats, that they lacked on these boards and committees men who had served as private soldiers and therefore had the private's point of view. I certainly concur most heartily in the remarks made by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, that when these various boards and offices are filled the minister should bear in mind and should see to it that veterans who have actually served in a theatre of war are given the majority of appointments.
The hon. member also mentioned the great question of finance, and he referred to the fact that in so many cases there is petty penny-pinching, which is quite true. Yet we have just had the experience this week in this house of this parliament having voted somewhere around S75 million to the body known as UNRRA, and'last night we passed the Mutual Aid bill involving several hundred million dollars-to be precise, $800 million. So often, however, when we come to deal with the private soldier, we return to this petty penny-pinching.
The hon. member gave figures to show that as far as the number of returned soldiers taking training is concerned, the mere expenditure of some $36 million represents the further assistance that could be given in the way of allowances to their families. I am sure that all members of this house, and in particular, all veterans, will agree that the setting up of this department is a step in the right direction, because ever since the last war veterans' affairs have been scattered about in several different departments; and now for the first time we shall have one department which will have complete control over all matters relating to the veterans.
I would point out to the minister that I sincerely hope one of the first acts will not be the tieing up of this department with endless miles of red tape which so often exists in all matters having to do with veterans. I would suggest further to the minister that probably now, when the new Department of Veterans' Affairs is being set up, when a new minister and new staff is to be appointed, is the time for the government to review all acts, orders in council and regulations that have been passed and are now in existence that have to do with veterans and" their dependents, with the object of bringing them up to date, modifying or changing them in any way that would
Department oj Veterans' Affairs
be of further assistance to the veteran and'his dependents. I suggest that because I feel that the manner in which we deal with the veteran and his dependents after the war will determine in a large measure the future of this country. When the soldiers come back and take their place in the peace-time efforts of this country we cannot afford to have the conditions which existed after the last war, and which in many cases exist up to the present time, return. It is not good for the country to have continual complaints from individual veterans, veterans' organizations and other societies that are interested in the welfare of these men.
Without question these men and women are entitled to certain grants and assistance from the government. This assistance should be-given as a matter of right. These men and women are not looking for or expecting charity of any kind. They do not want that. All they want and ask is an opportunity to become reestablished in civilian activities and given a decent opportunity to earn their living and not to be penalized in any way for the time that they have spent in the service of their country.
Up to now the house has not been advised as to the method and the manner in which demobilization will take place. When the minister speaks I think it is most important that he give some indication as to how the troops are to be demobilized, because if demobilization is to be carried on in the same way as was done after the last war I, for one, fear that there will be serious difficulties. Perhaps the government have plans well advanced to take care of demobilization and how they are to place all these men in civil life. I would suggest to the minister that he outline to the house just what is to take place.
I believe it has always been a matter of keen disappointment to many citizens of Canada that the government did not undertake some system of insurance for the troops early in this war, such as exists in the United States.
Since this new department will administer the Veterans' Land Act I ask the minister whether consideration has been given and is being given to the request made to the government some time ago, namely, that in all cases where soldiers who came under the old act and are still paying on their property, they be given a clear title without making any further payment. Surely at this late date, where veterans have been paying on their land for over twenty-five years, it would be a very nice gesture for the government to hand clear title to these people. When the new act is administered I sincerely hope that there will not be loaded on to the soldier settler the same type of land that many were induced to buy after

Department of Veterans' Affairs

the last war. All hon. members have had cases in their own districts of soldier settlers reestablished on land which was from the very start hopeless, and that no doubt led to much of the grief later on.
This new veterans' affairs department will administer pensions, and it will probably be the most important part of the department. The question of pensions for men and women in the armed forces has been before the house on many occasions. Recently when the minister's estimates under the war appropriation bill were before the house there was a long discussion on the desirability of including the insurance principle in the Pension Act. I was very sorry that the minister did not announce that this most important clause would be reinstated in the act. The only reason given by the minister that I can find as to why this principle was taken out of the act is that early in 1940 there had been certain abuses under the act, which were most regrettable. I do not think that explanation was very satisfactory, nor is it acceptable, because the minister must know that under every act and under every regulation there will be certain abuses. I think it is most unfair that many serving men and women are deprived of the benefit of the Pension Act. I would suggest to the minister that now, when his new department is being set up and they are starting with a clean sheet, one of the best things he could do would be to recommend that the insurance principle be reinstated in the Pension Act.
There was much said in the same debate as to the question of onus of proof in pension cases. The minister in his replj' in that debate tried to make out a case to the effect that the onus of proof was not on the soldier but on the pension commission. I would point out to the minister that in all too many cases where a soldier has enlisted and placed in "A" category, has served overseas, returned to Canada, been discharged as medically unfit and placed in a low category, the pension commission or the medical advisers have found that his disability was pre-enlistment. I say to the minister that as long as that condition exists the onus of proof is still on the soldier and not on the pension commission. I think it is only fair to say that with regard to any soldier who enlists in "A" category, serves overseas and is later discharged, it should be assumed and taken as prima facie evidence that the disability complained of was owing to his war services. I would ask the minister, in setting up this new department, if he would see to it that the pension commission make that one of their standard regulations. That would be another fine gesture for the government to make. As the war progresses further {Mr. White.]
and more soldiers are returning, more and more cases are brought to the attention of members of parliament. The hon. member who spoke a moment ago mentioned that cases came to a member only as a last resort. I have always felt that it should never be necessary for any soldier to have to consult his member of parliament, a lawyer or his reeve, or anyone else, and ask them to use their influence-if we may call it that-or their help to assist him to get from the dominion government something which should be his as a matter of right.
While I do not like to mention personal cases, the one I have before me is so distressing, and points out so many of the matters of which I have complained before in the house in connection with the pension board, that I am going to ask the indulgence of hon. members to give the particulars. This is the case of a young man who enlisted on April 3, 1940. His discharge' certificate shows that he was discharged on April 25, 1944, after service in Canada, England, North Africa, Sicily and Italy. During the fighting at Ortona he was serving in a tank. The tank was hit, and as a result he suffered a compound fracture of his right leg below the knee, severe chest injuries and injuries to his face. After months in hospital he was returned to Canada, and was discharged in April, 1944, so that he had well over four years' service.
This man, with a record which would be hard to equal, received a discharge certificate which gave, as the reason for discharge, the one that his services were no longer required. To me that is an insult to place on the discharge certificate of any soldier from this country who has served in Canada, England, North Africa, Sicily and Italy. This man, as I said, was discharged in April, 1944, and, up to date, has not received a pension.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Has he applied?


George Stanley White: Yes. he has.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: When?


George Stanley White: I will come to that.


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: The discharge would not come from the Department of Pensions and National Health.


George Stanley White: All right; do not get hot under the collar about it. I think the hon. member for Brantford City will quite agree that any soldier who has served overseas should not have on his discharge certificate the notation, "his services being no longer required." The

Department of Veterans' Affairs
hon. member is an old soldier himself, and he knows the type of soldier who has that notation placed on his discharge certificate.
I do not need to tell him that.


William Ross Macdonald: I
agree with that, but I did not think it should go on the record that this was the responsibility of the Department of Pensions and National Health. As I understand it, that department has nothing to do with issuing discharge certificates.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not the slightest.


George Stanley White: I understand that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And he did not say that.


George Stanley White: I am just mentioning that that is one of the indignities this man has suffered. He was discharged on April 25, 1944. He is a married man. One of his legs will be considerably shorter than the other. He still suffers considerable pain, and finds it difficult to walk in an upright position. As yet he has not been able to secure employment, because he is not physically able to work.
He came to see me about the matter, and I wrote the pension commission. I have their reply under date of June 9, 1944, in which they give, as a reason for the delay in pension, the statement that the documents have not yet been received. They say that the documents have been urgently requested and that the case will be placed before the commission for decision, immediately they come to hand. The letter closes by saying that the case is being referred to the welfare division of the Department of Pensions and National Health in order that Mr. So-and-so may be considered for benefits, assistance and so on.
My complaint is this:	Why is it necessary
for the Department of National Defence to be in such a hurry to discharge a man from the armed services? Is this another example of penny-pinching, so that they will save his pay and allowances? Why should the man of whom I have been speaking be discharged from the armed forces, with pay and allowances cut off, when he is not able to work, and his pension application has not yet been adjusted?	.
I say to the minister in all fairness that it is cases of this kind which cause dissatisfaction and bitter feeling toward the pension officials. And I may say that if there ^ are many cases like this such feelings are entirely justified. It would seem to me, from the date of the discharge, which is well over six weeks ago, that that is a long time in which to transfer the papers from the Department of National Defence to the pension board.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will the hon. member give me the name, privately?


George Stanley White: I shall be glad to send the
minister the letter, yes.
I would say something further to him in connection with the rehabilitation grant. I know that probably there will come before the house at this session something through which grants will be increased; at least I sincerely hope they will be increased. I point out to the minister that between 100,000 and 125,000 men have been discharged, to date, and they have received pay and allowances for one month, as their rehabilitation grant. The point is that these men and women want that grant when they are discharged. If it is to be given to them within six, twelve or eighteen months after they are discharged, it will not be of the same benefit to them, because the grant is to assist in their reestablishment.
There are one or two other matters I would mention, which have been before the minister on many occasions. One has to do with the same allowance for the mother as for the wife. I have in mind, in particular, the case of a widow whose husband had been in receipt of a pension of less than fifty per cent disability. On the death of her husband she does not continue to draw pension. If such a widow cannot qualify under the provisions of the act she is often left in a most serious condition.
In regard to those two matters I would point out to the minister that under the Pension Act the government realizes that there is a responsibility to a soldier's wife, because if a soldier has a thirty per cent disability he receives a certain amount of pension for himself, and an additional amount for his wife. Therefore it should be recognized that there is some liability so far as his wife is concerned. It is only logical, therefore, to assume that after the husband dies the widow would surely be entitled to more consideration than ever. However, instead of the government continuing to pay her a pension that pension is cut off.
True, if a soldier had a disability of fifty per cent or over his wife would receive a pension. Perhaps there is some good reason for placing the line at fifty per cent. I am sure the minister will agree, however, that the result is most unfair. The wife of a man who had a forty per cent disability receives no further pension, but the wife of a man who had a fifty per cent disability will, upon his death, continue to draw pension for the rest of her life. I make that suggestion to the minister for his serious consideration, because I know of many cases where there has been great hardship. I am sure that other hon. members know of similar cases.
Department of Veterans' Affairs

In conclusion, I should like to refer again to the benefits conferred by the Sparkman act in the United States. The provisions of this act have been incorporated in a provincial act in Ontario, but I suggest that legislation should be passed by this house which would apply to all Canada and continue in force for a certain period after the war. One of the provisions of the Sparkman act was that soldiers' insurance would be protected. It is quite easy to understand what may happen to soldiers' insurance after they have been discharged and are no longer receiving pay and allowances. That will be one of the first things that will have to go and there should be some provision to protect this insurance.	We
should also have the other provisions of the Sparkman act in order to give assistance to these men.


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, like the two hon. gentlemen who
have preceded me I am glad to see bill No. 83 introduced. I am in favour of this bill because I believe a new deal is being brought about for the veterans of the last war and of this war. However, I think before we begin to construct a new, modern building it is absolutely necessary that we clean up the slums which are now on the site on which the new building is to be erected. I was interested in the remarks of the two hon. gentlemen who preceded me, particularly those of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) and his reference to the treasury board. I feel quite satisfied that many of the good things that would be brought about for Canadians have been blocked because of the control by the treasury board, which in many instances is not in accord with parliament. On another occasion when the bill is in committee I shall deal with the Veterans' Land Act and other matters in connection with pensions and so on, but on this occasion I want to clean up if possible some of the slums that exist at the present time.
I referred to the veterans of the last war, and in order to build up their case on a solid foundation I should like once again to quote an address by Sir Robert Borden, then prime minister of Canada, to the Canadian expeditionary force in June, 1917. At that time certain promises were made to the men of those forces, and it is the duty of this government to carry out the promises of its predecessor. Sir Robert Borden said:
Aou are men actually facing the enemy day and night. You are suffering greatly from fatigue, overstrain, and 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,
[Mr. White-l
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.
You can go into this 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 w-hat you have already done.
The government and 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 empire; and that 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.
Something similar was said to our men just before the invasion of a little over a week ago. It is our solemn duty to the men of the invasion of years ago and those of the invasion of just over a week ago to see that our promises and pledges are kept.
I said a few moments ago that I intended to deal with the soldier settlers of the last great war. A number of injustices exist in general, but on this occasion I shall deal specifically with a matter which affects the soldier settlers of the last war. I am not going to go into it in any detail, but I want to give the house some information to bring my former presentation up to date. In order to do this it will be necessary for me to give a few figures. Some people do not like to deal with figures, but I think they are necessary in order that the house may have a full appreciation of the [DOT] situation facing the veterans working under the soldier settlement board.
As in this war, during the last war a number of soldiers were recruited from the land, and for that reason a number of them wished to return to the land after the battle had been won. After some considerable time and sifting out, 25,017 of those men were settled on the land. The government advanced 8109.034,331 for the benefit of those settlers at a rate of five per cent on current debts and seven per cent when a man went into arrears, as happened in most cases. I believe an injustice was created right there. There was no need of having a rate of five per cent,

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
and there was still less justice in having a rate of seven per cent imposed upon these settlers who got behind with payments. People had a different idea of money at that time from that which they have to-day, and this injustice was imposed upon those men whom we praised and lauded but who were treated in an entirely different manner as soon as they came back.
I should like to give the standing of the board at the end of the last fiscal year, March 31, 1944. The amount of principal repaid, which covers payments by soldier settlers and civilians who bought land after the soldier settlers had either vacated or given it up for other reasons, amounted to 850,507,493.20. The amount of interest repaid was $25,381,060.13. This totals $75,888,553.33, It will be noticed that one-third of what was paid back by the settlers was used up in interest. A number of measures w^ere introduced to reduce the indebtedness of these settlers. The soldier settler scheme had been poorly and I believe hastily thought out, and many poor deals were made on behalf of the settlers. Land was bought at high prices as was live stock and machinery. These things were bought on the basis of wheat ranging from $2 to $3 per bushel, but in a short time it had dropped to as low as twenty cents per bushel. Because of the unsatisfactory conditions under which the board got started we find that substantial amounts were cancelled under different schemes, which I am not going to enumerate, because I have done it before on other occasions. The amount of principal cancelled was $24,867,637.64, and of interest, $19,234,239.77, making a total of soldier settler cancellations alone of 844,101,877.41. The cost of administration up to the end of last March, so far as the soldier settlers are concerned, amounted to 827,340,763.64. The total of cancellations and cost of administration was $71,442,641.05.
Other cancellations under that same board for civilians, British families and others, in principal and interest amounted to 813,389,338.10, and administration costs, 83,832,126.32. That makes a grand total of cancellations and cost of administration of $88,664,105.47. It will be noted that these items are far above the total amount that was paid in principal and interest, which was $75,888,553.33.
I was interested in getting certain information dealing with soldier settler cases, and just over a year ago I placed certain questions on the order paper. My question was passed as an order for a return on July 1, 1943, and on March 6 of this year the return was brought down. I do not know why the return was held up, because other orders for returns that had been passed at the same time were tabled on January 28 of this year, but apparently somebody did not want the information contained in this return brought down. As a result it was held up until other information I had asked for, dealing with soldier settlement board matters, was tabled on March 6 of this year. In tabling this return the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) made some apologies, which I did not ask for. I think he made those apologies for the purpose of destroying the sting of the information contained in this return. I shall deal with the return itself in a moment.
This return is supposed to have cost S2,180 to prepare. The minister's information to the house in tabling the return was that two senior members of the soldier settlement staff were engaged upon it for two months at an average monthly salary of $230; four members of the clerical staff were engaged for two months at an average salary of $125; three typists were engaged for one week, at S60, and one senior clerk was engaged for one month at $200. It has been very interesting to me to note that all these high-priced members of the staff have been engaged upon the return for a period of months or weeks. I cannot understand why it should have taken that long. While my business has been farming, if I could not have had my files in better shape than that, I think I would have closed that department long ago. If I could not do that work myself in less than the time that has been taken by all the members of the staff mentioned, I would quit farming. I do not see any reason whatever why it should take all this time, and if the report given by the minister with regard to it is correct, which I very much doubt, I would say that it is about time he dusted off his files and closed up that department.
The newspapers took up this matter and quite a number of them criticized me, but with that I am not concerned at all because I had some better idea in mind than these newspapers had. Other newspapers were more reasonable, having in view what I had in mind when I asked for this information. One newspaper was very critical. The Calgary Herald of March 7, 1944, just one day after the return was tabled, had an editorial headed, "Member's curiosity costs great deal of money." It goes on to say:
A question asked in the House of Commons by the Social Credit member 'for Battle River cost the government, which means the Canadian taxpayers, the sum of $2,180 to answer. This amount is over half the annual sessional indemnity drawn by this member. The question required a great amount of research on the part of government accountants and clerical work by stenographers and typists over a period of several weeks.
This incident calls attention to a growing nuisance in parliament. Much information
Department oj Veterans' Affairs

which coukl be procured by a little energy on the part of members in scanning the records of departments, is sought in the Commons through questions on the order paper. It saves the members' time and energy :but puts a lot of work on civil servants, and in many cases the information when produced is of little public interest.
The Alberta member in question may have been justified in demanding complete records on soldier settlement since the beginning of the war to the end of last year, but in this time of war when government departments are faced with many new burdens it is a question that might have been delayed for a more convenient season.
Some of the questions submitted in the house bear a strictly political complexion rather than a desire to produce information of a public nature, and there is common sense in the declaration of Prime Minister King that questions should be as concise as possible in order to avoid unnecessary expenditure.
This editorial, which does not for one moment affect me-I am carrying on anyway- gives the point of view of the writer. I had in mind only one thing, the welfare of the veterans of the last great war, and having their interests at heart, I thought I would be doing a service also to the veterans of this war, because if we can clean up the slums of the last war we shall be able to build a much better structure for those who return from the present war.
I have here an editorial from the Edmonton Bulletin of March 8, which I shall not take the time to read, but which justifies the stand I took in asking for this information. The Calgary Herald would seem to be much more interested in politics than in the welfare of
our men and women who returned from the last war and those who will return from this war.
Dealing with the return itself, one of the questions asked was the valuation of the property when it was taken over by the soldier settlers, and in answer to the last question the return gives the value attached to the land when the soldier left it. There are 301 cases altogether, covering the period from April 1, 1941 to March 31, 1943. I shall refer to only a few. One of these properties, in British Columbia, was valued at $4,500 when it was taken by the soldier settler, and its value at the time of rescission of the contract was $2,000. Another one was purchased for $3,825 and sold for $1,000. Another was purchased at $2,900 and sold for $1,000. Those were in British Columbia. The same conditions applied all across Canada. I shall not take time to read the details but I have made a summary of them which with the permission of the house I would like to have put on Hansard.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: With the consent of the house.


Robert Fair: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The summary which I now put on Hansard gives the information I wish to convey to the house at this time. It shows that 301 soldier settlers were put off their land during that period of two years, that the land was purchased at a price of $816,955.25 and sold for $506,676, which is $310,279.25 less than the price actually paid for the land. The summary is as follows:



QTJIT CLAIM DEEDS AND 30 DAY NOTICES-APRIL 1ST 1941 TO MARCH 31ST 1943.

[Stage Direction]
-	-	Original Purchase Price	Amount advanced for implements, stock, etc.	Paid by settler	Amount written off	Acres new land brought under cultiva- tion	Value of land and implements at time of rescission of contract.$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	acres	S cts.28	British Columbia	79,933.09	46,820.46	53,916.76	84,552.20	213-60	52,788.0099	Alberta	268,949.79	255,626.64	214,637.09	353,154.15	5,433	180,814.00117	Saskatchewan	290,212 02	287,166.05	255,580.93	373,989.09	7,343	187,139.0035	Manitoba	107,180.97	82,138.91	77,313.97	128,809.72	950	53,910.0014	Ontario	53,579.38	26,364.80	43,229.05	42,577.86	12	24,600.008	Maritime	17,100.00	5,154.02	9,320.02	16,228.85	39	7,425.00301	816,955.25	703,270,88	653,997.82	999,311.87	13,991	500,676.00506,676.00	310,279.25	
[Stage Direction]
Department oj Veterans' Affairs
Carrying on this statement, the total amount outstanding at the end of March, 1944, the period with which I was dealing a moment ago, is as follows:
Soldier settlers	 $ 7,715,954 01
Civilian settlers	
6,999,197	40British families	
1,895,612	66N.B. families	
122,333	98Total	
$16,733,098	05
The total amount of arrears is distributed as follows:
Soldier settlers	
$1,054,269	30Civilian settlers	
616,235	77British and N.B. settlers. ...	205,794	91Total	
$1,876,299	98
I might say that I am not here interested particularly in civilian settlers; I am very much interested in the veterans of the last war. The number of those still on the land is 6,153, and their average indebtedness when they bought the land, approximately twenty-five years ago, was $4,358.40. After putting in twenty-five of the best years of their lives, with their wives and families helping them, the health of many of these individuals having broken down in the meanwhile, we find that the average debt of the settlers to-day is SI ,254, or 29 per cent of the original debt, and this after all the cancellations to which I referred a moment ago, totalling $44,101,877, are deducted. You will see therefore the impossibility of these men, many of whom are now over seventy years of age, paying for their lands unless something drastic is done, and that drastic thing is to wipe off the indebtedness and give them clear titles now.
Again, these contracts are in as good a position as they are to-day largely because members of the settlers' families have in many cases gone into war industry or other branches of business and have sent home money to keep the sheriff away-because that is exactly what has been happening during the years since the war broke out. Anyone who takes the trouble to find out how many settlers have had to vacate their land because of cancellation notices .or, in some cases, through being forced to sign quit claim deeds, will realize how necessary it has been for young men and women in a number of cases to come to the help of aged parents.
We find also that in a number of cases the pensions of soldier settlers went to make good a part of these payments. I do not intend to go into detail in connection with orders in council which were passed. One was adopted in 1941 on the advice of a committee which was set up at the instigation of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley), I suppose on behalf of the treasury board; it was recommended
that up to $20 per month should be deducted from dependents' allowance of men who had enlisted in the second great war and were indebted to the soldier settlement board. I do not believe that such action can be justified under any circumstances. But the programme still goes on. I resent it, as do thousands of other Canadians. Another order in council made provision that settlers who were in debt could apply to the director to have their debts reduced; and in a number of eases, I believe, extensions were granted for another twenty years. You can visualize the man who is now seventy years old signing up another contract for twenty years, giving himself a job until he is ninety years old in order to get clear title to his land, enabling him after forty-five years to obtain title to a quarter section or perhaps a half-section.
When I took up this question a year ago the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) seemed to think that I was fighting on behalf of a few settlers around Saskatoon who had organized up there. The minister's final reply to my plea, as reported in Hansard of July 24, 1943, page 5377, -was:
I repeat that to meet the hon. member's request anil wipe off the outstanding indebtedness of soldier settlers would be unjust to those settlers who paid off their debts and to-day have title to their land. Why, during the last year several hundred of these soldier settlers have paid off what they owed on their land and acquired title to it. I can assure hon. members that the government has no desire to deal harshly with any of these men. We recognize what they did from 1914 to 1918 but, after all, governments have to shape their policies in line with the general good. If to-day we took the action urged by my hon. friend and wiped off the existing indebtedness of soldier settlers, it would be a gross injustice to those who have met and are meeting their obligations.
I suggest that if that is so, you have to go back to the debt adjustment board and replace all these cancellations. I do not feel that the minister's argument holds good; if we have imposed an injustice on a number of men, we should clear our skirts to some extent by relieving those on whom the injustice is still being imposed.
At that time the little organization at Saskatoon was supposed to be the only body backing this programme. I am glad to say that we have many more backers of the request that clear titles be granted to these men. The Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League of Alberta and British Columbia have endorsed this request, and on May 23 a delegation of nine, representing the Soldier Settlers Association of Canada, came here from the prairie provinces and presented a brief to the government. I must say that tha t brief was very well received, and the
[Stage Direction]
Department oj Veterans' Affairs
delegates went home much encouraged and well satisfied with their trip to Ottawa. They feel that something will now be done, and are living in hopes.
The last two paragraphs of the brief are as follows:
In conclusion, we present this petition with its thousands of signatures as indicative of a cross section of veteran and civilian opinion from the four western Canadian provinces. It has entailed during the past winter the travelling of thousands of miles under adverse conditions. In addition we have secured the unanimous support of the Alberta legislature, the 20,000 members of the Alberta Farmers Union, the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the United Farmers of Canada (Saskatchewan section), and the United Farmers of Alberta.
And so, gentlemen, we rest our case, believing that we have right on oui side and hoping that we shall receive justice.
I will not deal any further with the brief. The Minister of Pensions and National Health was one of those very much interested and in favour of doing the right thing. In addition to this brief, with the support of the organizations I have mentioned, petitions were circulated and signed by no less than 12,500 citizens of the four western, provinces. So far as I have been able to learn, not one person who was approached refused to sign the petition, and many people chipped iu with their nickels and dimes in order to send the delegation to Ottawa and defray other-expenses incurred in the circulation of the petition.
I do not want to take up much more time; as I said, I intend to deal with the Veterans' Land Act when the bill goes into committee, and I shall then have something to say on other matters connected with pensions, et cetera. I believe that the minister in charge of this bill is sympathetic to the general point of view I have expressed. I plead with the treasury board not to delay this measure of relief. These veterans have suffered enough in the past, and their sufferings should be ended right away. I am asking that clear title be granted in view of the fact that twenty-nine per cent of the original loan remains unpaid after deductions amounting to $14 millions have been taken off.
A number of the settlers are over seventy years of age. The conditions that caused their inability to pay for their land were man-made. If^our economy had had regard to the interest of agriculture and of other groups in Canada these debts would have been paid off long ago. The low prices for goods sold were not justified, nor were the high prices charged for the things that these settlers and other agriculturists had to buy. The sons and daughters of the veterans on whose behalf I am speaking

now are overseas doing that magnificent job which we hear praised here day after day, and in a very short time they will be coming back. Perhaps to-day they are wondering whether, when they do come back, their fathers and mothers will be on the roadside, having been put off the land. Let us give them a home to come back to, and by so doing we shall save the government money. I think we have a bunch of hard-headed men in the government, and if they figured this out on a financial basis it could be shown that it would be actually a saving of money to the government and to the country.
As a last reason I would say, build up the morale of the veterans coming back who will settle on the land under the Veterans' Land Act. There is nothing more destructive to the well-being of any of these settlers than to see men who were placed on land, under a scheme similar to that which is being put into effect at the present time, still struggling in debt, in poor health, living in poor homes and unable under present conditions to pay for their land.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I had no intention of speaking on the bill until I heard over the radio the broadcast of the minister's statement at noon as to the passing of a new order in council, revoking regulations heretofore established and substituting new regulations, a copy of which he has been good enough to send me since the house began its session this afternoon. These are quite voluminous and require at the hands of hon. gentlemen a substantial amount of study. That study should be given before we are asked to vote for the second reading of the bill, because, when we pass the second reading, we agree to the principle of the bill and thus are left in a restricted position with respect to the regulations, which are most important, and which, according to the press release which the minister has been good enough to send me, establish some new and far-reaching principles.
I think it is fair to say that the minister's intentions are to simplify and consolidate the existing regulations and to remove certain inequalities with respect to discharge allowances and so forth of ex-servicemen. Therefore I am going to ask the minister, before the second reading of the bill is passed, to give an exposition to the house and the country of the scope and nature of the new regulations which he was able, only yesterday, to get passed, or which I am advised he was able to get passed, through the much-abused treasury board we heard something about this afternoon.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Perhaps my hon. friend will allow me to inter-

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
rupt, and perhaps the house will give its consent to enable me to table the order in council at the present moment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am going to ask the minister to follow that up by giving instructions that copies of these regulations be distributed immediately to all the members of the house, and I will ask hon. members to read the regulations, because there is not one of us who has not from time to time, and in many cases extending over a long period of years, been confronted with the necessity of advising on pension matters. I have never felt competent to do this because, in the first place, I cannot claim to be a veteran, and in the second place I have never sat on any of the pension committees that have operated in this house since 1920, of which there have been many, so that I have not had an opportunity to make any extensive study of the pension law and the regulations that have been passed. But there is no branch of the duties that are imposed upon members of parliament which has given me more trouble and sometimes anxiety than in the case of applications from my constituents for the extension of pensions. I have always been at considerable loss and disadvantage as to how I should proceed in a given case, and many times I have met with frustration for reasons which I could not really understand. Therefore I am going to ask hon. members who are interested, especially all veterans in the house, to read the regulations thoroughly. I myself have only had a chance to have a hasty glance at them, and I can recognize one or two modifications of situations which certainly appeal to me. One of them is this. A man returns discharged, not in a good medical category and not pensionable; yet he needs hospitalization, and he has' always been denied that. He must be a pensioner before he can get hospitalization. In my files I have a case of a young officer returning from overseas, discharged, who has made serious allegations against the Department of National Defence, which allegations are at present the subject of investigation. They allege, not the alteration 

of his medical sheets, but additions to his medical sheet. I myself am not in a position to judge as to the accuracy of the position, but certainly at my request a court of inquiry is being held, and it is a serious matter.
That, however, is not what .1 started out to effect; what I tried to get was hospitalization for this man who has never applied for a pension, who may or may not be entitled to a pension, but who, under regulations which are included in these new regulations, will be able to get hospitalization. I will not say
more about that, because I believe a thorough inquiry will be held into the situation to which I have referred, which will be elucidated to say the least.
What I wish particularly to speak about is this. In the course of the past twelve months there has come to my notice personal application from veterans of this war who have been discharged and who, on applying for pension, are met with a more or less blank wall arising out of this situation. They are told, "Oh, yes, you have a certain disease; you are suffering from a certain diminution of your physical powers; there is no doubt about it that your category is low, and that is one of the reasons why you are being let out of the army." And the reason for refusal is given in a few terse words or sentences: "This is a pre-enlistment condition."
In each one of those cases I have perused the medical sheets and all the other papers that were available to me. I have gone through them with a microscopic eye, and in every case that I have examined-and it is not one, two, three or four, but nearly a dozen-on the medical sheets and on the documentation assembled and handed to me on behalf of the applicant there is not an iota of evidence to show that he had a pre-enlistment condition. He was taken into the army in category "A"; and presumably he had a proper medical examination when he was inducted into the army or air force or whatever the case may be. He is discharged after fifteen, eighteen, twenty-four or thirty months' service. These discharges take place mostly overseas. In the cases that came before me, I- think one or two had not gone overseas. He is discharged with a lower medical category. He is no longer suitable for service. On his application for a pension-suffering now as he is from a disability-a statement in effect is made to him: "Yes, you have this disability, but it is a pre-enlistment condition." There was not a single iota of evidence on the face of the documents to support the statement.
If I understand the basic principle of the law, the burden is on the applicant in the first instance to show that he had the disability and that it arose under certain circumstances and conditions before pensionability is allowed. I understand that. But where it is admitted that a man has been in service and that he has a physical disability and his medical sheets are produced, the documentation is there, and where pension is refused on the allegation of the medical staff of the board of pension commissioners that it is a pre-enlistment condition, I assert with every degree of confidence that the. burden of showing that is on the pension commission.

3S22
Department of Veterans' Affairs


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is an
axiom of law that he who asserts an affirmative proposition must prove it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is the case now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
the case, but in every case that I have had anything to do with I have sought in vain for evidence in support of the affirmation of the proposition and it has not been given to me.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I have those cases?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I can give
them, yes. I have two in my mind and I shall get them for the minister. The files will show that I have written in each one of those cases for the supporting evidence to substantiate the claim that this was a pre-enlistment condition. That is the situation which has arisen. There may be a good reason for it; I do not know'. But I assert with every degree of confidence that when a situation exists such as I have indicated and tried to indicate b3r general statements something should be done about it. A man is taken into the armed services and given category "A". He served in a theatre of war or as the case may be as the law now stands. He now suffers from a disability which presumably he did not have when he enlisted in the armed services. He was released because of that disability. He is no longer of any service to the nation or to the army. He applies for a pension and is met with a stone wall. They say to him: "Yes; you have this disability." In effect, it is said, "You are not fit for army service. Presumably you are not fit to go out into the markets of the world and sell your services at 100 per cent, because this is a pre-enlistment condition." He is met with that without the slightest evidence in support of that affirmative proposition. I wish to call the minister's attention to that. Judging the matter purely as one of evidence and with as much judicial ability as one can summon, when the commission takes that attitude it does seem to me that it is an impossible position for it to take without supporting testimony. I do not understand that the law goes that far, and in a given case such as I have tried to outline briefly, there must be supporting reasons for the judgment given.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Absolutely.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I find it wanting in many cases. That is all I have to say.
(Mr. R. B. Hanson.)


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Those are the cases I want to see.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I shall endeavour to get them for the minister as soon as possible.


Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: I should like to express my appreciation of the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair), in which he traversed ground that I think needed to be gone over, and with which I am in accord. I wish also to express my approval of what the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White) said on this subject, and incidentally the point which the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) made a moment ago is one that needed to be dealt with. I could never understand the position that has been taken heretofore in regard to that matter. I may also say that I am heartily in accord with the wisdom of creating a separate department of veterans' affairs. I know this has been urged by the various veterans' associations and I am glad that the government has now agreed to bring in a bill to set up a separate veterans affairs' department. These veterans have earned our undying gratitude, and it is our simple duty to do everything we can to ensure that when they return they will find that their opportunities for rehabilitation have been well taken care of by those of us who have benefited from their services and who have remained in security at home. Not only that, but I think we should make sure that the dependents of those soldiers are given the most generous treatment that it is possible to give them.
With regard to this bill to establish a Department of Veterans' Affairs I should like to emphasize the importance of a man, before being discharged or demobilized, having a complete medical examination and that the examining board should decide at that time the question of eligibility for pension. This would have the effect of sending men to this department who otherwise might feel, as happened after the last war, that their chances of pension were too slight to be pursued. While this may be true at the moment of discharge it is highly important that a complete medical history be on record in the department, so that if there is a subsequent deterioration in the veteran's health this will form a basis for a later pension claim. I am informed that at the present time many discharged men are not given any definite instructions about their rights with respect to pensions.

Department of Veterans' Affairs


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is not correct.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: The minister nods his head.
I am glad he agrees with me in that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; I am sorry to say I cannot agree with that.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I was so informed, but I am glad if it is not the case.
The present practice of discharging men while undergoing active hospital treatment is so inhuman that it should be discontinued forthwith. A man should be kept on the strength during the whole of his initial hospital treatment. Of course this will mean that in a few cases men who will spend the rest of their lives in hospitals will be considered members of the active forces until their death. This I believe will have a decided moral value, while entailing very little additional expense.
The setting up of this department will in my judgment ensure that veterans will receive better consideration than has been the case heretofore. At present their interests are divided among a number of departments. This offers too many opportunities for passing the buck. My veteran friends know what that means. By having one minister responsible for all the interests of veterans, which would include directing them to suitable hospitals for medical care, they will undoubtedly receive more consideration than under the present situation.
In passing I may say, since I have not taken advantage of the opportunity to say it before, that I consider the clothing allowance of 865 on discharge to be quite- insufficient, and I think this should at least be doubled.
The rehabilitation grant of one month's pay and allowances is also quite inadequate to bridge the gap between discharge and the resumption of civilian employment. This gap is bound to be governed to a great extent by the length of service, since a man who lias lived for three or four years under army routine will not adapt himself quickly to civilian life. I do not think the rehabilitation grant should be considered in any sense a reward for service; it should merely be designed to effect, as soon as possible, its avowed purpose of reestablishment.
The provisional routine order No. 1079 which debars men discharged at their own request, or members of the permanent force, from receiving rehabilitation grants, should be washed out, because this class, more than most others, require this grant.
On March 20, the Prime Minister moved two resolutions which had the effect of setting
100-241*
up two separate ministries to replace the present Department of Pensions and National Health. The first of these measures is bill No. S3, which we are considering to-day, to establish a Department of Veterans' Affairs. The bill which will set up the other division, namely, the Department of Social Welfare, has not yet been brought down.
In the process of expanding the Department of Pensions and National Health into two departments, under separate ministries, unfortunately the word "'health" disappeared. This,
I venture to say, is a mistake. After all, the promotion of good health is the most important function that any social service could render. The Department of Veterans' Affairs will be responsible for care and treatment, and training for reestablishment in civil life as it affects members of the armed forces.
I think it might be well at this time to give the committee the opinion of the Canadian Medical association, which gave careful consideration to this whole matter at its recent 75th annual meeting in Toronto, and which sent to the Prime Minister on May 29 certain observations, of which I have a copy and which, for the information of the house, I should like to read into the record. I should say in passing that this organization represents a great majority of the medical profession in Canada, and has been in close touch with all recent developments in the provision of health services. It has had five of its members sitting on the Canadian medical procurement and assignment board, which was established by order in council in July, 1942.
The Canadian Medical Association desires to make the following observations:
1.	Following upon the organization of the Department of Soldier reestablishment in 1919 the present Department of Pensions and National Health was established in 1928, after much discussion and many representations made to the government by groups and individuals concerned not only in problems relating to the care of veterans, but also with the wider conception of a national health policy, in respect of all health matters _ properly falling within the scope of national jurisdiction.
2.	The proposal to set up in Canada for the first time such a department was warmly welcomed throughout the country and regarded as a procedure of national importance.
3.	In the present resolutions the provision for a department of health under that name, either alone or in combination with other similar interests, does not appear.
4.	If a directorate dealing .with national health is to be retained, it would appear that it would be one of several departments within the proposed new Department of Social Welfare.
5.	If eventually a plan for health insurance be devised requiring federal assistance and a
Department oj Veterans' Affairs

degree of federal oversight and guidance it will presumably -be administered within the new Department of Social Welfare.
6.	Inasmuch as the health of the people depends to a great extent upon the environmental conditions under which they live and work, upon security against fear and want, upon adequate nutrition, and upon their opportunities for exercise and leisure, as well as upon a health service which will ensure that everybody in the country irrespective of means, age, sex or occupation shall have an equal opportunity to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available, the term national health, in its modern implications, appears to be broad enough to include most, if not all of the functions of the proposed Department of Social Welfare.
7.	Abundant evidence supports the view that the nation is more conscious than ever before of the importance and scope of developments which are anticipated within the health field, and that it is desirable to emphasize in all reasonable ways the importance of the health programme.
8.	For the reasons cited, and having regard only to the best interests of the Canadian people, we would respectfully suggest that -the new department for which the name of social welfare is now proposed might well be called the department of national health.
9.	As we understand the present proposals, the medical and hospital care of veterans and their dependents as now carried on in the Department of Pensions and National Health would be transferred to the new Department of Veterans' Affairs.
10.	A great national plan for health care is being devised, and it may be assumed that when and if it comes into operation a large number of our people, consisting of the veterans who with their dependents, will constitute 12 to 15 per cent of our population, might reasonably expect to have access to these services.
11.	Again most respectfully we would urge that in the interests of sound administration, careful consideration be given to placing all government health services in time of peace within one department.
12.	In order to concentrate the expenditure for veterans' care w'ithin one department, the Department of Veterans Affairs could arrange to purchase the "medical care"-using the term broadly-for this group of people from the department of national health.
13.	We believe that if the health services were so organized, there would be a notable conservation of medical and technical personnel and equipment and that there would be provided a finer type of service to this very-important group.
14.	Summarizing we would most respectfully suggest:
(a)	That the title "department of national health" is preferable to "department of social welfare."
(b)	That all federal health activities be incorporated in the department of national health, including the health and care of veterans.
All of which is respectfully submitted on behalf of the Canadian medical association.
T. C. Routley,
Secretary.
I should like now to give a brief outline of the qualifications of this association to indicate that their opinions are deserving of respect and careful consideration. May I recall that the primary function of the medical procurement and assignment board was to secure physicians for the armed forces and at the same time to endeavour to preserve adequate medical services for the civilian population. As time went on, it became apparent that the health services of the country as a whole required to be studied, and this involved physicians, dentists, nurses, medical schools, public health, medical research, industry and the community generally. The personnel of the board consisted of three directors of the medical services, army, navy and air force, a representative of the Department of Pensions and National Health, the medical director'of national war services and a representative or director of national selective service. There were also the director of the dental service and five members of the Canadian medical association advisory committee to which I referred a moment ago.
The scope of the character of the board's activities was widened to make possible a national survey which was completed in January, 1943. The report which they published about two months ago consists of ten parts and constitutes a fairly valuable compilation of the available civilian man-power, the war medical man-power, medical nurses, public health, hospital personnel and facilities, industrial medicine, nurses, dental services and concludes with certain recommendations. I am mentioning this to indicate the wide knowledge at the disposal of the Canadian Medical association when it made the proposals which I read a moment ago and which, therefore, I venture to suggest deserve careful consideration. Speaking for myself as a surgeon, I am entirely in accord with those proposals and I hope that when the new department is created it will be called the department of national health.
May I point out that at the present moment the social security committee has about completed the consideration of the national health insurance bill which, if enacted into law, will provide an all-inclusive health service for our people. There is no reason why our veterans should be excluded from the benefits which will be provided under that bill. The federal government will be called upon to pay a large sum of money annually to provide these services which will include additional hospital, diagnostic and treatment centres equipped with all modern facilities, as well as skilled specialists in all departments.
(Mr. Bruoe.]

Department of Veterans' Affairs
From the report which is available to members of the house it is made clear that we have not a sufficient number of these specialists at the present moment to go around and therefore we must conserve our available skill. I ask the minister to consider whether it would not be economically sounder as well as in the best interests of the veterans themselves to do as the Canadian Medical Association has suggested, rather than set up another hospital service for veterans in addition to that existing at the present time.
I should like to refer to the question I raised a week ago following an item in the Montreal Gazette in which Doctor Penfield, an internationally known neuro-surgeon, made certain statements which I did not then give but which I propose reading now. This statement made on May 30 appeared in the director's report presented at the annual meeting of the Montreal neurological institute, and it is as follows:
It had been suggested to the Department of Pensions and National Health, Doctor Penfield said, that if the government wished to use the institute as a treatment centre, an annex for the treatment of service patients should be constructed. The plan had been turned down, he added, and the official reason given was "fear of tile establishment of an embarrassing precedent."
"It is not for us to question this decision," Dr. Penfield continued, "but four and a half years of the war have now passed, and the Canadian government has done practically nothing to establish special centres for tile care of war injuries of the nervous system; nothing at all in Quebec and the maritimes."
"It seems possible that returning service men with wounds of nerves and spine and head may think little of embarrassing precedents, and much of their chance to regain their health."
Dr. Penfield declared that the institute should at once enlarge its bed capacity by rapidly building a permanent addition. This would depend, he said, on securing public support through McGill university, as well as the cooperation of the city of Montreal and the provincial government and from Ottawa "at least" construction priorities.
And again;
"In England there are twelve specialized neurosurgical hospital units in the emergency medical service system, and a head injuries hospital for army and air force in Oxford and other centres for the treatment of nerve injuries. The R.CA..M.C. has psychiatrists in large numbers to deal with functional disturbances in Canada, but strangely lacks provision to restore organic sufferers."
The Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie), in reply to this, described Doctor Penfield's statement as unjustifiable and exceedingly inaccurate. He then stated the number of hospital beds that were available in Canada. I venture to say that in
giving the number of beds the minister disregarded entirely the point at issue. These general hospital beds had nothing to do with beds specially arranged or services especially provided for neurological surgery.
I put certain questions on the order paper and I have had some replies which are not sufficiently illuminating, so that I shall have to answer some of them myself.
I asked how many neurological institutes there were in Canada. As far as I know, there is only one surgical institute of that kind in this country, namely, the Montreal neurological institute, which was built largely by money donated by the Rockefeller foundation some years ago in order to provide a place in Canada where Doctor Penfield, an internationally known neuro-surgeon, could operate and carry on certain investigations into various diseases of the nervous system for which the Rockefeller committee considered him to be especially competent.
It is true that we have neuro-surgical work being done in a hospital in Toronto. I hesitate to mention its name. It is Christie street hospital. I may say that the work there is efficiently done by Doctor C. P. McCormick, who is an eminent neuro-surgical specialist. I think they have perhaps fifty beds there, and I am told that they could do with another fifty.
There is also a neurological centre at Vancouver, at Shaughnessy Heights, where Doctor I urnbull, who is also a skilled neuro-surgeon, does the work.
I have mentioned the only three places where this particular class of Work, I am informed, is being done in Canada at the present time. I think there should be another centre in Winnipeg so as to make it geographically easy for friends of patients to visit their relatives who are being taken care of in these institutions.
At present a distinguished neuro-surgeon, Brigadier Botterell is in England, in charge of the Canadian hospital at Basingstoke. He comes from Winnipeg and therefore, I think, would be available later on to carry on that work quite efficiently in Winnipeg when a centre is created there.
I also asked how many neuro-surgeons there are in Canada. I think I can answer that question. Besides Doctor Penfield in Montreal, there are Doctor Cone and Doctor Elvidge. In Toronto we have an able neurosurgeon, Doctor Kenneth Mackenzie in addition to Doctor C. P. McCormick. Then there is Doctor Turnbull in Vancouver and Doctor Botterell in Winnipeg when he returns from overseas. That makes seven. There may be one or two others whom I have neglected to
Department oj Veterans' Affairs

mention, who have perhaps undertaken this specialty recently. But I think that constitutes the entire number. The number engaged in this specialty is limited because of the limited field for such work, and therefore it is highly important that we make use of the services of these few skilled specialists to the full extent possible for our returned men.
I remember fifty years ago when I studied in London with Sir Victor Horsley, that he was about the only neuro-surgeon in England who was devoting himself to brain surgery. Later on, one of his pupils, Doctor Harvey Cushing, carried on this specialty first at Baltimore and subsequently in Boston, and at that time he was one of the first neuro-surgeons in America. The reason was partly due to the limited field, that no surgeon would care to devote himself exclusively to that work because he would probably not make a living. I mention this to indicate to the members of the house the great importance of using to the full, for the benefit of our returned men who will need them, the services of these men with special skill and the importance of spending anything that is necessary to provide them with easily accessible beds.
When Doctor Penfield offered the department space for an addition to the Montreal neurological institute I think the offer should have been jumped at, but. instead it was peremptorily turned down on the specious and totally unwarranted ground that other hospitals would ask for similar concessions. It is obvious that no hospitals in Canada other than those situated in the places I have indicated, close to medical schools where they have a specialist in this department of work, would be likely to ask for a similar concession. But if they did, I would grant them all the money necessary to provide that accommodation.
The committee of consultants of the three armed services, army, navy and air force, together with the Department of Pensions and National Health, began work about a month ago in regard to the establishment of special centres in Canada for the three most essential services-neuro-surgery, orthopaedics and plastic surgery. It was thought that these might be combined with advantage, perhaps with economy. Colonel R. I. Harris, of Toronto, an able surgeon, is chairman of that committee. I understand that Doctor Penfield and his associates, by an addition to the neurological institute, could take care of the work originating in St. Anne's and possibly for Quebec and the maritimes. What a pity that the department did not envisage years ago the kind Of cases for whom such centres would

be needed so that the buildings would now be completed and ready to receive patients who may be soon arriving. Another year or two must necessarily elapse before these centres can be ready, unless they are proceeded with more rapidly than the Sunnybrook Park hospital in Toronto.
In case any of my recent remarks should be considered prejudiced, I should like to quote from a paper which heretofore has not been unfriendly to this government-the Winnipeg Free Press. I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has already referred to certain portions of this editorial. I do not intend to read it all, but there are two or three points which are worth recording. Speaking of the Deer Lodge hospital the writer states:
It was then urged that if more beds had to be provided they should be in a building placed as near as possible to the Manitoba Medical College, that is to say, near the General hospital which provides the clinical background for all the teaching of medicine in Manitoba.
With that statement I entirely agree.
The basic reason for this suggestion was that efficiency in the treatment of patients is greatly enhanced by there being available for them as high a concentration as possible of medical and surgical skill and knowledge. Good specialists are not and never will be plentiful. At the present time they are even scarcer than usual, largely because of the stubborn and ill-judged determination of the three defence departments each one to create and maintain their own medical service, with virtually no coordination between them. Hence the need always present and now acute to create new hospital facilities as near to existing key institutions in order to make available over as wide a circle of patients as possible the rare and delicate skills of the specialist.
The editorial goes on to refer to the reply of the minister in regard to the "embarrassment" of which I spoke a moment ago, and continues as follows:
Mr. Mackenzie proudly cited the large increase in the number of beds in hospitals operated by this department, but typically omitted any mention of what happens to the men who are put into the beds, which is the only point which interests Dr. Penfield. Mr. Mackenzie then had the nerve to remark that Dr. Penfield had displayed a remarkable lack of knowledge of the preparations that were being made to look after the service men. We venture the suggestion that Dr. Penfield knows more about them and of their efficiency than Mr. Mackenzie does and that it was this knowledge which made him speak out as he did. . . .
Hospitals, as we have said before, are not mere masses of bricks and mortar. They are concentrations of medical skill and knowledge. If they are not that they are nothing but shells and the patients in them suffer and die accordingly. Elsewhere in his annual' report, Dr. Penfield remarked that in the last analysis intimate cooperation in the treatment of disease

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
depended upon the proximity of pooled specialist skill. We recommend the wisdom of this remark to Mr. Mackenzie and his colleagues in the government.
I do not think I could have written a better
editorial myself, and I commend it to the attention of the. members of the house.


Mr. KNOWLES:: What is the title of the editorial?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: The title is "Stubborn
Incompetence". I forgot to mention that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is the peroration, is it?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: That is so that it will be identified. The date is June 5.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I listened with a great deal of interest this afternoon to the hon. members who have preceded me in this debate. The thing which struck me about the discussion so far was the non-partisan attitude which most of the hon. members have taken with respect to the measure before the house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Except the last one.


Clarence Gillis: I said "most of the hon.
members."


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I was entirely non-partisan.


Clarence Gillis: I view this bill as one which should receive careful consideration by every hon. member in the light of its importance to our rehabilitation plans. As I see it, the subject matter of this bill is the coordination ol the different bodies which have been handling veterans' affairs in the past, and it can mean either that we shall have an orderly transition back to civilian life of our service personnel, or chaos in the aftermath of the war. Upon the personnel of this particular department of government will largely depend which of the situations I have mentioned will develop.
On several occasions I have spoken in the house and placed on record the opinions of myself and the members of this group with respect to rehabilitation generally and the mechanics we shall have to employ if we are to achieve the social objectives for which we are fighting the war. In the time at my disposal this afternoon I am going to deal specifically with the bill itself; I shall not enter into all the ramifications of rehabilitation.
First, to my mind the bill is a step in the right direction, in that the government propose by it to concentrate under one department all the problems of the service personnel. I think that makes for more efficient administration and will guarantee to the service personnel the implementation of the regulations as written; because the real test of any legislation-at least that has been my
experience-is the administration, as to whether those whom the legislation is designed to help will receive the benefits provided, or otherwise. Now the bill does in my opinion change to some extent matters which in the past have been pretty well fixed. In the hands of the minister, under the terms of the bill, we are placing practically dictatorial powers. He has the privilege under the bill of determining contracts with institutions for the care of persons. He is permitted under section 6 on page 2 of the bill to make regulations, contracts and so forth. I am not quarrelling with that principle, but we shall have to be mindful of this fact. The present minister of pensions, with whose department I have had a great deal to do since becoming a member of the house, is an old soldier to the subject, knows the regulations, and in my experience has been sympathetic, and if at any time a problem is brought to his attention, as soon as he possibly can he sees that any matter complained of is rectified within the scope of the regulations. But when we are setting up a. system giving powers to a minister or any other individual we must be mindful of the fact that the competent and efficient minister who now heads the department may not be there in the aftermath of the war.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I be permitted to spoil my hon. friend's remarks. I intend to move two amendments, one deleting section 6 and the other amending section 7.


Clarence Gillis: I will drop my criticism of both sections.


Gordon Graydon: Don't drop your prophecy.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: What about the
compliments?


Clarence Gillis: I am glad the minister
intends to move amendments to these sections. It shows the necessity for amendments in these directions. I hope it will be part of the minister's amendment to change the regulations with respect to employment of staff. That is one of the amendments, so that there is no necessity-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is the objection mentioned by my hon. friend before, raised by the amalgamated civil servants. Provisions for appointment under the Civil Service Act have been in the statutes since 1919, and objections have been raised to the removing of them.


Clarence Gillis: I am glad to hear the minister say that. My next objection is with reference to page 3. The section sets out reciprocal or other arrangements with governments. In that section there is complete omission-
3S2G
Department oj Veterans' Affairs

' Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre): Which section?


Clarence Gillis: I am referring to paragraph (h) on page 3. In that section of the bill tip reference to the merchant navy is made; it is completely omitted. It makes provision for the government to deal with governments outside of Canada for services rendered in the army, the navy, or the air force, providing medical benefits, et cetera, but it completely omits any reference to the merchant navy. That particular branch of the service is one which in my opinion has been discriminated against right from the start of the war, while every member who has had cause to refer to them has pointed out that were it not for the services rendered by the merchant navy, with very little glory, without the benefit of uniform, or of the other attractive measures which the other services enjoy, the invasion of Europe to-day would not be possible. I suggest that in this clause the provisions now made for the other branches of the service should be extended to the merchant navy.
Again, at page 4, paragraph (i), which is a carry-over from page 3, there are words which I fail to understand, and I do not think that at this time they have any right to appear in a bill which is being presented to the Canadian House of Commons. Let me read these words:
. . . for the provision of measures of unemployment relief to former members of such forces and their dependents.
In reading that section of the bill I anticipate, and anyone will who reads it, that under the regulations to be administered by this department of government provision is being made for unemployment relief for members of service personnel fighting at the present time in Italy and in France. I cannot understand why those words should be there. Under the terms of the government's rehabilitation proposals, as contained in many documents, they have set out a programme that looks attractive on paper.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: To what line is the hon. member referring?


Clarence Gillis: The paragraph starts at the bottom of page 3 and carries on to page 4. It is in line six of page 4, starting about the middle. It definitely sets out that provision is being made for the payment of unemployment relief to members of the forces and their dependents. It looks very attractive on paper. It provides for vocational training, out-of-work benefits, hospitalization, pensions, gratuities, and covers everything imaginable. But, as I said before, the test of any programme is its administration, either by design or otherwise, and the thin end of the wedge
(Mr. G]
is being driven in through the provision of this clause for the payment of unemployment relief.
Further on in the section provision is made for the administration and disposal of canteen funds. I do not like to find the other provision so closely related in that paragraph of the bill to the disposal of canteen funds because, as I remember, the canteen committee that sat under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald) made recommendations to the house for the disposal of canteen funds, and one thing we very definitely set out in the report

I have a copy of it here but I will not take up the time of the house reading it-is that we disagreed completely with the principle of using canteen funds for the purpose of paying unemployment relief to any member of the services serving in the present war. The funds should not be used in any way, shape or form to enable the government to shirk its responsibility to the service personnel fighting in this war. If I am wrong in my supposition with respect to the wording of the bill I hope that when the minister speaks he will clarify it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is the same as the last time exactly, except as to the canteen funds.


Clarence Gillis: Is it? A member is at a disadvantage in discussing this bill because (he minister did not open the debate with a statement. I think that the minister should have made a statement before any debate took place. The hon. member for Vancouver North gave a very good analysis of the department of veterans' affairs. He mentioned several principles that should be kept in mind, in my opinion. When the department of veterans' affairs is set up I hope that the government will not completely uproot all of the personnel now handling war veterans' allowances, the Pensions Act, national health problems, the treatment branch of pensions and national health, and so on. It may be the desire, for reasons other than efficiency, of people who I have heard discuss the problem to lead the returning personnel to believe that all jobs connected with the department of veterans' affairs are to be reserved for and allocated to personnel serving in this war. Yet I feel that while they are entitled to representation on every bhard that has to do with the handling of their problems, so that the point of view of men serving in this *war may be understood, there are hundreds of service personnel from the last war, men who have already fought a war and won it for this country regardless of the fact that someone stole the peace, who are now serving on boards administering the different measures that I have indicated. They

Department o/ Veterans' Affairs
are efficient; they know the problems, and they know the machinery. I hope it is not the intention of the government to weed out the people now serving in that capacity, because it would be a mistake to head up this department with brand new men and to lose the experience of men who have sat in, studied and administered these problems for the last twenty years. It may be that they have not administered them as we should have liked; nevertheless they have done a good administrative job within the scope of the regulations.
In dealing with the department my experience has been that the administration has not been wrong but that the regulations require expanding and correcting in many respects. I believe there is now more scope and latitude being given and we should be very careful not to throw out the hundreds of men whe are now employed in those capacities and who are at an age where they cannot go out and compete in the labour market. In our rush to try to promise jobs to everyone coming back from this war let us not forget the old soldier and the contribution he has made, both in the last war and in the subsequent period of peace. I think there is growing up in Canada *a tendency to disregard completely the obligation that the country owes to the old soldier who has already made his contribution.
I listened with interest to the remarks this afternoon of the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair). I wish to join with him in the plea that he made to the government on behalf of the soldier settlers of the last war who are now appealing to the government for the -wiping off of the financial obligation that they still have against their lands. I think that should be done. It was a distressing and depressing situation to find in Ottawa a few weeks ago a group of veterans from Saskatchewan and Alberta who pointed out that since the outbreak of this war some six hundred odd veterans a year have been dispossessed of the land on which they were placed after the last war.
As some encouragement to those coming back at this time, whom we expect to place on the land under a scheme similar to that of the last war, attention should be paid to the agitation that is being carried on across the country by veterans of the last war with respect to the obligations still standing against their homes and farms, and the request that those obligations should be cancelled. I think we all are more or less in agreement on that.
. The machinery that is to be set up in this new department to administer its activities will be very important. One of the most important parts of it will be the welfare department work in conjunction with the
selective service and unemployment insurance offices. I think they are totally understaffed at the present time, and the machinery is completely inadequate. I do not care how efficient the Ottawa machine is or who the personnel is, because we must remember that the soldier is not going to be settled in Ottawa when he comes back. He is going to be settled back in his own community; and if an efficient staff is to be appointed then we must have men who are sensible and who understand the regulations and the problems of the soldiers back in the communities. These are the men with whom the soldiers will have first contact, and they are the ones who are going to sell them the whole reconstruction programme of the government. If the minister intends to carry out the programme that has been outlined he should lose no time in establishing a welfare officer in each of the different communities. This should be done now, not after the war is over when we have wholesale demobilization. That welfare officer should be back talking to the boys when they come home. He should have some contact with national defence. He should be endeavouring to get from national defence and the different military districts a precis of the file of each soldier in the service from his community and should endeavour to determine the soldier's employment possibilities, what training he has received in the army, and how he can be routed into the economy of the province. Those files should be ready before general demobilization takes place. Then when the men start coming back they will meet someone who is efficient, who has contact with industry and is in a position to guide the men into vocational training and to disability pensions, if that is necessary, and to route them to some employment in the community. Unless that is done I certainly fear the.results of demobilization as affecting my own particular section.
On motion of Mr. Gillis the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, June 15, 1944