1944-06-16

ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES


Hon. C. W. G. GIBSON (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, my attention has been drawn to the editorial in to-day's Globe and Mail entitled "An Unfair Basis." The editorial is the latest move in what appears to be an organized campaign of misrepresentation of the federal government's wartime alcoholic beverage order-


Mr. GRAYDON:: Are you charging that?


Colin William George Gibson: -by representing that the federal government is responsible for the fact that the monthly ration of spirits, authorized in Ontario is thirteen ounces, and in Quebec eighty ounces.
No detailed reply to its allegations is required.
On June 5 I gave to this house a statement showing the exact quantities of liquor allocated to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and showed that there was a difference of only 1-2 per cent between the quantities available in those provinces. It was also shown that the quantity available for Ontario had permitted a ration in that province of 160 ounces a month on the basis of permits outstanding in January, 1943, but that the increase in the number of permits issued by the Ontario Liquor commission from 155,295 in January, 1943, to 1,282,938 in March, 1944, had necessitated a -reduction in the individual ration.
The federal government has nothing whatever to do with deciding what the ration shall be in each province. Each province is entitled to receive 70 per cent of the quantity of spirits released for sale in the year which ended October 31, 1942. In other words, each province receives exactly the same proportion of the quantity consumed in the base period.
While it is true that the per capita quantity of spirits available is very slightly higher in Quebec than in Ontario, the editorial entirely ignores the fact that the per capita quantity of beer available in Ontario is considerably higher than it is in Quebec. The unfair basis, in other worlds, proves to be the editorial itself.
I have also had my attention drawn to a cartoon entitled "Federal Dispensary" which appeared in the same newspaper on June 13, and which suggested the same idea. Under the circumstances, it can only be assumed that the editorial and the cartoon have been published with the deliberate intention of distorting the facts and misleading the public. The Globe and Mail cannot consider that it is assisting the war effort of this country by falsely representing that one province receives preferential treatment over another province, and it can only be assumed that its anxiety to obtain political advantage overrides its interest in our national welfare.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question with respect to the statement he has just made?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: This is on motions.


Gordon Graydon: Is the government going to take the position that I must not ask a question? Surely, Mr. Speaker, I have the right to do that. The government know they are wrong on this question and that is why they are so touchy about it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Gordon Graydon: If I cannot make myself heard, I think Mr. Speaker will protect me, and this is not the first time that I have had to ask for his protection. Surely I have some rights in this house. I am going to ask the minister why there is a difference between the system of rationing liquor and the system of rationing other commodities throughout the dominion. That is the basis of this editorial, if I read it correctly. Why is there this difference?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The minister has just told you.


Gordon Graydon: No, he did not, and he is not telling me now.
3876	,	COMMONS
Canada-United, States Double Taxation


Colin William George Gibson: The system of issuing permits is based on the amounts consumed in the base period.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: That
ignores the question entirely.


Gordon Graydon: For some reason or another there is a distinction made by this government between the rationing of liquor and the rationing of other commodities.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is conceived by Tory minds.



TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS


Colin William George Gibson: Mr. Speaker, as was
announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) last week, a tax convention was signed at Ottawa on the 8th of June, 1944. between Canada and the United States of America having for its objects the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion in the case of estate taxes imposed by the United States and the succession duties imposed by the parliament of Canada.
I am now tabling the convention, and in the course of a few days a bill will be introduced for the purpose of ratifying the convention by parliament.
For the information of the house I will give a brief outline of the convention.
Both countries have in the past applied the principle of the deceased's domicile as well as the principle of the local situation of the assets of deceased persons in the taxation of estates. The result has been that in many cases the personal property of deceased owners has been subject to dual taxation-once by the country in which the deceased was domiciled at the time of his death and again by the country in which some or all of his assets were situated at that time.
Real property was the only type of asset which escaped this dual imposition, as both the United States and Canada make no attempt to tax realty situated outside the boundaries of the taxing jurisdiction.
The problem of double taxation was intensified by the fact that the rules applied by the United States of America in determining the local situation of shares and stocks of corporations differ from those applied in Canada. In the United Slates the principle applied was that this class of property was subject to taxation if it was in any way regarded as being under the control of the taxing authority. tMr. Graydon.l
For example, the shares of companies incorporated under the laws of the United States or any of the states and owned by a non-domiciled decedent and physically situated outside the United States at the time of death were deemed to have a situs within the United States regardless of whether the certificate was in the name of the deceased, or in street name, or other bearer form.
In Canada, on the other hand, stocks and shares were regarded as being situated where they coil'd be effectively dealt with, namely, at the place of registration of the securities. Although this principle was much less sweeping in its operation than that in force in the United States, it nevertheless gave rise to considerable trouble in relation to companies having duplicate or multiple share registers.
Some cause of complaint has arisen in the past as to the method of determining the rates of taxation applicable to estates of non-domiciled decedents by reference to the entire value of such estates. Representations have been made that each country should fix the rates of taxation in such cases by the value of the property situated in the country which imposes the tax.
While Canada grants exemptions from taxation in estates of non-domiciled decedents in the proportion that the value of the property in Canada bears to the total value of the deceased's estate, this method of exemption has not been applied so far in the United States. That country grants only a nominal exemption of $2,000 in all cases of non-domiciled decedents, notwithstanding that an exemption of S100,000 is granted in the case of domiciled estates.
With a view to removing these causes of complaint, and particularly in order to avoid double taxation of estates in future, conversations recently took place between the taxing officials of both countries with the result that the tax convention was finally agreed upon.
The main features of the convention may thus be summarized:
Real property is to be taxed exclusively by the country wherein it is situated.
The country of domicile to have the right, at the outset, to tax all the personal property of the deceased, as heretofore.
The country of situs to have the right to tax the property situated within its boundaries.
The taxes paid in the country of situs are to be allowed as a credit against the taxes payable in the country of domicile which includes the same assets for tax purposes. The credit, however, is to be limited to that portion of the tax in the country of domicile that the value of the taxable property abroad

Canadian Forces
is of the total value of the deceased's estate.
There is to be a uniform rule in determining the situs of shares of corporations. These shares are to be deemed to be situated and taxable in the country where the corporation is organized.
While the rules as to situs of other properties vary somewhat in the two countries, it is agreed that for the purpose of the convention, the situs of such other properties is to be determined by the laws of the country imposing the tax.
Each country is to take into account only the property therein situated when taxing the property of persons dying domiciled in the other country.
Exemptions to be granted estates of non-domiciled decedents are to be the same as those granted to estates of domiciled decedents, reduced, however, in direct proportion that the value of the property taxed abroad bears to the total value of the property wherever situated. Canada will benefit considerably by this provision, as, at the present time, the United States only allows an exemption of $2,000 in the case of persons dying domiciled here, but this benefit is now only reciprocal to the benefit Canada always granted to the United States.
Articles VII to XIII of the convention are designed with a view to the exchange of information to prevent fiscal evasion. They are quite similar in scope to the provisions already in force with respect to income tax. By article XIV the convention is given a retroactive operation to 14th June, 1941, being the date when the original Dominion Succession Duty Act came into force. The convention is to remain in force for a period of five years from that date, and indefinitely thereafter, but may be terminated upon six months' notice at the end of the five year period or at any time thereafter.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask the minister a question arising out of this statement with respect to the taxation of' shares? If I gathered correctly what he said, they were to be taxed in the jurisdiction in which the corporation had its head office?


Colin William George Gibson: No, where the corporation was organized.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is more correct. Does that mean that in the case of a United States corporation organized, we will say, in New Jersey, those shares in the hands of a domiciled1 Canadian would not be taxed here too?


Colin William George Gibson: That is right. An offset is allowed on account of the tax paid in the United States.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will you have an interprovincial agreement to give effect to this as well?


Colin William George Gibson: This does not affect the provinces.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With the permission of the house, may I ask the minister whether his department is taking any steps to effect some reciprocal arrangement between the dominion and the provinces under which duplication and triplication of succession duties may be avoided? Let me illustrate. Those of us who live in the small provinces, owning we shall say shares in a joint stock company with head office in the province of Ontario but with stock listed on the Montreal stock exchange, which under its rules requires that the transfer office shall be immediately available, say, in the city of Montreal, are obliged to pay not two succession duties on the same share of stock but three. I have always regarded that as a grave injustice and something that ought to be remedied at the earliest possible day. Has the Department of National Revenue taken any steps to eradicate that injustice on a reciprocal basis or otherwise, and on the gross value?


Mr. SPEAKER:: That question should certainly not be asked on the orders of the day.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is on the record now and the minister can answer later.



CANADIAN FORCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAltDON (Leader of the Opposition): Has the Postmaster General anything to add to his previous statement, made a short time ago, with respect to the distribution of mail to our troops in Normandy?
Hon. \\. P. MULOCK (Postmaster General) : I may advise the leader of the opposition that daily distributions of letter mails have been made since the beginning of operations. On June 7 all letter mail was dispatched, but was returned due to shipping difficulties. However, on June 8 all letter mail was dispatched and landed in France. On June 9 and
10	mail was dispatched but due to shipping difficulties was returned. However, on June
11	all letter mail was dispatched and landed in France. On June 12 also letter mail was landed in France.
In regard to parcel mails, these are to be dispatched daily, with the first dispatch expected to be on June 13. As yet I have no reportas to whether that shipment was made on the 13th of June.
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Forces

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I desire to ask the Minister of National Defence if he will table the order .n council which was passed yesterday in connection with the regulations covering the political activities of members of the armed forces.
I wish to ask a further question. Last week the minister indicated that consideration was being given by his department to increasing the clothing allowance to members of the armed forces on discharge. Can he inform the house when we may expect a decision to be made by the government on this point?


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: As regards the first question, I received a copy only just before I came in. The order in council to which the leader of the opposition refers, regarding regulations covering political activities of members of the service, will be laid on the table on Monday.
In reference to the matter of clothing allowance, it has been under consideration along with certain other matters respecting rehabilitation. It affects the whole three services, and I would hope that the situation may be such that an announcement can be made very shortly.



INVASION OF WESTERN EUROPE-CASUALTIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: I wish to ask the Minister of National Defence when this country may expect some report of the casualties in the invasion areas. The invasion has now been on for ten days and so far as I am aware no report has been received by anybody in Canada. I understand that reports have been made in the old country. I think we are entitled to know the nature and extent of the casualties up to date, and immediately.


James Layton Ralston: I assure my hon. friend that nothing whatever but security considerations prevents the announcement of casualties, both the number and the names.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It will have to come sooner or later.


James Layton Ralston: The names will not be announced publicly until, under the usual arrangement, about thirty days after the casualties occur. As to the numbers, I shall be glad to communicate with our allies and make an announcement as soon as that is found practicable having regard to security conditions.
[Mr. Mulock.l



RESERVE ARMY AND MOBILIZATION ACT PERSONNEL

[Stage Direction]
-REFERENCE TO REMARKS OF MR. RAYMOND IN DEBATE ON JUNE 13
On the orders of the day:
Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Chambly-Rou-ville):: On June 13, as reported in Hansard of that date, the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond), speaking on the bill enabling Canadian war service electors to exercise their franchise, stated, at page 3763 of Hansard:
Why bar the members of this reserve army, who are only eighteen and nineteen years of age, from voting, when they are being called up for military service? Why prevent them from voting when they are being mobilized at eighteen, under a hypocritical legislation, -which has been called mobilization act while it is a conscription act, and when they are liable, as the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), stated, to be called up for service overseas; indeed, they have been sent to Kiska, Jamaica and Newfoundland. This group of enlisted men are discriminated against and I wish to register my protest before this bill is passed.
This speech is undoubtedly based on a falsehood or at least on a complete misunderstanding of section 5 of the bill, and, if spread among the population, it is bound to give ground for an unjustifiable discrimination.


Thomas Vien: Order. The hon. gentleman must not volunteer his opinions. He has laid the basis for his question. Will he now ask the question?


Vincent Dupuis: I think it is in the interests of hon. members to see that our war effort is not handicapped and that is what I am doing. The Ottawa newspaper Le Droit, in its edition of June 15, and the Montreal newspaper Le Devoir, in its edition,of June 14, basing themselves on the hon. member's speech-


Mr. LACOMBE:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order-


Vincent Dupuis: -have published articles which will have the effect of spreading such a harmful blunder.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker-


Vincent Dupuis: Will the hon. gentleman wait until I am through, and then he can speak. With a view to giving a chance to the hon. member (Mr. Raymond) and to these newspapers, who no doubt acted in good faith, to rectify their mistake, may I ask the hon. Secretary of State to make the appropriate correction.


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State):: The hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Dupuis) was kind enough to advise me of his intention to ask this question, and perhaps it is desirable that the confusion which

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
has existed should be cleared up in the public mind. It doubtless arose from the remarks already quoted which the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie made on the third reading of the bill. There was apparently in his mind some confusion based on the difference between those who were called up under the mobilization act and those who were in the reserve army.
As the matter is somewhat technical I believe this house will agree that, in fairness to members, and for the advantage of those in the country who will be affected at the next election, it should be definitely cleared up.
Perhaps I should give a definition of the two forces, not that practically every member does not know it, but apparently the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie was labouring under a certain amount of confusion.
Reserve personnel of the Canadian militia, who are generally described as reserve army personnel, are members of the Canadian army who have not been placed on active service or who are not deemed to be on active service. They are not in full time military employment but are only required to perform a certain number of days training per annum, part of which is carried out in summer camps and the remainder throughout the year in their own localities.
On the other hand a National Resources Mobilization Act soldier is a soldier who has been enrolled and is undergoing training or performing service or duty under the National Resources Mobilization Act or the regulations passed pursuant thereto. Upon his being enrolled in the army a National Resources Mobilization Act soldier is deemed to be and is placed on active service pursuant to the Militia Act. In this respect and because he is in full time military employment his position is entirely different from that of a member of the reserve army as mentioned above.
Bearing in mind those definitions, provision is made that everyone called up under the mobilization regulations who is performing training, service or duty in any of the naval, military or air forces, regardless of age, may vote as a war service elector wherever he may be stationed and whether it be within Canada or elsewhere.	*
On the other hand, one serving in the reserve army may also vote as a war service elector but requires to be of the full age of twenty-one years, absent from his ordinary place of residence while undergoing training at a duly authorized training camp or school established for full-time courses, or has been called up on service by the Minister of National Defence. This includes a member
of the university air training corps or a member of the air cadet corps who is at present in the course of duty at a Royal Canadian Air Force unit.
This will, I trust, remove the confusion which might otherwise be created by the remarks of the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie.


Gordon Graydon: It provides a good
subject for a speech, anyway.



VETERANS' AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, June 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for the second reading of bill No. 83, to establish a department of veterans' affairs.
Mr. F. D. SHAW (Red Deer):: During the past few days a great many members of the house have engaged in debate on the motion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie Kingl to give second reading to bill No. 83, an act to establish a department of veterans-^ affairs. I think we can agree that practically every aspect of rehabilitation, especially as it. applies to the ex-servicemen, has been touched upon by the members. I realize therefore that in speaking upon the measure at this time one is likely to engage in a certain amount of repetition. I shall endeavour as far as possible to avoid that fault. It is quite obvious I think that the members of the house generally speaking are agreed upon the desirability of establishing a separate department for the express purpose of handling those measures-relating to our ex-servicemen. I believe I am. quite correct in saying also that that feeling is shared by the people of Canada and would also be supported by the service personnel. I would hasten to add however that the mere establishment of a department of this nature does not of necessity guarantee that our ex-servicemen will be given that complete consideration which some of us believe they deserve. If this were a department for any other purpose I might have a tendency to oppose it. I say that for the reason that generally speaking the tendency of government, to expand, grow and take in new territory, increase its payroll and so forth, is something that must be guarded against; but I propose, to deal with that on another occasion.
Between 1914 and 1918 the constituency which I have the honour to represent gave very generously of its men to the armed forces. Following the cessation of hostilities at that.
3SS0

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
time many of our men returned to that constituency, but unfortunately there were men who did not. Of those who did return a few things might well be said at this -time. First, we have those who were partly, and in some cases, almost totally disabled. We realize that because of the involved regulations and restrictions many of those who did return in that physical state found themselves without pensions. Just how general that may have -been I do not propose to hazard a guess, but suffice it to say that a great many of them did return in a disabled condition, and because of some harsh restriction or because of some technicality they were deprived of their just due.
Then again we had a number of those who were disabled who were fortunate enough to secure a pension. History records that in all too many cases those pensions were hopelessly inadequate. The result was that many of those partly disabled veterans endeavoured to find employment in the labour market in competition with those who were physically fit. Then there were many of our ex-servicemen who were established under the Soldier Settlement Act. My colleague, the hon. mem-bero for Battle River (Mr. Fair) did not leave anything unsaid in dealing with those soldier settlers. I wish to say that I concur in what he said. I heartily endorse his remarks and subscribe fully to his claim that these settlers should be granted clear title to their homes.
If I may just go back to the commencement of the operation of that scheme, in my -constituency we found, as was found everywhere in Canada, these veterans were placed upon land which was valued at, I dare say, twice its -present-day value. Machinery and stock was provided at inflated prices and, as was stated by the hon. member for Battle River, the interest charge of five per cent on the debt was out of line, as was the seven percent charged on the arrears. It is not necessary for me to trace the history of that settlement programme during the subsequent years. We know that of the total only a few were successful in acquiring clear title to their property. Many of them paid more than the property -was ever worth in the first place, and yet were in the position of still owing more than the price at which the land should have been sold to them in the beginning.
As one travels about in his constituency or elsewhere and has occasion to visit with and talk to these veteran settlers of the first world war, ones heart is torn because in many' instances they are men of fifty-five, sixty-five, and, yes, seventy years of age. They have tried; they have worked hard, and while it is true you may find the very few who could have done better, that cannot be sa-id of the
{Mr. Shaw.]
majority. They did their -best, and, as I said a moment ago, paid more than the land was worth. And yet they are faced with this situation: -periodically they are threatened with cancellation of the confract and offered a lease agreement made for a period of one year. In other instances they have been given new contracts for a period of twenty-years. I am bound to say' that it is fantastic to offer a man sixty-five years of age a twenty-year contract and imply that at the end of twenty years he will have paid for the property and will become the owner of it.
I wish to repeat that there is a general feeling in -my part of the country at least that unless we are prepared to do justice to those veterans of the first world war there is little hope for the right thing being done for the veterans of this war. Some may say that that feeling is not justified, but it exists, and in a measure I feel the same way. I do not like to deal with individual cases of pensions, and I shall not do it by name, but I have encountered a large number of cases where a man was expected to subsist on a pension of $4 or $5 a month. I recall one case in particular, that of a man who attained the rank of sergeant-major. During the last war he spent almost four years in France. He suffered a concussion and was gassed, and as a result was sent to hospital. After a number of months in hospital he was returned to Canada and discharged. For a period of seventeen years he was obliged to try to get by on $3.75 a month. It is true that he was able to work part-time, but he probably worked for three or four days and then was sick for a couple of weeks. I would not -mention that case if it were the only one of which I have information. It happens so frequently that I hope no one will ever be able to say that out of this war will come veterans who are obliged to try to get by on pensions of that type.
I have also -had brought to my attention a number of cases in which, upon discharge, the soldier was refused pension outright, regardless of the fact that he produced all the affidavits and other documents necessary to prove -that there had been a very serious deterioration in the state of his health as a result of -his service. He was refused repeatedly; then, probably nine or ten- years after the cessation of hostilities, he was finally conceded a small pension. One case still stands out in my memory. The veteran himself is now dead; it is a wonder he lived as long as he did, considering the treatment he received. This man was discharged in 1919, but n-ot until 1927 did they finally agree that he was deserving of a pension, or, in other words that his disability -was attributable to

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
war service. It seems to me a remarkable thing that it should take any commission nearly ten years to determine that fact. This man died in 1939, after which his widow received nothing. The pension was very small, only $15, but with the loss of it the widow was obliged to go out into the labour market and endeavour to obtain employment in order that she might live. I have a number of cases of the kind, and I sincerely .trust that as a result of these experiences we may learn and, more important, that we may make good use of that knowledge.
Again in this war my constituency has given generously of its men and women. Many of them are the sons and daughters of veterans of world war No. 1. In instances to which I could refer specifically I have fought the cases of their parents; yet, regardless of the unfortunate deals which their parents received, these young people were prepared to and did answer the call of their country for help. In one or two cases it was surprising to me that this should be so, bearing in mind the unfortunate experience of their parents. Men from my constituency have served in every theatre of war in which the Canadian forces have served. We have had our causalties, unfortunately, but so have the other parts of Canada. We have had men killed; we have had men permanently disabled. Some men whom I know personally are in German prison camps, and I am very proud to be able to say that a number of our men, from my home town and elsewhere, were with the third division when it stormed the coast of France. I know those boys are standing up to .their responsibilities in magnificent fashion. I was quite impressed by the remarks of one hon. member who spoke yesterday, I believe one of the Winnipeg members, who said in effect that no material consideration can repay these heroes of ours for the sacrifices they are making to ensure the freedom and security of this nation. I hold the view quite firmly, Mr. Speaker, that, money cannot make up for the loss of life. I do not believe that anything we can give a man can make up for the loss of a limb or any other serious physical disability. Much less can w'e make up with money for t-he ravages of spiritual and mental anxiety, which may be the highest price he has to pay.
During the months and years which have gone by I have had a good deal of correspondence with men in the services. I read their letters with the utmost care, for one reason because I want to ascertain what they [DOT]may be thinking with respect to their postwar possibilities and opportunities. Sometimes it is said that these boys who are engaged in battle are not concerned about the future,
that they know they have a job to do and that they believe the future will take care of them. I do not entirely subscribe to that view, from the correspondence I have received.
I am going to repeat one or two sentences from a letter I received from one of our young men in an overseas theatre of war. These may not be his exact words, but they are as close as I get them, not having his letter immediately at hand. He said:
We are supposed to ;be fighting to safeguard the democratic ideals and to preserve the sovereign integrity of our nation. When uar ends and I return-
I recall so well that he had in brackets "if I do return"-
-shall I be given the opportunity to share in the wealth which I fought to save? Shall I be given an opportunity to own part of the land which I fought to save?
I want to emphasize that he seemed to lay stress on the word "opportunity." He was not asking that everything be handed to him when he returned; all he asked was an opportunity. In my reply to that boy among other things I said:
In my opinion the least Canada can offer is a chance to share in the wealth and in the heritage of culture and scientific progress which you and your comrades are saving from the clutches of aggressor nations.
Probably I should have added, "not only to share, but to share on a fair and equitable basis with all others." These boys in the service who are doing a job, and doing it well, are quite properly looking to us at home to see to it that when they return it will be to a country worthy of their magnificent courage, of their sacrifices and of the ideals for which they are fighting. In my opinion this obligation constitutes an essential responsibility confronting every last Canadian. I know that there is a tendency on the part of some to look to a government or to a particular group of people to bring about the very desirable results to which I have referred, but I really feel that this great problem of taking care of our service men and women when the war is over is the responsibility of all Canadians in all parts of Canada.
In 1939 Canada entered this war with a great deal of determination. At that time total employment in Canada amounted to about 4,000,000-1 am speaking only roughly. Within a period of four years we had increased our employment to approximately 5,000,000. Out of that number approximately 2,000,000 were in the armed services, or were engaged in providing the machines of war, or were producing those things necessary for war export purposes.
The point I wish to emphasize in that regard is this: We did enter the war with great

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
zeal and determination, and we accomplished things which only a month or so before the outbreak of war were regarded as being utterly and completely impossible. We also took our men from the streets-and from the mines, the farms and the factories. We pointed out to them their duty, and. they responded cheerfully and magnificently. We took that boy from the street, the boy who had never been able to find employment, the boy who could not secure a decent wage while he was on the street-if, indeed, any wage at all-and we provided for him not only his clothing, but dental, medical, optical, hospital, educational and other services. We armed him and paid him. We also transported him to the theatre of war. Those boys are well aware to-day that, because of our determination to utilize-and I shall use an oft-used term- the wealth and the production of the country, we were able to attain that degree of achievement which was most desirable.
In some parts of Canada we hear it said, and we read it in publications, that it was only because of the great need and because of such unusual determination that we were able to accomplish the things it was necessary to accomplish in war-time, but that after the war we cannot hope to be able to accomplish so much in the field of non-war activities. I do not subscribe to that view at all. I say that when the war is over and when our lads return we shall have a country poorer only in the sense that we have lost so many of our youth. But we shall have a country developed as it has never been developed before, with a productive capacity not dreamed *of in days gone by. All we must do is accept it as our responsibility, so that when these lads come back we shall be able to say, "We have that which is necessary to give you what you have earned because of your contribution." During the course of the debate several members have pointed out, in definite terms, the things we must guarantee to our boys upon their return.


Thomas Vien: I must point out that the hon. member is not dealing with the principle *of the bill. I would consider that he is discussing social reconstruction, but not dealing with the terms of the bill, which, it seems to me, are definite. I point out to hon. members generally that in the first instance we must [DOT]deal with the principle of the bill and, having accepted the principle, the details may be discussed when the house is in committee.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your leniency up to the present point. I had really completed what I wanted to say in that regard.

In my opinion when these lads return we should be prepared to guarantee them full pay and allowances of the rank of private until such time as they are able to fit themselves into the economic life of the country. By that I do not mean that our boys returning from overseas should of necessity be retained in uniform. One hon. member indicated a day or two ago that the boys were anxious to get this whole thing over and get out of uniform. In advocating that we guarantee to them full pay and allowances to the rank of private until such time as we absorb them into the economic life of the country, I am not advocating that they be retained in uniform against their will.
I say, too, that to those same men we must guarantee hospitalization and treatment for illness, without the application of the previous policy of deducting pay for such attention from their incomes. Further than that, it is most essential that in respect of the dependents of those killed while in service we should make full and adequate provision for pensions at a figure no less than the full rate of pay of a private, including dependents' allowances. Then, in respect of children more than eighteen years of age, to supplant dependents' allowance there should be an educational grant of a sum sufficient to enable them to secure the education which their parents might have been able to provide had the father been at home.
What I say in that regard must also apply to the men of the merchant marine. To my mind it is a tragedy that those men, who are probably playing just as important a part in the prosecution of the war as are our troops

and I do not say this in any disparaging way at all-find themselves extolled in song and story but almost entirely forgotten when it comes to the securing of benefits received by members of the armed services.
I had brought to my attention not loqg ago the case of a man who had served two years in the merchant marine, and who was discharged only recently because of his physical condition. He had reached the age of sixty years. That man had served in the north Atlantic, the south Atlantic and the Indian ocean, and yet, following his discharge, when I pressed for consideration in connection with having the interest rate on his soldier settlement contract reduced from 5 per cent to 3i per cent, I was told that unless he was pensioned, favourable consideration could not be given to his application. The hard part in the letter I received in reply was the statement by the minister to the effect that after all, the process of reducing his interest rate from 5 per cent to 3i per cent would mean a saving of only $20 a year. I thought that

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
was cold, and perhaps just a little brutal.
In other words, they said that since it was only $20 a year-which might mean a great deal to that man-they should not be too greatly concerned about granting it to him.
0 I should like to say a few words in connection with the present policy for establishing our soldiers on the land. The hon. member for Battle River indicated that he proposed discussing this matter at some length at the appropriate time. Let me say that I agree the present Veterans' Land Act is an improvement over the old Soldier Settlement Act. But this is a thought which repeatedly passes through my mind, and has been brought to my attention on many occasions: Provide the veteran with a parcel of land, provide him with an equity in that property, provide him with a lower rate of interest than he has ever enjoyed before, and yet after you have done all those things, he is still left at the mercy of an internal economic system which may ruin and crush him completely. Even under the Veterans' Land Act the man so established cannot possibly weather the gale if he is subjected to the conditions to which the soldier settlers of the last war were subjected during the early thirties. It would be utterly and completely impossible.
And so I assert that hand in hand with all the schemes for the rehabilitation of our soldiers after the war there must be a complete and full realization that unless we give careful thought and consideration to the making of very necessary changes in the economic structure of this country, we shall find that we have failed in our attempt to bring about the results which I think we are all agreed are so necessary.
I have not endeavoured to go into any details, Mr. Speaker, in connection with the veteran measures which the government have proposed. I do not think it should be necessary that we should press, for instance, for an adequate clothing allowance. The government should know what is an adequate and what is an inadequate clothing allowance, and that principle applies to the whole fipld of reestablishment. Just let the officials put themselves in the position of the individual who is coming back after the war; consider all the benefits and consider all the obstacles; and then ask themselves the fair and square question:	W ould I regard this as being
adequate? I know that if the present inadequate clothing allowance is increased to $125, some may press for $150. I know it is completely impossible to please everyone. But if the government themselves would do that thing which they themselves would be satisfied with if they were in the position of the returning service man, many of the disabilities which crop up under these different types of reestablishment measures would probably never occur.
In conclusion, may I express the hope that after this war we shall not have a repetition of what occurred after the last war, that we shall have nothing not even remotely resembling the conditions which developed after the last war. We owe that to our men. They are looking to us for it, and I think, Mr. Speaker, that we are big enough to do the job. This does not constitute any utopian dream-I hear that phrase used so frequently. When I advocate what I regard as being only limited justice to the veteran, I always hear someone expressing the idea that it is just another utopian dream. In my opinion there is nothing more potent in building up morale among the service men than the knowledge that the ideals for which our boys are fighting to-day are on the way to becoming the realities of to-morrow.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly true that all our thoughts are centred on the invasion front at this time and what is happening there. While it is most desirable that the business of the house be expedited, nevertheless it is only natural that any measure affecting the men ind the women in our armed forces, especially those who are at the moment fighting our battles overseas, will create considerable interest and discussion in the house. While, generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, on the second reading of a bill only the principle may be discussed, one cannot discuss intelligently the many changes that have been made in the measure now before us unless one deals with more than the mere principle of the bill. With the principle I am in hearty accord.
First of all let me say that the grouping together of all the various departments dealing with veterans' affairs under one ministry will I believe meet the wishes and the points of view of all our citizens. Let me here express one personal wish regarding that ministry. It is my hope, and I believe I speak the thought of many members of the house and many people outside, that the present Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) will be left long to carry out the duties that it will be necessary to perform under the new set-up. I was pleased to see that in the act national health is separated from pensions. The national health of our people has become a most important subject, and we are taking such notice of it that to separate this subject from pensions is to my mind certainly a step in the right direction.
A little later I wish to deal with one aspect of the bill relating to the Veterans' Land Act,

Uepartme.nl of Veterans' Affairs
as I have one or two matters to discuss with regard to its operations.
The other day one of the members-I think it was the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair)-suggested when speaking to the house that in the setting up of . a new department and the appointment of new officials every consideration be given to the young men of this war. With that view I think we are all in accord. But as one who has taken a great interest in pension matters may I say that what is more particularly desired is that the officials appointed should have a sympathetic frame of mind rather than one seeking to conform too strictly to the letter of the act. It is not generally known and recognized throughout the country, and many members of parliament still fail to recognize, that even the minister himself will be governed and is governed by the Pension Act. Therefore it seems to me important that the officials who are handling the administration, those behind the scenes having to do with the appeals coming before them, be men of sympathy and understanding. There is not a great deal of complaint in that regard at the present time, but such was not always the case.
I well remember, and so will every member of the house, that during the years from 1930 to 1935 or 1936 there were officials in that department who were not always as sympathetic to the appeals and requests made by returned men as many of us thought they should be. In those days, too, the pension advocates were not always as vigorous as they might have been. It was my impression after presenting many claims on behalf of returned men that some of the pension advocates were a little hesitant in putting forth all the fight within them on behalf of the cases they had in hand. I got that impression after observing their efforts' at some of these hearings. They were perhaps a little afraid that those in authority at Ottawa, not particularly the minister, but the officials in authority, might not wish that too many favourable decisions be given.
Mention was made by one member speaking yesterday of the mefnbers of the treasury board. I have a severe criticism to make regarding the treasury board. After all, it is not the minister who will handle the pension cases. Once the act is in effect, appeals go before the pension commissioners and their officials. They sit as a court, and after their decision is given in a case it is my opinion that their decision, if favourable, should be final. I have personal knowledge of case after case where, after the decision had been given, officials of the treasury board undertook to' look over the case and either reduced the pen-
[Mr. Reid.J
sion or declared that it should not be given. I believe the country is tired of that kind of control.


Mr. MARTIN:: That has not been done recently, has it?


Thomas Reid: I know of one recent case in which it was done. It is true that there must be some control over expenditures; but surely, after a man's history file has been looked into, after the entire case has been investigated, no official from some other department or branch should sit in judgment upon that man's case and act to his detriment. I ask the minister to endeavour at least to see to it that treasury board officials keep their hands off the cases, especially in which, after the circumstances have been gone into, a favourable decision has been given.
One matter I would ask the minister to take note of in the new set-up relates to the provision whereby pensions can be granted under what is known as the meritorious clause. I was surprised to find how few pensions had been granted under this provision. No pension commissioner with whom I have discussed the matter has been able to define what the meritorious clause really means. I mention this particularly because the present war is entirely different from that of 1914-18, and there will be many men coming back who have flown planes over Germany, and who may have to outward appearance no bodily injury, but who must have suffered; so in the handling of cases under the meritorious clause a new interpretation will have to be given to it in order that those appealing under it may have a chance of obtaining a pension.
Despite what the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Han sell) said the other day, I believe that every member of the House of Commons and the people generally are agreed that no monetary considerations should be placed in the way of providing our returned men with pensions. That principle is generally accepted. Although ho-n. members may not always applaud it in the house, I think it is only fair to say that every one of us is agreed that financial conditions shall not be allowed to obstruct adequate provision for tho.se men who have given so willingly and freely of their lives, and but for whom we of this House of Commons might to-day not be here.
May I also draw the attention of the minister to the desirability of building or procuring smaller hospitals apart from the general hospital which is usually designated as that to which all returned men must go.
I believe that a condition we have m British Columbia is not dissimilar to conditions in other provinces. I know how difficult it is for a man say in the Fraser Valley to reach

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
the Vancouver Shaughnessy hospital; in fact, from so short a distance as forty miles it will take him at least the entire day to go to Shaughnessy hospital and return. I recognize that it is desirable to assemble in one large building all the paraphernalia, the up-to-date equipment and machines required to examine and treat men who are sick. Nevertheless it may be well to give some thought to the setting up of smaller hospitals to which men with minor complaints, requiring perhaps only one or two days' treatment, could resort instead of having to spend a great deal of time in going to and attending at larger institutions. There are indeed cases wherein the time element may mean the difference between life and death.
The desirability of providing work was mentioned the other day as important, and it is important. I suppose every hon. member has had much fhe same experience as I have. From 1930 to 1939 the number of appeals received by members of parliament from men who either wanted a pension or wanted it increased was enormous, but after 1939 the number dropped, proving to me at least that if suitable work could be provided, many of the economic ills from which these men were suffering or thought they were suffering would disappear. So that to my mind at least, the provision of useful work is most important, particularly to our returned men, who should come first.
There are one or two things I want to say with regard to the Veterans' Land Act. I would point out to the house that if those of us from western Canada take up the time of the house on this subject it is because the four western provinces, including British Columbia, had more applications for settlement on the land than did the other provinces. It is interesting to know that of the 25,000 who applied for help to go on the land under the soldier settlement board after the last great war, over 20,000-to be exact, 20,736- were from the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
As regards the new Veterans' Land Act, it is an improvement upon the old Soldier Settlement Board Act, but I believe that one factor which will militate against the successful carrying out of this measure will be that many of the old sores which arose from the last Soldier Settlement Act still remain. I am not going to take up the time of the house on this occasion in reading personal letters, but when one realizes that only 3,833 claims have not been paid, I do not think it is too much to ask that these be cleaned up and that we have a new deal and a fresh start all round. I was one of those who advocated this
when the Veterans' Land Act was before the house, and I still believe that what I then advocated is the proper policy. I do so after twenty years of experience amongst returned soldiers in British Columbia, and I know that one of the things which put most of them out of business was the load of interest. Of 25,000 men who recently made applications to go on the land, 13,550 did not make good. I use these words advisedly because I do not think it is proper to say that they failed. In the words of the man in the street, the cards were stacked against them before they went on the land.
I do not wish to rehash the past, but it is well known that the government at that time, not having any plan, were not particular where the men went so long as they did not congregate in the cities and were spread out in the rural communities throughout most of the provinces. When I look over the financial statement and realize that over $25 million has been paid in interest, it is to me staggering indeed. The exact amount of interest paid to the present time is $25,381,060. When one realizes that only 3,883 have repaid their loans, which is equal to only fifteen per cent, it means that interest payments made by all who participated in the scheme from the inception of the act to the present time must have averaged between $1,500 and $2,000 each, plus of course cost of administration. Total administration cancellations, as pointed out yesterday by the member for Battle River (Mr. Fair), amounted to $88 million, which also is a staggering amount of money.
I still believe that even at this late date, before placing these men on the land we consider placing them on property that is interest free, because if the man did have a few lean years he would know that his debt would not increase. One can produce case after case where men paid more than their whole principal amount and still owe at least fifty per cent of the original debt. What effect will the condition of these men have on the new settlers going on the land? I say it will have a disastrous effect.
The government of British Columbia have set aside one million acres of land which they are offering to the dominion government on which, if desired, returned men can be settled; but there is one proviso in it which does not make the offer so good, and that is that the men settling on the million acres shall be soldiers who left British Columbia. That means that' soldiers from other provinces will not be allowed to settle on any of the million acres in the interior. I have been in British Columbia from 1909, quite a number of years, and from my experience of that province I would say that not many who were born in

Department of Veterans' Affairs
British Columbia would care to go and live anywhere on that million acres offered by the provincial government; they would prefer to be nearer the larger cities on the coast.
Then there is the cost of clearing. When the new department is set up, the minister, I suggest, might have the whole area surveyed, because first of all there are no men from the outside provinces to be allowed there, and secondly the men who will go there, if any men who do go there, will be very few indeed, and the land has to be cleared. A scheme could be brought about whereby those from the services or others could be utilized to clear the land to make it habitable. But what is more important-and this is the proposition I put to the government-is that instead of centering most of our energies and thoughts on land and farms for the men coming back we should centre our thoughts and activities on the providing, for the men who come back, of modern homes. I think that it will be generally agreed that one of the things first desired by most of us is that we should have a house to live in, and many of the ranches and properties which the men will be asked to go on have not the proper houses. To my mind nothing will make a man more discontent with his lot than to be compelled to live in some old shack.
I would ask the minister to consider providing houses, and I suggest that that should be made the first requirement, instead of concentrating on putting the men on the land. I would point out to the minister, and he knows it as well as I do, that so far as British Columbia is concerned, the fight which the men will have to put up there if they are to do well is going to be harder than in some other provinces, owing to the fact that in that province we have little or no industries.
What has happened since 1939? It is evident that what is required is some financial help if one is to maintain oneself on one of the ranches or farms in the Fraser valley or in British Columbia. Since 1939 hundreds upon hundreds of our citizens have left those places. WThy? First of all, they wanted to help in the war effort, and, second, they needed financial assistance, or wages or salaries on which to live, which they did not have prior to the commencement of the war.
I mention these thoughts because I am a little fearful that the present Veterans' Land Act, good though it may seem to some, will not be all that some people claim it to be or hope it will be. After the experience we have had in British Columbia, and after the heartbreaking scenes I have witnessed, I would urge that the minister, even at this late date, give further consideration to the whole mat-
[Mr. Reid.)
ter, and in the light of some of the thoughts I have expressed this afternoon.
In closing, I want to add one word in praise of the present Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) for the interest he has taken in, and the work he has done on behalf of, the returned men and for the good of the department as well. I believe that a word of encouragement is due him and I am voicing it on this occasion, feeling sure that many members will agree with the views I have just stated.


Liguori Lacombe: I have followed with a great
deal of interest the last two speeches delivered by my colleagues who have resumed their seats, but the anxiety is always the same: What shall we do with the hundreds of .thousands of our young men and women after the war? How will it be possible to re-establish in civil life all these veterans with broken careers and often broken lives in this terrible conflict? No one can answer this tremendous question, not even the government; nevertheless it will be the great task of the authorities to give all possible assistance to the veterans not only of the present but also of the former war.
(Translation):	Notwithstanding the de^
votion and efficiency of the army medical units and nursing services in this war which, through its terrific speed and mobility, is causing the death of thousands and thousands of men, let Canada be prepared for the return of disabled, wounded and crippled soldiers in still greater numbers than in 1918.
While I was alone, with the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix), in opposing to the utmost our participation in this war and the mobilization of our manpower and financial resources, even before those two grievous mistakes had been made, I cannot at this time shrink from the duty of urging the government which declared war to help the veterans of this war and the last conflict.
Let us see the results of a policy that I have repeatedly condemned. Canada will have to assume the task of reestablishing in civilian life an army of one million men and women. They will have to rehabilitate, in entirely new occupations if that is still possible, hundreds of thousands of young men and women. Those of our veterans who had positions in the public service will be fortunate indeed if they are not displaced by newcomers from the British isles and Palestine. That is what happens now. At a time when our sons are shedding their blood in the invasion of the European continent and many are fighting on other

3S87
Department oj Veterans' Affairs
theatres, a large number of people are entering this country under the protection of an unspeakable policy. I should like to know what the government are doing and will do on behalf of our own people?
The Selective Service is already unable to absorb our demobilized soldiers, just as the government was unable after the last war to find for our veterans jobs worthy of their sacrifices.
I have received numerous complaints from veterans of the last war even during this conflict. Such complaints have come to me from all provinces. In many cases, our veterans were established with their families on lands that were unfit for cultivation, while bureaucrats newly-arrived in this country, were taking the best positions in the Canadian civil service. That was greatly to their advantage, of course, but what a shame for us! Let room first be made for our own people. Since the government want to establish a department of veterans' affairs and this bill provides for a considerable increase in the number of government positions, let them reinstate without any formal procedure the mobilized civil servants who, having undergone a few months of training in the armj% are looking for employment because they have been rejected. The oft-stated policy in this regard is not respected. What is the use of establishing a new department if we merely mark time?
As regards national health, I wish to quote an excerpt from page 12 of the publication Canada at War for April, 1944, under the heading "Health Service Survey":
An over-all picture of Canada's existing health services is given in a report of the Canadian Medical Procurement and Assignment Board, tabled in the House of Commons on March 13, 1944. The primary function of the board, which was set up in July, 1942, was to determine the number of medical personnel available to the armed forces and at the same time to try to preserve adequate medical service for civilians. The resulting complete and detailed survey of all branches of medical service together with recommendations for the improvement of existing conditions will enable the government to tackle present problems and plan for the future.
In all branches of medicine civilian demands have increased in inverse ratio to services available. The war has recruited only the healthy and left the physically weaker in disproportionate ^ numbers.	The birth rate has
considerably increased, and the old age population is increasing. (The Dominion Bureau of Statistics estimates that the number of persons GO years of age and over will increase by 20 per cent in the next ten years.) The old and the very young require most medical care. During war-time there is a greater threat of epidemics, especially in the crowded industrial centres. At the same time the increase in national income and economic means has boosted the demand for medical service.
10U-245J
Did the government recognize the invaluable services rendered by civilian physicians to the public and to the army? Quite the contrary, scorning their devotion to duty and their ability, after over-burdening them during the first three years the Mobilization Act was in effect, it cancelled their examination reports and summoned the draftees anew before army physicians and a small number of civilian physicians assigned for that purpose. Not satisfied with having shown itself so ungrateful towards these professional men who gave up both their time and their practice for the benefit of the state, the government now plans to strike the medical profession in Canada a deadly blow by installing state medicine. Let us beware! The day when politics shall interfere with the medical profession, we will witness not only a most disastrous act of injustice but also the decline of national health. When the federal government undertook to legislate on national health, it infringed on provincial prerogatives. It has been doing so for almost thirty years. That sphere does not belong to the Ottawa government. If we read the constitution of the country-


The CHAIRMAN (Translation):: Order! I do not believe that the hon. member who now has the floor is entitled to discuss the matter of physicians or state medicine. We are now discussing the veterans of the first great war and of this struggle.


Liguori Lacombe: The present debate is concerned with the setting up of a veterans' and national health department. In any case, I have very little more to say. If we read the constitution of the country, provided we do not have to go to London for it, we will find that the bill providing for the establishment of a department of veterans' affairs is unconstitutional as it infringes upon the rights of the provinces.
One word more. Due to the war, misconduct and immorality are permeating our youth. Hence, diseases oft incurable are on the increase and the deadly germs already undermining our present generation will afflict our descendants. It will take more than legislation to prevent such a calamity from spreading to the manpower of a whole nation.
The evil must be warded off by all preventive means at the disposal of medical science and the governments. Otherwise, the disastrous effects of permanent epidemics, pointed out by the highest medical authorities, as reported in the April issue of Canada at War, will be equalled only by the improvidence of our government. I require no other proof than the unfortunate wrecks who live on the State and by the State. Are they to be blamed? No. They are rather to be pitied. Heaven knows what efforts the public authori-

Department of Veterans' Affairs
ties should expend in this field, the most important for the maintenance and the survival of the nation.
In conclusion, I wish to state that centralization is not the remedy to our worst evil. Let the federal authorities be free to cooperate as far as possible with provincial administrations to this end.


Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, the explanatory note in this bill states:
The purpose of this bill is to establish a department of veterans' affairs under the direction of a minister of veterans affairs who shall be responsible for the care, treatment, training, or reestablishment in civil life of ex-members of the armed forces and of persons otherwise engaged in pursuits relating to the war, and for the care of the dependents of such persons.
I do not know who are the " persons otherwise engaged in pursuits relating to the war," but perhaps at some future time the minister can advise us. In the past hon. members of '.this house had a great deal to do with the matter of pensions. My first suggestion to the minister is that when the new department is set up, a proper, comprehensive directory of all the subdepartments and branches be compiled and published, because I believe in that way a great deal of time can be saved. Certainly I am in favour of setting up this new department of government. As I have indicated, all hon. members of this house have had to do with difficult pension cases from time to time, and I believe generally our experience has been that when these cases have been brought to the attention of the proper authorities they have been dealt with satisfactorily. However, I do not think it should be necessary to do that, and I hope that with the setting up of this department that situation will be remedied. I believe a department of this kind should have been set up a long time ago; certainly it would have saved us all a great deal of trouble.
There has been much official propaganda designed to create the impression that Canada leads the world in connection with the rehabilitation and treatment of returned men. No doubt this is so in regard to many aspects [DOT]of the matter, but in my opinion it is not a *question of comparison with any other system in the world. I know all hon. members have tried to offer constructive criticism when veterans' affairs have been under consideration, and have put forward their views in a nonpartisan spirit. But it seems to me that up to the present in connection with veterans' matters everything has been done on the basis of a Teluctant, half-hearted acceptance of proposals advanced by the opposition and supported by public opinion. I cite, for example, the attitude of the government in connection with

Christie street hospital and new military hospitals in general, as well as the matter of the clothing and rehabilitation allowances. There we saw a reluctant acceptance of our proposals. That was also the case in days gone by in connection with the discharge of these men and their pay during hospitalization. There has always been a reluctance to comply with our requests, which I believe has caused the veterans great hardships in the past.
As I have stated, the government seem to have been working on a basis of comparison with other countries instead of making up their mind on a definite policy as to what is right and just for the men returning from overseas. Now, in this preelection session, we see many improvements being put forward by the government. Almost it seeems as though the government have held back the announcement of these improvements until just before an election, to the detriment of the returned men. Well, that did not seem to do much good in connection with the election we heard about only the other day in Saskatchewan, and in view of the results of that election I doubt very much' whether a federal election will be called within the near future. In any case the reluctance of the government in connection with these matters will not be overlooked.
We all know that many mistakes have been made in the past. Following the last war there were mistakes that *were due to lack of experience in the handling of these matters, but many injustices were brought about by an endeavour on the part of various governments to save a little money for the taxpayers. Many examples of the petty paring of pensions and allowances could be mentioned, but the money saved amounted to only a drop in the bucket as compared with the suffering endured by many of our returned men. As an instance I might mention the reluctance of the government to increase the pensions of widows. Each year we have brought up the matter; each year the pensions have been increased slightly. Again, mistakes were made in the past by discharging men from the army too soon, and through the lack of proper papers. No man should be discharged until he has been given a full account of himself by the proper authorities; with his enlistment papers completely filled out, with his physical condition on discharge completely set out, and in short with his full record for the future. Hon. members will recall the difficulties they have had in connection with pensions, arising from the fact that applicants for pensions did not supply sufficient information. Care must be taken to give instructions to the men with regard to their rights, and as to what they

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
should do to have mistakes corrected in their papers at the time of discharge from the army; it should not be left until later. Many heartaches and hardships can thus be avoided.
Regulations are to be set up in connection with this legislation. The regulations should be promulgated and published at the earliest possible moment, because, after all, the bill is comprehensive and covers many features of pensions legislation. Certainly a consolidation should be made of all the regulations, so that in fairness to the returned men, and those who are endeavouring to look after them, justice may be done.
Then, is there any reason why men who have served in the forces, but are discharged before the date set for the various increases and benefits, should not have those benefits made retroactive? If they make proper application, it seems to me they should be included.
If the benefits and allowances were too low before, they are still too low for men and women whose applications have come in before the deadline. I cannot understand why they should not be treated the same as men and women who have applied after the deadline.
Much has been said in connection with the setting up of the organization. Some hon. members have suggested that the personnel of the board should consist of returned men, both from the last war and from the present war. This suggestion I heartily support, because the mature judgment of the older men will be most useful when combined with the more recently acquired knowledge of the younger men.
The new department will be faced with many problems. It will have many decisions to make, and I urge that they be made promptly. This is a point I cannot emphasize too strongly. Much of the unrest which has occurred has been due to delays. All hon. members know about the suffering which has been caused through delays in the handling of pension applications. I realize that some of these delays are unavoidable, but carelessness and inefficiency should not be tolerated.
May I refer to one or two matters which have been discussed, and which will no doubt be discussed later in connection with the payment of pensions to the returned men. I press now for a reasonable clothing allowance. The first allowance was set at $35, and it has now been increased to $65. I say that $125 is not too much for any men who have to refit themselves. Not only do they have to secure civilian clothing, but in addition they have to [DOT]obtain working clothes. I would ask any hon.
member to try to refit himself, even for $125. Certainly that figure is low enough, and undoubtedly $65 is entirely inadequate.
We note that an order in council has been issued by the government, indicating that it has yielded to pressure from members of the House of Commons, and public opinion. Pay and allowances according to rank are to be allowed for one year, two years, or more if necessary, for hospitalization. This is to date back only to May 1, 1943. I am wondering why that date was set. If the allowance originally made was too small, and if the principle was wrong after May 1, 1943, why was it not wrong and the allowance too small before that date?
All hon. members who have spoken in the debate have urged that every effort must be made to see to it that upon discharge the men are given every opportunity to get jobs.
I should like to ask in passing, the meaning of these words as they appear in earlier and very important legislation:
A man shall be reinstated in a position not worse than that he would have been in if he had not enlisted.	'
These are fine words, but what do they mean? Is it possible to reinstate a man under those circumstances? Can that be enforced?
I say it is necessary for the government before long to give us a definition of just what they mean by that wording. There is no use in keeping it there if it is just a bit of camouflage. There should be an accurate definition, so that the men will know exactly what it means, and what they may expect. At the present time they do not know what to expect, and I have heard many complaints in this regard.
Some of our men will have been out of a job, and in the army, for three, four, or possibly five or six years. Some of them never had a job. I believe it is the view of all hon. members that they should be given a proper opportunity to refit themselves for civilian life.
Why does the government propose to pay the men less while they are training for peacetime occupations than they were paid to prepare themselves to fight? It takes one or two years to train a man for warfare; yet these men who are coming back and who will have to train themselves for civilian life are expected to refit themselves and to become good citizens for less pay than they received' while they were in the army. That also' applies to their dependents. Besides, the training will probably extend over a shorter period'. This does not add up. If it was good policy to give pay and allowances while they were training to fight, certainly it is good policy to
Department of Veterans' Affairs

pay them equally well while they are fitting themselves to play their part in the kind of life for which they fought overseas. If these men are treated properly it will mean a great saving in money later. We must not be picayune now.
There are many other matters I shall discuss when the opportunity arises, but on this occasion I shall not take up more of the time of the house. I support the principle of the bill. As I said before, we should have had a department of this kind long ago.


Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, as other hon. members have said, this is a very important measure. It establishes a Department of Veterans' Affairs, and puts in the hands of the minister of that department almost everything concerning not only men who have returned from the last war, but also those who will return from this one. We all realize that winning the war is our first task, but the rehabilitation and reconstruction period after the war is also very *important. No greater responsibility faces [DOT]the Canadian people at home to-day than to .see that the armed forces when they return get a square deal, and nothing that we can do to mssist them in those post-war days will be any [DOT]more than what is due to them and what they have earned many times over.
I am sure the house will agree that since 1914-18 no subject has been treated with more unanimity among all parties in the house than tthe problems of the veterans. Those problems have always been beyond the scope of party politics, and I am sure we are all looking at this measure with only one thought in mind, namely, to do what is right and just for our men when they return.
If this new department is wisely directed- and I think it will be because I presume the present Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) will be the new minister-it will be of great service to the men of the last war and also to the men returning from this war. Some of the members who have spoken in this debate have mentioned the deal that was handed out to the veterans of 1914-18. I am one of those who have always thought-and I have so expressed myself-that the veterans of 1914-18 should have been given a better deal. I have not hesitated to say so on many occasions, and I refer particularly to the veterans who settled on the land. May I recall to you, Mr. Speaker, that even last session, in speaking on the budget on March 15, I repeated a suggestion that I had made on previous occasions, that the debts of the soldier settlers on the XMr. Douglas G. Ross.]
land should be written off. I am going to quote what I said on that occasion. I said at page 1238 of Hansard:
For years I have consistently urged in this house that if the government had written off the debt arising from soldier settlement in respect of the last war, the country would have saved money. I advocate that, as part of the proposed debt adjustment, the soldier settlers' debts be written off. After all, this concession would do no more than repay these men in some small measure for what they are doing in the present war. Their sons were the first to enlist and their daughters have followed

they are in the army too.
Many of the veterans of the last war have joined up in this war. If the policy I have consistently advocated had been pursued it would have been more just, more fair and would have saved the country money.
Undoubtedly the members of the armed forces when they return will demand the right to have an opportunity to earn a decent living and to make their own way on a just and equitable basis. As other hon. members have said in this debate, the men who are fighting our battles to-day overseas-and some of them are already returning from Italy are not looking for charity or pity. All they want is a square deal. They want a chance to resume their life work, to follow perhaps the course which the war interrupted in some university, or to take up vocational training of some kind. All they want is a fair chance to fit themselves to earn a decent living, and that is certainly no more than their due.
The question of pensions both old and new has been discussed in this debate. Pensions will be the responsibility of the minister who is appointed to this department. Too often in recent years the applicant for a pension has been treated with doubt, if not distrust. The burden of proof has rested on the applicant. All that should be reversed1 by this new department and the burden of proof rest, not on the applicant to prove his case, but on the department to prove that the applicant is not entitled to pensions.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is done definitely now.


Ernest Edward Perley: Department of Veterans' Affairs
them intelligently as to the plans being formulated by this government to take care of their boys and girls when they return; I have also been able to advise the wives of men overseas as to the opportunities of rehabilitation for their husbands. So that this is indeed an important measure, and one which, if carried through upon the lines suggested, will be well received by all the people of the dominion.
I was interested in the very fine approach made to this question by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). He dealt with the subject in the broad manner in which he always approaches such questions. I was also interested in the references made by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks). I was pleased that he brought the attention of the house to the case of William Hall, a coloured gentleman from Nova Scotia who was the first man in North America to win the Victoria Cross. I am thoroughly familiar with the case, and was delighted, having already put the story on the record on a previous occasion, as was also done by the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) some time ago, to have so full an account of this brave man's deed placed on Hansard in so eloquent a manner by the hon. member for Royal. I agree with what he said, and I support his suggestion that some society, the Historic Sites Society or some other, should undertake to erect at or near Windsor a tribute of respect to this brave man who has gone to the great beyond. Possibly the hon. member for Royal is not aware that we have in Halifax a branch of the Canadian Legion named after this hero- the A) illiam Hall, V.C. No. 57 branch, composed entirely of coloured men. It was my privilege and honour when that organization was first formed to provide them with a flag known as their legion flag. The branch is composed of some of our finest types of citizens- coloured men, certainly, nevertheless true and loyal and willing to do their utmost to bring about the victory and the peace for which we all hope.
I was surprised at a remark made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) when he was asking that additional employment offices or selective service offices and welfare offices be opened throughout Nova Scotia. I am in accord with this proposal, but his reference to Halifax, the capital of Nova Scotia, was a little out of place. He made the statement that Halifax is situated in the extreme western end of the province. I sincerely hope that he has not created the impiession that we are located somewhere down in the woods. Halifax, as he must know, and as the minister well knows, is at about the centre of the province; it is the logical
TMr. Isnor.]
place for the welfare office. If it is decided to establish additional offices, that is fine, but we do not want the minister or his department to do anything which would deprive us of the Halifax welfare office, which is so efficiently operated by Colonel Mackenzie, D.S.O. To prove my point let me give some figures as regards distances. From Yarmouth to Sydney, that is, from one end of the province to the district which the hon. member for Cape Breton South represents, is 538 miles. From Sydney to Halifax is 288 miles, and from Yarmouth to Halifax, 250 miles; so that it will be seen that we have a central location so far as the welfare office is concerned. While Halifax is the logical place for the welfare office, we have a very fine type of man looking after the returned soldiers, a man who has been an outstanding figure in veterans' affairs in Nova Scotia. He is well-known to practically every ex-serviceman who served in the last war, and he has already made himself well known to a large number of those who are serving in the present war.
I rose more particularly to express my approval of the general principle of the bill. I will not refer to any particular clause or clauses. They have been already dealt with, and in my opinion the proper time to consider them in specific detail is when the sections come before the committee of the whole. I endorse, and I feel that the people will endorse, the general principle of the bill, but I would bring to the attention of the minister this consideration. I feel that the men who are serving at the present time-and the same goes for the women-are not familiar enough with the benefits that will accrue from this measure. In my opinion every one of them should receive a pamphlet of some kind outlining the benefits of the measure, the rehabilitation grants which will be provided, the scheme of vocational training, the medical treatment to which they will be entitled, pensions, the plan for soldier settlement and the efforts that are being made to take care of their future employment and reestablishment in civilian life. With that thought in mind I bring to the attention of the house, as I understand the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) did on a previous occasion, a very fine book which I purchased in a book store. I was not as fortunate as the hon. member, for I did not receive a copy with the author's compliments, but this is an excellent book entitled, "When the Boys Come Home", written by C. N. Senior. It is a book that everyone will enjoy reading. It is easy reading and is very informative. If this book or a similar one could be placed in the hands of every member of the armed forces

Department of Veterans' Affairs
it would do much to satisfy them about their future welfare. More than that, I believe that the parents and members of the families of those serving should also read the book. It would show them what the government is trying to do for the members of the armed forces.
I will not go into details, but I might say in passing that the book touches upon a variety of interesting topics such as the postdischarge reestablishment order, Veterans' Land Act, historical background, pensions, hospitals, medical care, time of discharge, the boys in the merchant navy, and so on. The whole thing is well written, and the interesting point about it is that the author's royalties are pledged to the disablement fund. In other words, this well known official of the Department of Pensions and National Health, in his own time, has written a very fine book which I suggest should be placed in the hands of all members of the armed forces.
I desire to bring to the attention of the house one matter which I regard as very important, namely, the treatment of totally disabled veterans. I am sure every hon. member knows of some particular case, but I do not propose to deal with a number of complaints. We are bound to get complaints. When I first became a federal member I was besieged with requests to have cases reopened. It is hard to establish continuity in many cases. I went into these cases and, like other members, I have a file, not an inch or two inches, but many inches high, dealing with different cases. I could quote, as did the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), individual cases, but I do not think this is the proper place to do that.
I have had satisfaction from the officials of the department. Any cases that I have brought to their notice they have carefully considered and have taken the trouble to point out to me wherein certain cases did not come within the terms of the regulations, and as gracefully as I could I accepted the decision. I went back several times to make sure that no point was overlooked, and I always found them very willing to make a full review of cases in an effort to see that justice was done.
I said that I was anxious to bring this matter before the minister and to discuss the question of totally disabled veterans. I do not think I can do so better than by dealing with one individual case. The one to which I refer is well known to seventy-five per cent of Nova Scotians. It is known to a very large number of men and women who are serving overseas at the present time, because of the
activities of the gentleman in question on behalf of those persons. He personally supervises the sending of 125,000 cigarettes every month. Through his efforts millions of cigarettes have gone overseas. When I describe this man to hon. members they will realize that the request I make to the minister in this public way should receive his sympathetic attention.
I have in mind one who has suffered for something like fourteen years, and I have committed to writing the thoughts I have in this regard. When I think of those who are prone to complain, my thoughts turn to a veteran of the last war and compare his attitude with that of those who complain. The veteran to whom I refer is Walter Callow, known as "the human log," a patient at Camp Hill hospital, Halifax. This man exemplifies in true fashion the virtue of patience so well shown in the Bible story relating to Job's afflictions. Callow, as before mentioned, is a veteran of the first great war. He was injured in an airplane crash. He is well known to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald), the Minister of National Defence for Air, and also the Minister of Pensions and National Health, who have all at one time or another visited this veteran at Camp Hill hospital. I have on many occasions called to see him and I wish I could1 depict to you, sir, in fitting terms the spirit of this man, the frame of mind and the cheerful greeting which he extends to his many visitors. Think of a man who has lain in bed for fourteen years, unable to move or turn; his arms and legs are twisted, he cannot move them; his neck is as stiff as steel. He cannot move his jaws, and now he is also blind. While he cannot turn his head he seems to know the footstep of every visitor. His mind is ever working, planning things to do to help our veteran soldiers, writing poetry on cards, raffling this and that to buy cigarettes for boys now serving overseas. With this picture in mind I just wish to recall that I knew him as a boy who played hockey games, who took his bumps, and it made no difference how big they came, they always found him tough. Do you think he complains about controls and restrictions? No, he never complains.
I have photographs of this man here which I wish I could pass around to hon. members so that they could see how deformed every joint is, and how they are out of shape. It is this man that I am asking the minister to bear in mind when he is building new hospitals throughout Canada and when he is building that fine new addition which he has promised

Department of Veterans' Affairs
to Halifax, as an extension to the present Camp Hill hospital. I am asking him to provide suitable quarters in a separate portion of the building for this man who from day to day is compelled to lie and suffer. I am asking him to provide this accommodation so that this man may have some quietness of mind and that comfort by orderlies may be extended to him to make his remaining days just a little easier.
In conclusion, I hope the minister in his sympathetic way will take this into consideration when building future hospitals and particularly see if arrangements can be made whereby this veteran will enjoy the privacy of a small place that he can call his own and not have to wait for a new hospital.


Gordon Graydon: The minister will have
plenty of support with respect to that plea.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: I am
sure the minister must feel highly gratified at the unanimity with which bill No. 83 has been received from all corners of the house. I am not rising to discuss the bill at any length. As other speakers have done, I wish to register my support of the bill. Had I not received two or three letters recently-one of them to-day-I would take my seat after having made these few remarks in order that the bill could get into committee more quickly and through the house. However, I am not going to apologize for speaking even briefly on this bill. Like the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), who is known throughout the country as the soldier's friend, I in my time have had to do with a large number of soldiers following the last war. The section of the city of Toronto that I have the honour to represent sent a large number of soldiers overseas. It is true that the hon. member for Broadview received a title that so far as I know no one else in Canada received. It wras conferred on him by royalty and none other than the present Duke of Windsor, who was Prince of Wales at that time. His Royal Highness visited Toronto immediately following the end of the war, and during the term of the hon. member for Broadview who was mayor of Toronto for seven years. At that time he conferred on the hon. member the title of "the soldier's friend." He richly deserved it for the service he had rendered to the soldiers. I left a life of what would have been leisure at that time to come here to serve the soldiers, having had so much to do with them following the last war, at which time I was president of the British Imperial

association, as I had been during the war. That is a title I have always been proud of; it is a great organization.
When I heard the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) say last night that this bill conferred wide powers on the minister I said to myself, I am glad to hear it. Quite frankly everybody in the house may not be glad, but on various occasions when I have spoken to the minister about certain veterans he has said to me, " If I had the power I would see that that man received redress." On many occasions I have heard that from the late chairman of the pension commission, General Macdonald. I happened to be in Banff on the day he died or the day after. In any event I went to pay my respects to Mrs. Macdonald. The body was not in view at that time. I should like to say here and now that this country was never served by a more sympathetic commissioner or chairman than the late General Macdonald. On many occasions he said to me, " If I had the power and was not circumscribed by those regulations I would grant relief." Therefore I am hoping that the minister, now having that power, will be able to transfer it to the new chairman, whom I have always found very sympathetic, and that is what one would expect from a man who comes from Glasgow, Scotland, the land of the minister. Therefore I am looking for great things from the minister since he has the power that the hon. member for Vancouver South referred to in his able speech last night. It was one of the best speeches delivered in this house in this debate. It was delivered in his usual capable way.
I am not going to deal with the whole of the bill but with section 7, paragraph (g). I think it covers, what I wish to bring up. Section 7 reads:
(1) Subject to the approval of the governor in council, the minister may make such regulations, from time to time, as he may deem necessary and advisable.
I am glad the minister has the power. He is a returned soldier himself. I have always found him sympathetic to returned men. I hope the cases I shall mention will receive his special consideration. Paragraph (g) of section 7 reads:
for the payment of pensions out of moneys provided by parliament for the purpose to persons who, while rendering service to Canada in the prosecution of any war, suffer any injury or disease or aggravation thereof resulting in disability or death not otherwise pensionable or to the dependents of such persons. ,
Under that section I desire to mention one case of the present war. This is a letter I received from Sergeant R. Haire, of 19 Afton avenue, Toronto. I might say that in that

Department of Veterans' Affairs
part of the city of Toronto there are two men who are of the type that render eminent service to returned soldiers. I really do not know what this country would be like without men such as the man to whom this letter refers, Thomas Baldwin, and another gentleman around the corner on Northcote avenue, by the name of Truman Meriam, also a returned soldier. Both men are the type of men to whom people in distress go, and they are never turned down. So the Thomas Baldwin referred to in this letter is the man I have just described:
Dear Sir,
I have recently returned home from overseas, and I was in a quandary as to what I should do in order to get compassionate leave, and of course I got in touch with Thomas Baldwin, whom I have known for this past ten years, who immediately wrote to you

Being in my riding, of course they write to me.
-and explained my case, and in return I received a reply from you.
You stated in your letter that I should make out an application form for my release, which I did, and up until now I have had no word as to whether I am going to get this release or not. X was overseas for the last four and a half years, in which time the little cartage business I had has practically become extinct, and of course I would like to build up this business so as I could have something to return to whenever this war is over.
That is all I need read from that letter. This man's address is 19 Afton avenue, and what I have read will appear in Hansard. I should like to ask the minister whether he will have any power, through some of the ramifications of his big, new department, to assist a man like this to start up some little business such as he had before the war? That question need not be answered now; the minister can give me the information at another time.
The next letter I wish to read is from a returned soldier who served in the last war, who I believe was overseas for four years or more. I have taken up this case with the department many times, and this man has been here to see the department officials, whom he found, as I have always found them, to be courteous, considerate and sympathetic, but who under the present arrangement do not appear to 'have the authority which the minister will now have. Therefore I bring this man's case to his attention in the hope that when he reviews it some way will be found to help this man. This man, William Robertson, No. 534262, also was born in Scotland, I believe somewhere near Glasgow; his brogue is so good it is hard to understand
him, and he always signs himself "Scotty".
I know the minister will give fair play to everyone, of every race, and I only mention in passing that this man is from the old country. He has been in Christie Street hospital several times, and I have seen him in the most distressing circumstances. The last time I saw him he was in a very distressed state, but he has not been able to get more than a small pension, which I believe amounts to $22 a month. In fairness to the department I must say that they offered to put him on veterans' allowance, but he is a man of the sternest principles. He feels that if his physical condition is such that he is entitled also to the equivalent of veterans' allowance he is entitled to pension of that amount extra, and he feels that the only honourable way he can accept pension is for disabilities received in the war. I wrote asking for the name of his doctor, and in reply he says:
Sorry for delay in answering your letter. Just got over severe vomiting spell.
I have seen him vomiting very severely, when I would not have been surprised if he had passed out in his distress.
Well, Doctor Smith's address is Doctor Orminston Smith, 3 Regal road, corner of Regal road and Oakwood avenue, Toronto. No operation for the present. Strict ulcer diet- medicine-sunshine-complete rest and quietness. So I am leaving for Wasaga beach; a friend of mine has a cottage there. So I am going there to beat the white corpuscles, the reds are on the weak side.
I suppose that is a medical term; the white corpuscles destroy the red ones.
But the reds will win out when old man sunshine gets after them, and I hope to come up stronger than ever.
I have known this man for years. For reasons I am not going to mention there has been some conflict between him and the department, but then everyone cannot present his case in the nicest way. I have always found this man very reasonable, and I am going to ask the minister to have his case especially reviewed. If he is entitled to war veterans' allowance, why not increase his pension? Certainly his physical condition is such that if something is not done he cannot live very long.
I should like to mention one more case which I have taken up with the department many times. It is the case of George Stevens, 416 Salem avenue, Toronto, whose regimental number was 57727. This man draws a pension of $20. Some days ago I wrote Mr. Stevens asking him to restate his case, so that when the proper time came I might present it to the
Department oj Veterans' Affairs

minister and the house, and I am taking advantage of this opportunity to do so. He writes:
I enlisted in Toronto on November 11, 1914. I landed in France in September, 1915. I was gassed in April, 1916, by shell gas at Kemal and was sent down the line to Etaples, No. 18 general hospital, where I was for sis weeks. Instead of me going on leave to England, which was due me, I was sent up t'he line again into the Ypres salient and in less than a week the action took place, on the 2nd of June in Ypres, where I was taken prisoner. The Germans lined me up with several more to shoot us

I might digress here to say that I have heard him tell how he was lined up in the trench with some of his fellows after having been taken out of a dug-out. I doubt if any human being can picture the agony a man would be going through watching other men lining up ready to shoot him.
[DOT]-but a German field marshal came along and intervened and told the guards to take us prisoners. Through the terrible mental ordeal I went through carrying four of our own wounded men out under our own shell fire. The German doctor at our dressing station commended me for my courage but said I was badly shell shocked. This doctor asked me to take off my tunic; he held one end and I held the other; we wrung it out and the perspiration rolled out of it as though it had been in the river, through this mental agony under fire. I was kept behind the lines for three days carrying out wounded men, and ammunition up to the line under our own heavy shell fire; and then we started our march into Germany which took three days, with the Uhlans as our guards, driving us along until we reached the first prison camp, Dulman, where we lived for the first six months on black bread and watery soup, until the food packages came through.
I presume he means packages from Canada.
Our next move was to a munition factory in Munster, -where we refused to work on munitions, so they punished us by putting us in a detention camp and then taking us into a large room where they put high pressure steam on, [DOT] with very little ventilation. Our clothes were taken away from us and we were in there for forty-eight hours on a diet of water. The air was so humid the perspiration just oozed out of us. When we came out we were almost too weak to stand. We wrere also clubbed with the butt of a rifle on several occasions. We were beaten with a rubber pipe. Our next move was to Minden where we worked in the camp and on the roads. We were there for about four months. Our last move was to Friedrichs-feld where we -worked in the coal mines for nineteen months. We were maltreated there many times. The innocent had to suffer for the guilty, for if one prisoner done any wrong you were all punished. This punishment was standing in the pouring rain with your hands above your head for so many minutes, and then in another position with your hands outstretched for so long that you had not dare bat an eyebrow or the sentry would butt you in the back with his rifle butt. We were released three weeks after November 11, 1918.

Now, just a word. I do not think any physician could possibly accurately diagnose the disability accruing from the distress suffered by a soldier under those conditions. It is a very difficult picture to describe. I present to the minister this case, one which the former chairman had before him on many occasions-That chairman is not here now, but he called me on the telephone at one time, asking me to tell Mr. Stevens that he was going to see that his pension was increased, as it should have been. Later, however, when it was not raised he informed me that because of the regulations he could not increase 'it. Had he lived I am sure he would have found some way to make the increase. Now that the minister has the power described by the hon. member for Vancouver South, I hope that this case, and the other one I mentioned, will come under his personal review.
I have had long contact with Mr. Stevens, and I can say that at times I have seen him in conditions of the utmost distress, almost unable to breathe. I have seen him sitting at the edge of the sidewalk, because of his heart condition. I cannot understand why a condition of that kind would not show up upon investigation. Some things have been found wrong, because he has been given a certain amount of pension, although not very much.
With the presentation of these cases I have completed what I wish to say at this time. May I compliment the minister upon the introduction of the bill; the whole house is behind it. With the new authority he now has-and I do not like to see him shaking his head, because I am taking the word of the hon. member for Vancouver South who, on nooccasion, would exaggerate-


Mr. GREEN:: Perhaps the hon. member had better read my speech again.
Mr. MacNICOL; I hope that the minister will make a personal investigation to see if adequate redress cannot be given to these two suffering returned soldiers, each of whom rendered conspicuous service in the last great war, and who now deserve infinitely more than they have been given.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. J. S. ROY (Gaspe) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, this measure, which is based on a principle of justice and a feeling of gratitude, is most timely. I believe it should be passed and carried out at once..

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
It certainly behooves the authorities and the people of this country to give serious thought to ensuring the reestablishment of veterans and the care of the wounded after the war, when the time comes to demobilize all those stout-hearted men who are now fighting in. defence of an ideal. But it often happens that the w'orst measures are applied with the utmost strictness. On the other hand, measures that are infinitely better are applied neither so effectively nor with so much eagerness. Ever since the beginning of the war, that is in 1939 and 1940, when a campaign of voluntary enlistments was launched, we have heard members of the government and many people in Canada state that after the war on the return of those young men who had been called upon to uphold our cause on the battlefields, action would be taken with a view to ensuring them a better treatment than was given to the veterans of the great war, who were not, as we readily admit, treated as they should have been. I wish to quote, as an illustration, a case where that promise was not immediately implemented. In 1941, the veterans from the city of Quebec, organized into an association, requested me to point out to you and to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) the serious grounds for complaint which they had in Quebec. Those veterans, after two years of war. could not *obtain employment in arsenals. They claimed to be the victims of political _ discrimination and they voiced many other complaints of a rather serious nature. Following a pretty sharp debate with the Minister of National Defence, a board of inquiry was sent to Quebec with instructions to deal with those complaints. Its work had very good results. Such an incident shows that, two years after promises had been made to the men who are fighting in this war, no thought had been given to the matter of a fair treatment for the veterans of the last war. Therefore, I hope that we shall not be satisfied with making speeches, drafting an act and writing it into the statute books, but that the kindly feelings we entertain will move us to action, that this very necessary legislation which has the approval of everyone to-day, may find an echo in our minds and hearts, and be carried out at once.
(Text)
Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the capital Importance of this bill, I have been asked by Jubilee branch, No. 59, of the Canadian legion of the British empire service league, Gaspe, Quebec, to bring to your attention and to that of the proper authority in the house a matter which is of direct concern to the veterans. The following letter will explain the whole matter:
Gaspe, County Gaspe,
Quebec,
May 9, 1944.
Mr. J. S. Roy,
M.P. for Gaspe,
Parliament Building,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Mr. Roy:-
Major deGruchy of Cape-Cove, who is a member of this lodge, has sent us a copy of a letter which you sent him, from Mr. Macdonald, Parliamentary Assistant, to the Minister of National Defence, regarding the Canadian volunteer service ribbon.
In fairness to all who served whether for one or eighteen months, we, members of this lodge, feel that this matter should be brought to the attention of the ministers of national defence, and we would deem it a great favour if you, as our representative, would bring this matter to the attention of the house.
We are enclosing copy of an article which we are sending to the legion at Ottawa, and also a resolution from this lodge asking that in fairness to all those who volunteered and served and who were, for medical reasons or otherwise honourably discharged, that they be entitled to this ribbon as all volunteers who served eighteen months or more. These men who were not fortunate enough to complete this length of service showed their willingness by volunteering to serve their country in the time of need, and therefore, the least the Department of National Defence can do is to award this ribbon to all who volunteered, and make no distinction as to length of service. We trust that your representation may be the means of having this rectified.
We feel that we can safely say that anything which you may be able to do regarding this will be greatly appreciated by all concerned. Thanking you for your kindness, I remain, Yours respectfully,
Reg. R. deGruchy, Captn., President Jubilee branch, No. 59, Canadian Legion.
I am pleased to say that I have had the cooperation of the parliamentary assistant of the Minister of National Defence, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Macdonald), who has devoted a great deal of his time in the course of two weeks in helping me straighten out this matter and to bring justice and satisfaction to these volunteers for active service who have been discharged for reasons of health. I should like to put on the record his letter to me dated Ottawa, June 6, 1944:
J. S. Roy, Esq., M.P.,
647 House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Roy,
Re: Canadian Volunteer Service Medal I am now informed that the question of amplifying the eligibility provisions of governing order in council to include persons of any rank who have voluntarily served on active war service and have been honourably discharged or retired as a result of injury or disease or aggravation thereof, attributable to
Department oj Veterans' Affairs

or lncurred during such active war service, is under active consideration at the present time.
I understand that the proposed extension contemplates persons honourably discharged for medical reasons and the question of awarding the medal to personnel of less than eighteen months' service honourably discharged for other reasons is not now under active consideration.
I think this will give you all the information that you need in order to answer the inquiries of the Jubilee branch (Gaspe) of the Canadian legion.
Yours truly,
W. C. Macdonald, Parliamentary Assistant.
There is a ray of hope, but it looks to me is though a long time will elapse before satisfaction is given to these volunteers who have been discharged for honourable reasons, such as their condition of health. I again ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) to comply with the request of these volunteers who have shown earnestness and willingness to serve their country. They are entitled to recognition of the attitude which they took at the beginning of the war, the same as those who are still serving at the present time.


Mr. G. A. CRUICKSIIANK (Fraser Valley):: I do not intend to deal at any length with the bill now before the house. The minister has one thing in his favour; he comes from British Columbia and therefore he should know something of what he is doing.
I believe I can indicate my attitude to the bill in .general by saying that I thoroughly endorse practically everything that has been said during this debate by Liberal, Conservative, Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and Social Credit members. I wish, however, to reiterate one or two points to which I think more attention should be paid by the minister, especially in his new department.
A reference was made by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) to the attitude of the treasury board in connection with the claims of returned soldiers. It is a position which I have never been able to understand. I believe that the government would be well advised, particularly in view of some of the things which have taken place in the last forty-eight hours, to take measures whereby more members, if not all the members, of the board which handles any matters connected with soldiers shall be themselves returned men. I have every respect for the members of the treasury board. I do not know who they all are; I do not know what they are for; I do not believe they always know themselves what they are for; but I think the veterans are entitled to better consideration from them, particularly in view

of what has been said by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) as to what we as Canadian citizens owe our returned men.
I would particularly impress upon the minister that in the past the whole onus of proving the veteran's case has been placed on the veteran. I saw the minister shake his head this afternoon when the statement was made by one hon. member, but it cannot be denied. I agree with a statement made this afternoon, which probably has been repeated by other hon. members who have spoken with reference to this bill, that if a man is accepted for service as A-l, he should be the government's responsibility in the category of A-l from the time they take him into the army and for all future time.
Another suggestion I would make to the minister is that he eliminate red tape. As a member of the legion, and having been interested for many years in veterans' affaire, I know it requires a lawyer to understand the Pension Act and much of the other legislation having to do with returned soldiers. I am sure the minister is interested in doing everything possible to simplify all that concerns the veterans. It should not be necessary for them to have an advocate every time they approach a departmental official.
When the bill is in committee I should like to speak in some detail on the Veterans' Land Act, the subject in which I am particularly interested. Coming from British Columbia and from a large rural riding in that province,
I am naturally more interested in the land act than in any other portion of the bill which has been so well discussed in this chamber, especially by hon. members who themselves are ex-servicemen. I do not believe that the Veterans' Land Act in its present form is of any value, at least in the lower part of British Columbia on mixed farms. In my opinion, which is endorsed by every organization I know of, from boards of trade down, in the Fraser Valley, it is absolutely impossible for a soldier, no matter what his training or his knowledge of agriculture, to start operations and look after his family, meet ordinary living costs, let alone pay any principal and interest, if he has only $1,200 worth of stock on a mixed farm. I believe that any agriculturist will bear me out in that contention. If the government wants to make the act effective, at least in the Fraser Valley and the lower mainland of British Columbia, it must give consideration to a larger grant for stock and equipment. Further the government have reserved some 700 Japanese farms for the men who are coming back. I am sorry that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) is not in his

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
place, because this is more his responsibility than that of the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie). It is out of the question for any veteran to settle on a strawberry or raspberry farm-that is what they all are-so long as he allows some bureaucrat who does not know a strawberry from a toadstool to set the price of these berries. I hope the Minister of Pensions and National Health will be the soldier's friend when it comes to endeavouring to put some pressure on the minister who is responsible in this connection.
I turn now to another matter. As I have said, I endorse practically everything which has been said by all hon. members in connection with the bill, and shall have more to say about it when it is in committee. I did not happen to be in the house last night; I was on other business with my room-mate, who has left to join his unit. I had the privilege during the two years he was overseas of looking after his riding; and we were checking over files and various matters which he wishes me to look after now that he is returning to active service. But I have discovered that an hon. gentleman with a wonderful military record took occasion to make an attack on my room-mate and colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver North. He also made some remarks about myself. I am not worrying over what he said about myself; he has said these things a few times before, and any time the hon. member for Temiscouata says anything about the member for Fraser Valley, Cruickshank gets some more votes. I should like to read a letter I have received from one of the most prominent members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party in British Columbia. It is dated from Hatzic, April 27. This warrior friend of mine from Temiscouata has some favourite expressions which he likes to level at the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) and Barclay's bank and the civil servants; he also likes to tell me that I wall not be re-elected. But here is the letter from Hatzic:
Dear George:
I have just read a couple of clippings in a Vancouver paper, which I enclose. I certainly approve of the method you have of addressing such men as herein indicated, J. F. Pouliot, for instance. You surely let them all know B.C. can speak for itself. The Speaker evidently knows his business too.
And this part I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. member who says to each member he does not like, "You won't be elected." I want him to hear this line from a past president of the C.C.F. association in my riding:
The next election may also prove Pouliot to he a false prophet.
So that I am not particularly worried about what the hon. member for Temiscouata may have said about myself last night or at any other time. The more he says, the more certain I am of being returned to Ottawa.
I think every hon. member will give me credit for the fact that I do not often either follow notes or read anything, but in order that there may be no misunderstanding about this I want to follow my notes fairly carefully.
I should like to turn now to the cowardly attack made by the hon. member for Temiscouata on the hon. member for Vancouver North. I say "cowardly" advisedly, for the hon. member waited until the hon. member for Vancouver North had left the house to return to his duties in the Royal Canadian Air Force before he made his slur. If the hon. member for Vancouver North were here he would be able to take care of himself.
That there might be no mistake to-day, I wrote the hon. member for Temiscouata, as follows:
Ottawa, Ontario,
June 16, 1944.
Mr. J. F. Pouliot, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, On-t.
Sir:	. [DOT]
As I intend making reference to yourself in the house during the day, as a matter ol courtesy I am waiting you to this eiiect m order that you may, should you so desire, be present during my remarks.
I want it to be perfectly clear that I never say anything that I am afraid to say in front of a man; I never have done so and I never will. I want to quote the facts about the hon. member for Vancouver North because I want them to be accurate. The hon. member enlisted as aircrew on September 4, 1939, but because of his age he was not called up until the spring of 1940. He was then called as an administrative officer rather than as aircrew because the services felt that with his training he would be of more value in such capacity.
He bitterly resented this and attempted to remuster as a navigator in the fall of 1940 but was turned down on medical grounds as unfit for tropical service, which is amusing in view of his later service in the desert. He went overseas in 1940 and served with two Canadian fighter squadrons as adjutant. When the Royal Air Force raised the age for aircrew he applied and was accepted for aircrew, but this was stopped by the Royal Canadian Air Force. He then volunteered for service in Libya, reverting from squadron leader to flight lieutenant in order to do so.
He served from Alamein to Tunis, then in Malta, and he was the first Canadian airman to wade ashore from a barge in the invasion of Sicily. Yet he is referred to as a penguin by the warrior of Temiscouata. All any hon.
Department oj Veterans' Affairs

member need to do is to ask any airman what he thinks of Flight Lieutenant Jimmy Sinclair. They need only read Hansard of the past two days to see the many fine things which have been said by members of all parties about his efforts in the house for his comrades in the service.
Now let us examine the military record of the hon. member for Temiscouata. According to the Parliamentary Guide, which is issued to every hon. member, the hon. member for Temiscouata was born in 1890. On August 4, 1914 he would have been twenty-four years of age and in 1918 he would have been twenty-eight years of age. That is, during the last war his age would range from twenty-four to twenty-eight years. As an old soldier I know that is the ideal age at which to be a soldier. The Parliamentary Guide shows no record of service in the first great war. _
According to Hansard the record of service of the hon. member in the second great war would appear to be to discourage the enlistment of farmers' sons and in no way to have encouraged the purchase of victory bonds to buy supplies for a gift to battered Britain. He has done more than anyone else to hurt the [DOT]cause of unity by putting Quebec before the eyes of the rest of Canada in a light which in no way is the due of a province that produced the famous Twenty-Second Battalion, a unit which I had the honour to serve alongside in the first great war. No; the hon. member for Temiscouata who fights so courageously against civil servants or members of the armed forces who cannot fight back is not in a position to know what a slit trench in the bombed desert means, to know of sleepless nights on the sands, to live on iron rations, to share with his comrades the cruelties of war. How could he when he has never seen war, never known war other than that of endless speeches with an eye always on the battle front of the Temiscouata elections.
Unfortunately the rest of Canada judge the great province of Quebec by the utterances of such men as the hon. member for Temiscouata. When I go home to my riding,
I am not asked, "What is the price of milk? What have you done about farm labour?" I am asked, and I am sure many other members from western Canada are also asked, "What are you going to do about Quebec?" I want to say to hon. members from Quebec that it is extremely unfortunate that their spokesman is apparently the hon. member for Temiscouata. I know he does not express the feelings of many fine members from the province of Quebec. Every time I go back home I defend the province of Quebec.

Quebec is a wonderful province and has made a great contribution, not only to the present war but to the last war. But unfortunately such men as this broadcast their remarks across Canada as representing the soul of Quebec. I do not think it is the soul of Quebec to call an airman who volunteered in 1939 a penguin when he served throughout the Africa-Sicily campaign, to call him a penguin when one son of the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) is serving as adjutant of the squadron in which the hon. member for Vancouver North served. Another son of the minister is a prisoner in Hong Kong, and yet this so-called spokesman for Quebec calls my room-mate, a soldier in this war like Flight Lieutenant James Sinclair, the hon. member for Vancouver North, a penguin.
I want to tell the hon. member for Temiscouata that I think I speak not only for my province but for all members in this house when I say that they bow their heads with shame that any member shoidd defame a fighting man from Africa and Sicily by calling him a penguin.


Mr. W. K. ESLING (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, the placing of veterans' affairs under a separate department is not only acceptable to the men of the armed forces but I know it will be very desirable to the administration especially when these men are returning from overseas in greater numbers. The bill makes provision for the care and training of veterans, especially disabled veterans who, I take it for granted, will be cared for and treated under the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I assume also that the blind veterans will come under the care and direction of the Canadian national institute for the blind. Certainly they could get no better care. I notice that one section of the bill gives the minister direction and control over the workshops of the institute in which the blind will be trained, but I take it that there will be an arrangement made between the Canadian national institute and the administration.
There is not much that can be said on this bill without repetition, and the debate has been a series of repetitions. In the regulations issued under a recent order and which became effective on June 1, reference was made to the members of the forces who served in the northwest rebellion. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) has been most persistent in his plea on behalf of the members of those forces. He has asked that they be brought under the War Veterans' Allowance Act. Pensions are provided for the disabled, but unfortunately these men do not come under the benefits of this act.

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
There are not a great many of them. A man who enlisted at the youngest age of eighteen in 1885 would be seventy-seven years old to-day, so that I think it will be admitted by all hon. members that if the treasury board showed a little generosity it would not make much of a dent in the federal exchequer to permit these men to have the benefits of this act which would give a man $30 a month if he were single and $60 if married. These men were looked upon as being heroes in the days of 1885. It was a long arduous march which they made and they encountered considerable exposure. The answer made to the hon. member for Broadview was that in order for them to come under the War Veterans' Allowance Act it was necessary that they have served in a theatre of war, were sixty years of age and in necessitous circumstances.
I have had cases before the war veterans' allowance board and they were disposed of promptly according to their merits. . I had one case of a man who had not gone out of Canada and another one who had not gone any farther than England. The board very rightly said: "By no stretch of the imagination could England be considered as a theatre of war in the last war." Neither could Canada be declared a theatre of war at that time. Therefore that disposed of the contention that these men could not be granted an allowance. There was another reason given, namely, in order to accommodate these men the territory covered by the north and south shores of the Saskatchewan river where the uprising took place would have to be declared a theatre of war. It was not a theatre of war such as we know to-day. But there were four or five battles fought there and some four hundred men were wounded. There were also twenty-six killed. In the battle of Batoche fifty-one rebels were killed. The five battles are recorded in the archives. They were the battles of Frog Lake, Fish Lake, Batoche, Cut Knife and so on. There were five places in which there were encounters. Many were killed and wounded and many more suffered from exposure. Some six hundred mounted policemen joined that force. Those who were wounded were pensioned. The minister will remember that a few years ago a cash gratuity was given to the survivors, but none of them have come under the War Veterans' Allowance Act. In my own town I have three or four of those old veteran mounted policemen. There were some who were not in the police force. There were five thousand members of that force. There were infantry, cavalry and artillery forces from the cities of Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Kingston and Calgary. As I say, it
is all recorded in the archives of this country. By the way, very little of the history of the rebellion comes to the attention of readers of to-day, but correct reports are kept in the archives branch. I believe that the government would be justified-and I appeal to the minister to give thought to it-in bringing the members of the forces of the northwest rebellion within the benefits of the War Veterans' Allowance Act.
Another matter which has been mentioned in connection with this new department is that of bringing the soldier settlement board within the terms and the orbit of this act. So much has been said about it that this is one case in which there is real repetition. The hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) and other hon. members from all parts of the house have suggested that the indebtedness be wiped out entirely. It was a hazardous and uncertain game to start with.' Twenty-five thousand soldiers took advantage of the Soldier Settlement Act. We all know the adversities with which they were faced, so much so that thirteen thousand, according to the reports issued just prior to the outbreak of the war, had abandoned their venture entirely. A few have paid up and acquired titles. Some eight hundred had traded or disposed of their equity. But the point to remember is that many of them were able to secure reductions; as a matter of fact they all secured certain reductions. They had reductions of interest, bonus payments and so on two or three times. But there was one point that they did not all take advantage of and that is the only point on which I am going to make my plea on behalf of the soldier settlers. Many of the soldiers took advantage of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act to such an extent that fhey materially reduced their indebtedness. Far more did they reduce their indebtedness than did many who paid their principal and interest. The reason why they did not all take advantage of it was that they were not all in the same financial straits. As I said, they had paid their interest and principal and were not called upon to make a settlement; whereas the field men, in some instances at any rate, when they went around and tried to make collections from those settlers who were in arrears actually suggested that they take advantage of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act and materially reduce their indebtedness.
The Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act was nothing more than a method of permitting the farmers to go through bankruptcy, a method which did not apply to them until the act had been brought into force along about 1930. As I say, there were those who did

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
not pay but who took advantage of the rearrangement of their indebtedness when the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act came into the picture and they were far better off than those who paid. Therefore my one appeal to the minister, since he is taking over this new department, is to start with a cleaner sheet by putting every man on a level and allow those who have not had the benefit of reducing their indebtedness through the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act to take that advantage. At the present time it applies only to Alberta and Saskatchewan, and since the end of the year to Manitoba. It should be made retroactive to British Columbia. I think it would be doing a gracious act and it would be cutting down the indebtedness of the soldiers. You would be putting them more on an even basis if you were just to all of them, and you can only be just to all of them by relieving those who did not apply for that rearrangement under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act and reducing their indebtedness to the equivalent of those who benefited.


James Layton Ralston: I want to take the opportunity which this debate affords to say a word or two to the house in explanation of the organizations which have been set up in the three service departments, which organizations have to do with what we call discharge affairs. I trouble the house to listen to me in this matter because there has already been some misapprehension with regard to the office which these organizations have to fill in the service departments. I want it understood at the outset that those services which I shall describe in a moment are purely intended to be supplementary to the services which I believe, and I am sure ex-servicemen generally believe, have been so efficiently rendered by my colleague and his Department of Pensions and National Health with respect to returned men's problems. But it has seemed to some of us that there is a tendency-and this happens in connection with not only ex-servicemen's affairs but other matters as well-to separate governmental departments into [DOT]water-tight compartments and, as some of the public have flippantly described it, for one *department to "pass the buck" to another.
There is a clear line of demarcation between the objects and functions of the Department *of Pensions and National Health and those *of the three defence services represented by the Departments of National Defence for Army, Air and Naval Services. That clear line of demarcation is that theoretically and perhaps legally, the three defence departments have nothing to do with a man after he is

discharged from the defence services. From that time on the Department of Pensions and National Health takes him on, and some people might say that on this account the three defence services have nothing to do with a man who is prospectively to be discharged, because, after all, whatever is eventually to be done with respect to him must be done by the Department of Pensions and National Health.	So	that the impression	has	goneabroad	that	the appointment of	the	threeofficers	who	were mentioned in	the	press
announcement a week or so ago was in some way infringing upon the Department of Pensions and National Health. I know my colleague and his officials understand perfectly that this is not so. I want to say that there is the closest cooperation between us, and I should like this house and the country to understand that there is neither any intent to infringe nor any infringement of any kind. I have believed that instead of departments working in water-tight compartments-not, as it were, not letting the right hand know what the left hand does-it is necessary-and this applies not to departments alone but to branches of departments-that departments, instead of working on their own, should integrate, should mesh or gear into each other in their activities-I do not like the word "coordinate" so much-and that is exactly what the organization of which I shall speak in a moment is intended to do. That is, it is intended to gear into the activities of the Department of Pensions and National Health, but to do so in advance of the man leaving the service, so that he may have the benefit of a certain amount of advice, a certain amount of knowledge, a certain amount of training and a certain amount of planning by the defence services themselves, of which he is a member. In this way he may be better prepared, and have better facilities provided, to return and take up his position in civil life.
While I am speaking of the Department of Pensions and National Health, I want to remind the house that when the time comes for a man to be discharged or, even more important., when the time comes for general demobilization, you will find that there will be interested in that man not only fhe three defence services but also the Department of Pensions and National Health, which has had to do primarily with pensions and treatment of disabled men; the department of reconstruction, which will have a tremendous amount to do with the matter of providing employment, I mean by way of the conversion of war industries to civilian production-

Department oj Veterans' Affairs


Howard Charles Green: Will that department have anything to do with the individual man in
the forces?


James Layton Ralston: It will have to do with the provision of work which will be available to the individual.


Howard Charles Green: But it will have nothing to do with the actual individual?


James Layton Ralston: Of course the department of reconstruction has not been set up, but it will have a very real job to do at least in connection with ex-service men in the mass, to provide and assist in providing employment which may be useful in helping them to return to civil life. Then there is the Department of Labour-perhaps I should have put it in the second place-which will have a great deal to do with the placement of men in various industries, subject, of course, to the right of those men to receive their old jobs back under the provisions of the legislation already in force. So that there are the armed services and these three departments particularly, and there may be others, all of which will have something to do with the ex-service man.
This is what the armed services have done. I am not going to use the word "discharged" any more than I can help, because I am not particularly enamoured of it. I like to think of the transition, shall I say, of a man from service to civilian life simply as the "changeover" from war service to peace service. Looking forward to that change-over, the defence services do not take the position that they are not concerned with a man after his discharge. Neither do they take the position that they are not concerned with the man who prospectively will be discharged. They believe that they have some duty and responsibility to him in both those aspects. The reason is that it is felt that the defence services know something about the work that man has done. He has been a member of the fighting forces which have been under the administration of these departments. He has assisted in carrying out the duties of fighting men, in carrying out the duties laid upon these departments to maintain Canada's armed forces. So that it does seem desirable that the point of view of those men with regard to what provision should be and can be made for their return to civil life, or their "change-over", should be represented by someone who knows something of the difficulties which they have had to meet. By that I mean the point of view should be represented by someone who has been in the fighting services and, more than that, someone who has been in the fighting. That is the first principle, that the point of
view of the man himself or of the body of men should be represented by those who know that point of view, either by direct experience of their own or by learning from those who have had direct experience; I mean their point of view in connection with the measures which must be considered for the purpose of helping to rehabilitate ex-service men. The list of such measures or at least of subjects dealt with in that way is really a long one.
I have an opportunity, as probably many other hon. members have had, of reading the resolutions and reports on rehabilitation in the proceedings of the Canadian Legion convention in Vancouver a very short time ago. Those resolutions, on various subjects which vitally affect ex-service men, cover page after page. I am sure I do not need to say, for hon. members of the house and the country will agree, that the Canadian Legion all down through the years has represented the exservice men in a very fine way in connection with legislation and individual measures which might be for their benefit. On the whole I think one can say that their attitude has been very tolerant, helpful and considerate. With many of the resolutions, of course, I may not agree entirely, but the tone, temper and general nature of those resolutions are such as to commend them to the public generally, I should think, and would indicate that they took a serious view of their responsibilities in helping to represent the ex-service man. But I am sure they would be the first to. agree that men in the fighting services and on the fighting fronts to-day would be glad also to have the benefit of the representations which . come from those fighting fronts, from men who are there and men who come from there, that they may help in moulding the legislation and measures which are to be for the benefit of those men when they come home.
That is the first office which the three fighting services wish to help perform. Flowing from that, as hon. members will see, is this point, that there is a real matter of military efficiency involved. That comes about in this way, that the more assured the men in the fighting services, who are on the beaches of France or in Italy to-night, and the more assured their dependents are that their interests are being and will be looked after by those who know something about the situation, and less their worry and consequently the better for military efficiency. That also is a factor which the defence services, I think quite properly, consider important in connection with this activity which they are undertaking. They consider that the morale of the fighting men, the morale of the dependents of the fighting

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
men, and the morale of the country generally, benefits from an active interest being shown and active and effective work being done to help see to it that the measures taken are worthy of the men and women themselves and of the service they are giving overseas. So that each department has set up an adviser on discharge affairs; in two departments they are called advisers, while I believe the Department of National Defence for Air calls the officer the director of demobilization.
They have not a large staff, but they are charged with the responsibility in two different aspects. First let me say this, that they are not charged with the routine of demobilization of the soldiers. By routine of demobilization I mean the sort of medical examination they shall take, where the examinations shall be held, the make-up of the boards, the matter of pay, the forms to be used on discharge or demobilization, the arrangements regarding transportation. They do not deal with these matters of routine. At the present time they would not deal with the order in which demobilization shall take place. That is to say, that for the present at least they do not advise on the formula which will be adopted to decide when men will be demobilized first when general demobilization is attained.
It is not routine that they are dealing with. That routine will involve, when the time comes, putting the branch of the adjutant-general, which has been getting men into the services, into reverse, and taking the men out of the services, by making the change-over to civilian life. That routine is not anything 'that any two or three or half a dozen men can do. It will require the activities of the whole man-power side of the adjutant-general's branch, and probably more.
What those men are dealing with is not merely routine. That is to say, it is not simply the mechanics of turning men out into civil life, through the use of certain procedure and forms. But what they are dealing with is the welfare of the men who are being discharged, the matter of the amenities which can be provided for them, and the matter of the aid which can be given to them, in order that they may be absorbed, and absorbed properly, into civil life.
I just wish to deal here with two phases of that activity. First, it will take the phase of activity within the service, activity while men are still serving. That involves, some day, the matter of vocational training. There will come a time in the war when operational activities will cease-and pray God it may come soon. I, as Minister of National Defence

have very little hope that it may come soon, but we must plan for it when it does come;
I wish the house and country to understand what we are trying to do. What we will face at some time is a period of inactivity in the army, because there cannot be general demobilization all at once. And when that period of inactivity comes we will have to arrange that those periods are utilized to give useful vocational training while men are still in the army, training which will anticipate the training which will be given later by the Department of Pensions and National Health, or by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and which will gear into that. That is a matter for planning and advice by those officials.
They will also have to be in close touch with the educational activities of the respective defence services. That education is being carried on to-day, for the primary purpose of making the man a more efficient soldier and, secondly, to be useful in helping the man to be a better and a more productive citizen. It is in connection with this latter objective that these officials will help to plan. Then there will be measures for their assistance in connection with their discharge.
The matter of clothing allowance has been mentioned. That matter of clothing allowance is one which is looked after by the three defence services. That matter of the assessment of or the fixing of a clothing allowance and advising on it, and comparing it with those of other countries, and seeing what is fair and reasonable, is a matter which would be within their purview, I would say. The matter of leave which a man gets on discharge is another thing which would come directly within the defence departments, the army, the navy and the air force. These officers would advise on that. Then there is the matter of war service gratuity. Here again these officers will study and advise, taking account of the various representations and suggestions made, and the conditions in this country affecting such assistance.
I could go on to discuss other matters, but I do wish to say further that their job will also be to plan and advise on arrangements to inform sailors and soldiers and airmen while they are in the army, and while they are still serving, and while they are still fighting, of the provision which is being made for them when the time comes for discharge.
Those are the activities in the army. While they may, and do, refer to general demobilization, we must not forget that discharges are taking place continuously. In the last sixteen weeks, for instance, we have discharged from the army about 11,000 men. Those men being

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
discharged from day to day have to be discharged properly and have to be looked after when they are discharged from the three services. We would like to have the activity of these officers to begin early and not wait for general demobilization, in order to take in the large numbers of men who are discharged from time to time. Those are activities which are taking place within the armed services.
The other activity is one which perhaps the house may think may be apt to infringe upon the Department of Pensions and National Health or the Department of Labour. Those activities have to do with the measure which would take effect after discharge. I mean, for instance, how much we will allow a man, or how much the Department of Pensions and National Health will allow a man while he is on vocational training. Or it may be the matter of veterans' homes, or many other post-discharge benefits.
You may say that the fighting services have not anything to do with those matters. But they do have ideas, and those ideas are from the men in the armed forces themselves.
Measures of that kind, as I said a moment ago, are referred to in the resolutions passed .by the legion. They are very many in number, and the items covered a great many objectives. All those matters are things on which these officers will help to plan and advise.
I am not going to talk about the merits of these matters. I think most members will agree with me when I say that the most important and the most outstanding measure, either of benefit or right, which the government could provide for in the interests of the men and women of the services when they are discharged is the matter of full employment. And if full employment is provided, a great many problems may never arise.
In that connection, obviously, there will arise questions in connection with civil service employment. Then there will be questions of the status of ex-service men in respect of government industries which have been converted from war-time to peace-time activities. What shall the status of ex-service men be in respect of those? Then there are questions of administration in connection with the service man's right to employment in their own jobs, and so on. There will arise questions involving the Department of Reconstruction and the Department of Labour. There will arise questions in connection with the Veterans' Land Act, which has already been passed. There will arise questions of vocational training, and the allowances which will be made and the facilities which may be provided. There will be questions with regard to the men engaged in the
fisheries. The measures to deal with these subjects will be proper matters for planning and advice by these officers in the three defence services, sitting in with the officers of the Department of Pensions and National Health.
There has been a great deal of discussion about small business, and other occupations and professions, in respect of which assistance has been suggested. Then there will be the question of pensions and treatment, which is always with us. And there will be questions regarding allowances for ex-service men on training or treatment. We believe that the officers of the three services can help in planning and advising on such matters.
I wish to close by repeating that the desire of the service departments is-and it is fully understood by the Department of Pensions and National Health, and by the Department of Labour, and I am sure will be agreed to by the Department of Reconstruction-that these officers function in integration with and geared in with the activities of these other departments, not to take over or infringe on any of their functions, but to help by planning and advice, with a knowledge of the point of view of those who serve in the armed forces. You will find that most of their work will be done by way of interdepartmental committees or boards on which the officers representing the armed services will sit down with the officials of other departments and endeavour to work out common problems, bringing to all concerned the point of view of the men and women in the fighting forces.
I have taken longer than I had expected, but I just wanted to make that explanation. I have spoken particularly of army activities, but I have endeavoured to represent the point of view of my colleagues, the minister for air and the minister for naval services. We feel that in this way we may be able to furnish some assistance to the men and the women in the fighting services and their dependents who are bearing the real burden and paying the real cost of this war in separation and anxiety and sorrows, in wounds and in life itself.


Mr. NEILL:: Would the minister say a word about the merchant marine?


James Layton Ralston: I am not in a position to say a word about the merchant marine. I purposely refrained from doing so because I thought that is something on which these officers might not be of very much help. They would be very glad to sit down and consider their problems but would certainly not be regarded as representing the point of view of the merchant marine, except to this
Department of Veterans' Affairs

extent, that they can at least bear testimony, if testimony were needed-and I know it is not in this house and in the country- to the vigilance and faithfulness and loyalty and outstanding work which these men, perhaps almost the forgotten men, have done and are doing in keeping the sea lanes open and in carrying across the seas the munitions and supplies that are required to win the war. I am sure that all would realize the worthiness of any representations which they might make for proper and just recognition. I hope the explanation I have made with respect to the three services and what they are trying to do may help to clear the situation slightly with regard to these activities.


Mr. KINLEY:: I might suggest to the minister that the education of navy men to become officers of the merchant marine might very well come under a committee of this kind.
M" RALSTON: That is why I said I was speaking for the army. I did not attempt to cover all the activities which these advisers might undertake. I am quite sure that the representatives of the naval service might well have in mind the activities of the men of the merchant marine.


John James Kinley: I had in mind it was an integrated service.


Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the house will be pleased to know that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) is going to set up this new organization, representative of the three fighting services, to cooperate with this new department which is being set up. I quite agree with him that such an organization was lacking in the last war, and I agree with him also as to the possibilities of such an organization being of great assistance in this war.
There is no doubt that when the men are about to be discharged from the armed services they are in a great hurry to get home, and they do not understand all the regulations and all the provisions that have been made for their benefit until it is too late. Then they are sorry that they were not a little more cautious in the first place. This new organization which the Minister of National Defence has spoken of will be of great assistance. He mentioned that it would be its duty to look after the welfare of the men and that it would contain men of experience with army life who would be in a position to advise the men of the armed forces as to their new associations in civilian life.
The minister also referred to the matter of clothing and said that it would be part of 
the duty of this new organization to advise the new department on the amount of clothing that would be required upon discharge. I wish to say a wrord about that and I think this is about as good a time as any to say it.
I am sure that if this new organization is conversant with the needs of the soldiers when they return to civilian life it will realize that the amount, of $65 which is now allowed for clothing allowance is certainly not sufficient for the soldiers to make a change-over from active service to civilian life. I would suggest to the Minister of National Defence that this new organization would be well advised to make out a list of the essential items of clothing required by the men upon discharge in order that they may start out decently clothed in civilian life. Let this organization figure out if it requires one suit or two suits of clothes, a couple of pairs of shoes or more, an overcoat, a hat and so on, whatever they think may be required, and then, when they have the list complete, find out what it would cost at modern prices and then say: This is the amount that we recommend for a clothing allowance. I am quite sure that the minister of this new Department of Veterans* Affairs will find out that $65 will not be sufficient to provide the clothing required.
I have received I do not know how many letters on this subject. I have a file of them here. They all complain of the inadequacy of the clothing allowance. I received one such document this afternoon. It is really a petition with sixty-five names attached of men in the Canadian armed services. They are petitioning us now, pleading with members of the House of Commons to give them a greater clothing allowance than the $65 which is now provided. I do not think there can be any argument in that regard. If we were living in a country which could not provide these things it might be justifiable for us to say that we can allow only $65 for clothing, but we are certainly not living nor shall we be living after this war in a land where these things cannot very easily be produced. We have wonderful potentialities of production when we change over from war-time to peacetime production and we can produce far more than is required to satisfy all our wants. So why be niggardly about this clothing allowance? This petition which I received has names of men from Drumheller, Calgary and various other cities. The men in the armed forces are very much concerned over this clothing allowance. I hope that the Department of Veterans' Affairs will not be limited by any miserly outlook in this matter but will provide a decent clothing allowance for the men upon discharge.

Department of Veterans' Affairs
I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) in regard to giving to the returned soldier settlers clear titles to the land on which they are now settled. I am not going to go over the ground that he covered so thoroughly and ably, because he put the case in such a way that it needs no further argument. I am quite sure that the minister of pensions, the minister who will be presiding over this new Department of Veterans' Affairs, is quite conversant with the facts and is sympathetic toward the men getting clear title to their land.
In this regard I think the evidence is clear, not only in the communications which have been sent to various hon. members, including the minister himself, but in the presentations which have been made in person to the minister and his officials. I met the delegation who came here to interview the minister. The meeting with the minister was arranged by the hon. member for Battle River. The delegates were courteously received and patiently listened to; they were well pleased with their reception, and the only thing which remains is for action to be taken as a result of their interview. If no action is taken these men will be very much concerned. I am not going to argue the subject now, because I am convinced that serious consideration will be given to granting clear titles to these men. Certainly this concession should be made. It would have been much more economical if we had given the land outright at first. I am not so sure, in spite of the provisions of the new Veterans' Land Act, but that the department would be farther ahead to take a lesson from the experience we have had since the last war and give these men titles to their lands. Administration costs would be saved; departmental headaches would be avoided, and none of the difficulties which attach to the proposed operation would arise. I shall rest my argument at this point, and when the bill is under discussion in committee I may have something further to say about it.


Mr. A. R. ADAMSON (York West):: Before the question is put, I should like to go on record as congratulating the hon. member for Fraser Vallejo (Mr. Cruickshank) upon what he had to say to-night. I hope that chivalry and honour are sufficiently alive among us that we in this house will not allow to pass unchallenged slurs against a member who has served his country well, and served it in actual combat duty. One can only hope, also, that chivalry as'well as honour are not dead in the province of Quebec.
I suggest to the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) that he call the department to be set up under this bill the department of warriors' affairs. I recommend that for two reasons. First, I have had a number of letters concerning the term "veterans" and what it meant after the last war; second, the name "warrior" is a good English word. Its definition is, "one who is experienced in war." We have in Toronto a warriors' day at the annual exhibition, and the use of the term "warrior" has always been considered favourably. It does not denote age in the way that "veteran" does.
In this connection we have to deal with a very different problem at the end of this war from that which faced us at the end of the last war. The problem is different psychologically; we are dealing with a different kind of man. It is not that he is any braver or more patriotic than the soldier of the last war, but he has had a great deal more technical training. In the last war the fundamentals of service were that you should be able to march, that you should be able to shoot, that you should be able to keep yourself clean and that you should keep your head down. There was really only one weapon that you had to understand and that was the rifle; later on, the Lewis machine gun. An hon. member adds "trench mortar", but trench mortars were a specialist weapon, and it was not until quite late in the last war that they became plentiful. But in this war the infantryman has to know at least seven weapons; he has to be pretty well informed about tactics, and he has to be able to carry on and think for himself as an individual. No more is it true-and this is, I think, one fundamental difference between this war and the last-that a sergeant-major may get up and say, "You are not supposed to think", as sergeant-majors used to do in the last war. In this war you are supposed to think, and you are given a great deal of intensive training.
When the men who served in the present war are discharged they will be trained men; they will have been trained to use a number of weapons and to think for themselves, and this will be a great asset, because many opportunities will arise in Canada in the shape of new industries. The radio industry, the science of electronics, the plastic industries, the aircraft industry are examples; all these will require many men, but the men they will require will be those who will be trained in the new sciences. Those sciences are not taught at the technical schools or the universities; they are taught only in the plants which are established
390S
Department of Veterans' Affairs

to produce these new materials-some of them still on the secret list. They offer to our men a great future, and I suggest to the minister that he make a survey of these industries and arrange with them to take for training men discharged from the army.
There has been a great deal of talk about education; but after a man has been in the army, the air force or the navy for four or five years, he is not psychologically prepared to go back to school or university. He wants to start out at once to earn a living. This point of view is, I think, well expressed in a letter I received from an airman serving in the far east. I will quote one paragraph because it seems to me significant. He says:
I don't think that the average man, in the service which, I know, wishes or expects any sort of a handout after this war is won. Yet I believe that, for our own and the dominion's protection, some method of placement should be adopted just so long as no compulsory placement is attempted. A great "to do" is being raised about the educational opportunities the government will provide. Very good for a few but hardly a plan which will affect the many. For example, of the forty or so Canadians with whom I am in touch (all rather above average in educational standards) only two are seriously able to consider future education at the government's expense-and it is doubtful if even one of those will take advantage of the offers.
That is an individual case, but I consider it symptomatic of the position of the majority of the members of our armed forces to-day. I do not think there will be a strong desire on the part of many to go back to school or to go back to the university. Let us look at the position in which these men will find themselves. First of all, despite what critics may say, they will have had the priceless opportunity of knowing armed combat. Furthermore, they will be four or five years older. If they go back to the university they will find themselves men in classes along with mere boys. That is one o'f the psychological problems which we cannot overemphasize.
The next and very important question is the economic one. Many of these men have married; a great many of them are considering marriage, and they are four or five years older. At that age it becomes necessary for them to consider, not education but the immediate earning of a living. Therefore I believe that the first problem, as the minister has intimated, will be to provide employment in industry where expansion is most likely to take place. I make this suggestion because I understand it has been carried out elsewhere, as I shall mention in a minute.
Let me say a word with regard to the development of the farm. If there was criticism to be levelled against the administration

after the last war it was because they put men on the farm who did not know the problems of farming. Not only did they not know the problems of farming, they were psychologically not attuned to life on the farm, particularly after life in the armed services. I know of several cases where they found the loneliness of life on the farm a very serious drawback. They found the changeover from being looked after for twenty-four hours a day to being completely on their own too great a psychological change to be undergone. Many of them became unhappy because of that change.
I suggest to the minister that before he puts men on the farm he give them an opportunity to know rural work. I speak for southern Ontario, the part of Canada I know best. We have there a serious problem of soil erosion, the destruction of our forests, the depletion of our agricultural resources, caused by a lack of water through the drying up of our streams. Only an infinitesimal part of the job has been done in tackling the problem. Of the many hundreds of thousands of acres in this rich agricultural belt, only King township and the interlobate moraine of the Ganaraska valley have been adequately surveyed.
I suggest that immediate steps be taken to create survey parties to make a complete study of the reconstruction and rehabilitation or the bringing back of this great agricultural belt of southern Ontario to the state in which it was before we and our ancestors did it such grievous damage by cutting trees, destroying streams and so on. No one who knows that part of the country can underestimate the seriousness of the situation. Let me give one example. In the Peel plain, the great fertile belt represented by the leader of the opposition, seventy per cent of the water in the streams has been lost from the early days. That is a serious situation we must face.
I suggest that one of the first things that men who want to go on farms after the war should be asked to do is to make up survey parties to study the conditions of the land. This would do a number of things. First of all, it wouid provide an essential service.
I stress that because it is essential. We have to understand, we have to have much more knowledge of the problems of the land than we have at the present time. Second, it would give these men coming out of the army an opportunity to know what rural life was like, what farm life was like and what the problems of farming were. They would be given that opportunity at first hand immediately on coming out of the army. They would

Department of Veterans' Affairs
not have to take the irrevocable step of deciding to go on the farm before they realized what rural life was like. I think this is very important, particularly when we consider the type of man being discharged to-day from the army, navy and air force and the type of man who will be discharged at the end of the war.
Another suggestion I should like to offer is that if this country is to fulfil its destiny, that destiny is closely associated with the development of our minerals. I shall not go into the state of our mineral resources to-day, but let me say just one thing. Of our present splendid production eighty-four per cent comes from mines discovered over twenty-five years ago and only five per cent from mines discovered since 1930. That is an extremely dangerous, even perilous, situation not appreciated, I am afraid, by this government or its predecessor.
One of the immediate problems of the postwar period will be the discovery and development of our mineral resources which now are merely indicated. I again suggest to the minister that he, in conjunction with the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) undertake now the establishment of numerous survey parties. Subcommittee No. 2 which has to do with reconstruction said that thousands of prospectors would be needed. Professor Wallace used the word "thousands". That number will be needed if we are to take any recognition of what Russia, a country less blest with mineral resources than ours, is doing. Immediately before the war they had something like three hundred thousand men actively engaged in exploration for minerals. I suggest that here is an immediate opportunity for men being discharged from the army. It does two things. It gives them a waiting period in which they are actively employed doing useful and essential work. It gives them an opportunity to know the mineral industry; whether they want to go in for it or not, it gives many men who may be psychologically not adjusted to civil life an opportunity to work for a year or two to adjust themselves to the slower tempo of civilian life in Canada.
This is very important, because in our age of mass production many men will be asked to do factory jobs which are repetitive. Any hon. members who know the large automotive industry will know what working on an assembly line means. I ask them to put themselves in the position of a young airman, who comes out of combat after having flown a Lancaster bomber with five thousand horsepower at his finger-tips, with bomb bays filled with weapons capable of producing acres of
destruction, who is asked to go to a factory and told that his job is to do one of these routine jobs for eight hours a day. I do not think he is going to like it. I do not think it is fair to ask him to do it. That will be one of our problems. There is one thing more. Before the war many men were engaged as salesmen. They were selling mundane things, such as breakfast foods, soap and other household articles. Put yourself in the position of a young man from Normandy who is told that his job is to sell goods to this grocery store and that grocery store. I do not think he is psychologically prepared on discharge to do so. Some recognition must be taken of that fact.
I have seen a scheme in California which I believe is working quite satisfactorily to a degree. The major industries of California have set up a board. They have a central office in the larger towns. I think they have one in Los Angeles and one in San Francisco. I am sure of San Francisco, but I am not sure of Los Angeles. Every manufacturer, every industrialist and some of the larger growers send to this central board their requirements for labour and those they can employ. They tell the type of man they want and the type of work to be done. There is an opportunity for men awaiting discharge to go to this clearing house and be interviewed by this organization. A man who has been a mechanic may be offered certain work. A man is asked what he wants to do, whether he wants to go back to the university, and so on. The manufacturers cooperate in putting him at the type of work for which he thinks he is best suited.
I know the minister will say that we have selective service, but at the present time our selective service is interested in one thing and one thing only, namely, getting men. I know of an incident that took place in Vancouver the other day. A young man who was an engineer wanted to do a special type of work for which he was fitted. He went to selective service and they told him that men were wanted in the shipyards. They said to him: "The only thing we can suggest to you is that you go to the shipyards." They did that because men were needed in the shipyard at that time. Probably they still need them there. This is not a criticism of national selective service. That is their function, and that is what they are doing. In my opinion this other system is working out extremely well in California. They do something else. They visit the hospitals. Every manufacturer with a plant, growers and all other people interested, keep a list of the men who are wanted. The board says, "here is a man who

Department of Veterans' Affairs

has lost his leg", or, "here is a man. who has had a serious back injury". Each individual searches his operation and says, "I can use a man with one leg in such and such a way; I can use a man with a back injury." The man in the hospital is interviewed, and in many cases he is guaranteed employment even while he is undergoing treatment there. That has a tremendous psychological effect on the well-being of that individual and it is an important factor in his cure.
These comments are by way of suggestion. The problem of the reemployment of our men is probably the major difficulty we shall have to face after the defeat of the axis powers, and in that connection I think two things should be kept in mind. First, we should remember that warfare is the science of destruction; that men are trained-magnificently trained-to destroy the enemy instantly, whereas in peace time the opposite factor is paramount. In warfare it is a question of kill or be killed; the cost is unimportant. In peace time it is a matter of conservation, and the cost is very important. That will be a definite problem in the changeover. The next point, and with this I close, is that these men do not want gratitude. They want to feel that they are doing something useful for this country for which they have fought, and it is important that the work they are asked to do shall be essential to the future of Canada, just as essential as the magnificent work they are doing to-day on the beachhead in Normandy.


Mr. D. K. HAZEN (St. John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, in looking over this bill, which is to establish a Department of Veterans' Affairs, the first thing that strikes me is that the word "veteran" or the term "ex-service man" does not appear anywhere in it. Instead we find such words as these: in section 5, "any person"; in section 6, "persons"; in section 7, "persons who served with the naval, military or air forces of His Majesty", and in section 7(b), "such other persons as may be deemed advisable," and so on. Last evening the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) said that he did not think it would work out to have the reestablishment of veterans and civilians put under the new Department of Veterans' Affairs, and the minister replied, "That is not the intention." If that is not the intention then I ask why such powers1 should be included in this bill. I am not an expert on the drafting of statutes, but I believe that this bill as drafted is open to a great deal of criticism; in fact it is my feeling that it should be redrafted; that the powers of the

minister should be more clearly defined; that they should be limited to veterans; that the word "veterans" should be defined in a clear and broad way, and that these other extensive powers which are given to the minister should be cut out of the bill.
In that connection there is one other matter I should like to mention. Section 7(d) provides for the marking or stamping of artificial limbs or appliances. I should like to ask the minister why both those expressions should be used. I have looked in the dictionary and I find that the word "appliances" means, "a thing applied as a means to an end."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Both expressions are taken from the old act.


Douglas King Hazen: I wonder if it is correct to use them both. It occurs to me that the section would be much clearer and broader if the words "artificial limbs" were left out. I should like to know if hearing devices would come under this section, or if the words "artificial limbs" limit the meaning of the word "appliances," under what one might call the rule of ejusdem generis. I believe that we should cut out the words "artificial limbs" and leave the word "appliances" alone, if it is the intention to give this clause a wide meaning.
In the forceful, eloquent and sane speech made by the honourable and gallant member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) during the course of this debate he asked a question which I though very pertinent and which I believe must be answered. This was the question: "Are we to treat our men as well when they return to be trained for peace as we did when they were trained for war in our hour of need?" That question cannot be lightly brushed aside; it deserves and must be given an answer. It has been pointed out already, but I am going to refer to it again, that when a man enlists he is paid SI .30 a day in cash, or about $39 a month. If he has to live out he receives, in addition, $36.50 a month. His wife receives a dependents' allowance of $39.12, with additional allowances for children. This makes a total family income of $115.62 a month, plus allowances for children. But when a man comes out of the army or, to use 'the words of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) this evening, when a man changes over, which is perhaps a better term, and takes up vocational training for the purpose of improving his , position in civilian life, under the regulations he receives $60 a month, while his wife receives $20, with similar allowances for children. In other words, when he begins to train in the army he receives a total of $115.62 a month, but when he begins to train for civilian life he and his family receive only

Department of Veterans' Affairs
$80 a month, a reduction of about thirty per cent. Personally I do not believe this is good enough. I do not believe it is too much to ask that returned men who want to qualify themselves for positions in civil life should receive the same rate of pay as they received when they first entered the army. We must be just before we are generous; we must pay our debts before we make gifts, and I say that we owe to these returned men a debt which we should pay in full before we vote $76,000,000 a year or some similar amount to that institution we call UNRRA. Our duty to our returned men is one of our first responsibilities. This evening the Minister of National Defence said that certain directors or advisers were to be appointed, and when that is done I hope these gentlemen will give this matter some consideration.


James Layton Ralston: They are appointed now.


Douglas King Hazen: Now that they are appointed I hope they will give this matter some consideration with a view to bringing the allowances awarded to returned men during the time they are taking vocational training up to the amount they received 'when they entered the army.
There is one other matter to which I should like to refer. I wish to support what has been said by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair), the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White) and a number of other members when they asked that veterans of the last war who took up farms under the soldier settlement scheme be given a clear title, although they have not paid for their farms in full.
I believe that a man should live up to his agreements and should meet his obligations. But there are some cases when this is quite impossible, and I think the situation in which these men in the prairie provinces find themselves is one of those cases. I met a delegation that came to Ottawa not long ago from the prairie provinces to speak on behalf of those soldier settlers who have been unable to pay in full for their farms. I must confess that I was not greatly impressed by a considerable part of their brief, but I was impressed by the men themselves. One could not look at them and talk with them without being impressed. One could not look them over without realizing that for many years past they had had a tremendously difficult task, that they had fought against very hard odds, and that they had done the best they could under the circumstances. It was clear, however, that fate was against them. Someone has said that the cards were stacked against them.
100-246i
I think these men might be given a clear title to those farms on the ground that a mutual mistake was made. The mistake was this, that the soldier settlement board overvalued those farms. Then the veterans who went on the farms made a mistake in that they thought the farms would produce a great deal more revenue than they did. That mistake, in both cases, was owing to the fact that the farms had been purchased and arrangements made in boom times. I would urge the minister and the government to give this matter their most serious consideration. After talking to those men I felt that we could not afford to let them go off the land, and that we would be making a great mistake if we let men of their character leave their farms.
The figures show that from September t, 1939, to December 31, 1943, 2,418 of these settlers left their farms, or an average of 606 a year in the last four and a half years. If we let men of that kind get off the land we are making a great mistake. They are men who volunteered to do their duty at the commencement of the last war. They went overseas and their sons are overseas to-day. Their sons, and their daughters, too, are. in the>
[DOT]services, and they look forward to coming home. If their homes are disappearing at. the rate of 606 a year a great many of them will have no homes to return to when the war is over.
As I said before, I think people should meet their obligations and live up to their agreements, even if those agreements are hard ones. But this is a case in which I believe that an exception should be made, not only in the interests of the men and their families, but in the interest of the country at large. I would urge as strongly as I can that the. request of the men to have clear title be granted. I realize that there are difficulties in the way, but I think they could be overcome and they should not prevent the government from, granting this request and giving those men clear titles to their land.


John James Kinley: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Hazen) who just took his seat made a suggestion which I thought would circumscribe the work of this department, and would limit the theatre of action.
He made objection to the words " such, other persons" appearing in the bill. Coming from the coast, this seems to me a good provision, because it looks like the place where the merchant marine might be brought in. under the bill.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) r That is one reason for it.
Department of Veterans' Affairs


John James Kinley: I regard that as important. I was particularly interested in the speech of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) where he talked about an integrating service that would look after a man even before he left the service and give him, as it were, a start so that he could make better progress under the care of the new department. I think this is very important to the navy because it seems to me that outside the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve officers, or the men who are real sailors, and who learned their vocation on the sea, the place of navy men in the merchant marine after the war is open to question.
There must be many men in the navy who will want to follow the sea after the war. Canada was not always sea-conscious. But with so many men from all parts of Canada joining the navy, and with the enthusiasm that exists throughout Canada to-day in connection with the navy, also in view of the fact that with the building of the St. Lawrence waterways Canada will be a sea-going country as far as the head of the lakes, there will be a greater opportunity for many men to continue their vocations on the sea.
I am not speaking with full knowledge at the moment, but it appears to me that in Canada especially a naval officer will have little standing in the merchant marine after the war. He will not have a certificate. He may not even have the service that is required. In my view, some provision should be made whereby men who are now naval officers will be able to fit themselves to be officers in the merchant marine. And, with regard to ratings in the navy, it seems to me that any boy who wishes to follow the sea in Canada should be given that chance to fit himself to advance in the service during peace time. He should be able to advance in what is now known as the merchant navy. The education is different. A naval officer in the navy is taught to destroy, and his education is that of destruction and of defeating the enemy. On the other hand, the man in the merchant marine is taught differently; he must preserve property and overcome the elements, and he must know certain principles of business in order that he may operate profitably and successfully. So that there is here a great chance for coordination. Also there is a great chance to find employment. This will be the right kind of employment for men who were sea-going in the navy during the war.
Then, with regard to merchant sailors, it is true that for the first time in our history the government by order in council has legislation which enables a man in the merchant marine to get a pension or to be compensated if he is hurt in connection with direct or indirect

action against the enemy. However, after discharge there is not much provision for a member of the merchant marine, and some consideration should be given to the care of those men who are in the merchant marine and who, after discharge, will have a claim for service rendered.
I have heard considerable complaints from men and officers of the R.C.N.R. that they were at a disadvantage in being in the navy during the war; being in a minority. A naval reserve man does not feel at home behind a desk. He is perhaps not so well qualified to work in an executive position on shore, but he is a real man upon the sea. At the start of the war they were the men you had to depend on to carry on the sea work until such time as other men could be trained to go on board ships, and their direction and knowledge was invaluable. Hon. members will see that the merchant marine and the navy are almost one in their interests. Their future is entwined, and I trust that this department will regard the men of the merchant marine as worthy of its consideration. In that way we shall be not only helping the men of the service but helping the marine and helping to build up the country in the future; because, Mr. Speaker, no country was ever great that did not have a big marine trade. Canada is eminently suited to developing a big marine trade if our people will only make the effort. On the east, west and north we have the ocean, besides the great lakes and waterways, and we can develop a great marine. So that I hope that these men who are serving in the merchant marine, with little glory and no glamour, will get the consideration they deserve. That to me .is an added reason why I would enthusiastically support the bill which is now before the house for the creation of this new department,


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, just a word before the second reading passes. I think this debate has provided a very good example of the heights to which parliament can rise on certain occasions in discussing vital subjects in a war-lime period. While considerable time has been taken up in discussing the problem which is now immediately confronting parliament, the creation of a ministry of veterans' affairs, I cannot conceive how in a period such as this parliament could spend its time to better advantage than in hearing the comments, views and constructive criticism of the men and women present representing the 245 constituencies of Canada, speaking on behalf of the men who are giving so much by way of service and sacrifice that we may continue as a free

Department of Veterans' Affairs
parliament in this land. I think it has been time well spent. I think we can take some pride in the manner in which this parliament has risen, to its task. The unity of purpose and of thought and of opinion which has characterized this debate may appropriately provide an example for our discussion of many other subjects which parliament in war time might tackle and attempt to solve.
I believe that most of us recognize our responsibilities to the men and the women who will come back. Primarily, of course, this is the government's responsibility. But I want to go a little farther than that and say that coincidental with the responsibilities and the duty of the government, parliament has an obligation to the men and the women who come back. There is, too, a definite responsibility resting upon the individual civilian toward these men and women who, upon discharge, will be rehabilitating themselves into normal civilian life. The meshing of these men and women into the social and economic life of our country is not going to be an easy task, but it will be made a little easier for them, a little easier for the government and a little easier for the whole officialdom which will be handling these delicate problems of great magnitude if all the citizens of Canada will do their part, as it is their bounden duty to do. Our citizens on the home front have suffered inconvenience, of course, in a certain fashion through these war years, but their sufferings have been small in comparison with the services and the sacrifices which have been made by the men and the women whom we must rehabilitate upon their return. This is one way in which the civilian population of Canada can make a further contribution to those who have already contributed so very much more than we have who have not been privileged to serve. So that I say to you, Mr. Speaker, to-night that nothing less than the best for those who served will be good enough for this government and this parliament and for the Canadian .people to give to rehabilitate these men and women when they return.
I rose to-night largely to pay a tribute to a group of citizens in Canada who are shouldering in a masterly way the responsibilities which devolve partly at least on our citizen community. The Department of Pensions and National Health has set up, as you know Mr. Speaker, rehabilitation committees across Canada. I have already had the privilege of having had something to do with these committees. A week from tonight I am leaving Ottawa to go nearly three hundred miles to attend a meeting of the
rehabilitation committee in the south end of my own constituency, after having refused a good many of what I thought were much less important obligations, because I thought this was something we owe to our men and women who are serving, no matter whether we are members of parliament or private citizens. If we cannot do that much to help those who have been doing so much for us, the problem of rehabilitation becomes more serious, more critical and more dangerous perhaps than we had at first considered it.
I am glad to-night to pay my tribute to these men who are serving on these rehabilitation committees across Canada in a voluntary capacity. They are coming to grips with the present day problems, because they are closely in touch with local conditions and are concerning themselves with admitting these men and women of the armed forces into our civilian life again in a way which is probably more practical than some of the suggestions which have been made in the course of this debate. I am hopeful that by virtue of the work of these committees the first step will have been taken toward a revived consciousness on the part of our citizens generally of their obligations to those who return from this war. With that I might leave the work of these rehabilitation committees, on which I am hopeful that so many of our citizens will find an opportunity to serve and take part in solving the problems that lie ahead. I hope that the work will be continued. I trust that it will include the problems of veterans generally. I do not like the word "veteran" very well; I trust the minister may be able to find some better terminology.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I tried to and I failed.


Gordon Graydon: After all, one failure never means much to a Scotsman. I still have hope.


James Layton Ralston: Bruce did the same; he tried again.


Gordon Graydon: That is so.' I see that the Scottish historians have the floor.
I was impressed with the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) regarding this problem. I hope that so far as possible veterans' affairs and problems will be handled by one department. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) made this evening a clear, brief and eloquently delivered speech on this matter; but I would emphasize the importance of not giving an opportunity for one department to "pass the buck" to another, as these people are some-

Department oj Veterans' Affairs

times suspected of doing, but that all the machinery relating to veterans' affairs shall be gathered within the department now being set up. It should be not merely a trend but the purpose of the government so to coordinate the machinery that the returning veteran will be able to say, "It is this department which will look after my rehabilitation problems." While some limitations, conditions and reservations must necessarily be placed upon the putting into effect of this suggestion, I trust that it will be, as it should be, governmental policy as far as it can possibly be practised.
Speaking _ for those who felt that their opinions had been well aired by the suggestions already made by members who have spoken on this side and, indeed, from all parts of the chamber, I would array our party, tooth in this house and outside it, squarely in support of a square deal for those who have served. That is the policy of our party and other parties, which means that there is a ring of unanimity and unity, from one end of Canada to the other, in the conviction that here is a job for us to do. We have been able to do a job in the war; the task which lies ahead is almost equally important, and it will not have been done just when the peace treaties have been signed.


Mr. S. H. KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a word in support of what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) has just said regarding the unity of the house with respect to this measure. Your Honour may feel that you have given considerable latitude to the debate, in view of the rule with respect to second reading, but I am sure all hon. members will agree that it is a case where latitude was highly desirable in view of the great importance of this subject.
However, I may say this, that looking at the bill itself, bearing in mind the rule with respect *to second reading, it seems to me that its principle is very simple. It is to the effect that veterans should be the concern of the government, that this nation owes the veteran the very best it can provide for him, and that the best machinery to give effect to that *responsibility can be had by bringing all matters relating to veterans under one department.
With that threefold principle we in this [DOT]group are in active agreement, and we are glad to give support to the second reading of the bill.


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister not going to make a statement before the bill is given second reading?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It will be made in committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I refrained from entering into the debate on the second reading of the bill, for the specific reason just mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. To my mind the principle of the bill was so simple that it did not involve at all the comprehensive discussion on pensions and treatment and hospitalization and rehabilitation which we have had for the last three days. It was purely a change of the method of administration from the old-established method to the contemplated method. However, I agree with the hon. member and definitely with the leader of the opposition that the time has not been wasted, that it has not been spent in vain, because this house has lived up to its old tradition of a splendid unity of thought, and, I trust, a unity' of action, in regard to the problems of our returning ex-service men. I think the history of legislation in this house for the last twenty-five years is not and has not been the effort of any one party; it has been the result of the conjoint sympathies and work and efforts of every single party in the dominion. That is the spirit of the debate which has just been concluded. I wish to thank hon. members in all parts of the house for their sympathetic attitude toward the department over which I temporarily preside, and the kindly references made from many sources to the humble minister of that department.
There was one reference, however, which was made that I must take exception to: it was in regard to there being "too many brass hats" in the Department of Pensions and National Health. In the rehabilitation work of our department, the associate deputy minister served in the ranks. The superintendent of vocational training served in the ranks, winning the military medal and bar, and subsequently obtained his commission in the field.	The superintendent of educational
training served in the ranks. The deputy minister, being a medical officer at the time of his enlistment, naturally held commissioned rank.	The assistant deputy minister also
served in the ranks. In fact all other senior officers, some twenty of whom enlisted in the ranks, held rank not above that of major, with the exception of the present chairman of

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
the Canadian pension commission, whose present rank was obtained during service overseas in the present war which followed outstanding service in a junior capacity in the great war. The chief of the orthopaedic and surgical appliances division, that branch which has the most intimate contact with those casualties which require and deserve the most sympathetic and active attention, the amputation cases, was a sapper in the last war during which he suffered amputation of both legs and the loss of one eye. Of the nine pension commissioners, six served in the ranks. While the reference to brass hats may be proper in some direction, it is not justified by the facts with reference to the staff of this department. Practically eighty or ninety per cent of these men went through the ranks during the last war.
I had intended to make a certain analysis of the various aspects of the problems with which the Department is concerned, but on reflection I think our duty at this time is to examine the particular sections of the bill when we reach them, and to discuss questions of policy affecting' pensions, the effect of treatment, the effect of hospitalization and the effect of rehabilitation when the civil estimates of the Department of Pensions and National Health are up for consideration.
I think it was. the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) who yesterday gave a brief resume of the history of this department, commencing with the old Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment in 1918 and coming down to 1928 when the Department of Pensions and National Health Act was passed. My hon. friend suggested that the privileges granted under the sections of this bill are possibly based upon the soldiers of the old war. Possibly there is some element of truth in that, but I say that it is vital to protect the privileges of those who served in the great war as well as to do what we are doing under this measure, to establish new opportunities and to grant new privileges to those serving in the present war.


Howard Charles Green: I had not the slightest thought of interfering with the rights and privileges of the men who served in the last war.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am not casting the slightest imputation; my hon. friend knows me too well to think that. The function of that department will be to provide for the discharged member of the forces the services which are considered necessary. First, to remove, diminish or
compensate for any handicap, physical or otherwise, arising out of military service. Second, to give the member of the forces a fair start in civil life. Third, to have permanently available those services which the country can and should render to its war veterans throughout their lives.
Perhaps I could give my hon. friends the latest figures with regard to pensions as it may be of interest. On April 30 of this year the grand total of pension awards made by the commission for all classes of pensions arising out of service in the present war was 13,215, and the total annual liability amounted to $6,795,593. With respect to members of the armed forces, 7,591 awards were for disabilities and 5,158 were for dependents of those who have given their lives. There were twenty-six disability pensions awarded to women members of the forces.
The commission have awarded 410 pensions with respect to death or disability sustained by members of the merchant marine, fishermen, members of the auxiliary services, civilian government employees, R.C.M.P. special constable guards, members of civilian defence forces and members of the corps of firefighters for service in the United Kingdom. The number of awards of pensions under section 11, subsection 3 of the Pension Act is 1,028, including 611 awards for disability and 417 for death. Up to December 31, 1943, Canada had augmented to the Canadian scale 1,192 pensions awarded by the British government to Canadians serving in the imperial forces.
I should like also to deal, but not at the present time, with the question of hospitalization because it has been raised in this debate and I feel that at some time I should give a complete answer to the questions raised.
I come now specifically to the points raised last night by the hon. member for Vancouver South who dealt with certain sections of the bill. As I said before, it was considered whether there should be two parts, one dealing with great war veterans and the other dealing with veterans of the present war, or one bill embracing all veterans. The present . bill covers all veterans. It was necessary to retain all language relating to former rights and privileges lest some right or privilege of the former veterans be sacrificed. These have been extended to the present war veterans, so that they would have the same rights, but provisions have been added to ensure ample extension to meet future requirements.
My hon. friend suggested that re-housing should be included in the measure. In the opinion of those who have been advising me-
Department of Veterans' Affairs

and this measure has been very carefully reviewed, not only by our own officials but by the officials of the Department of Justice-the phrase "reestablishment in civil life" is broad enough to cover practically all the suggestions made last night. If special legislation is decided upon, the bill provides that the functions of the minister shall extend and apply as well to all such other matters as may be designated or assigned to the minister by the governor in council.
Then my hon. friend referred to the repatriation of dependents. Extensive and successful repatriation of soldiers and their dependents was efficiently carried out after the last war by the cooperation of three departments. First, there was the Department of Immigration which controls the admission into Canada of all persons. Second, there was the Department of Militia and Defence which still actively controlled the serving soldier whose dependents were accompanying him. Third, there was the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment which was directly concerned with the establishment in civil life of the soldier and his dependents after discharge.
Then my lion.- friend referred to the payment of gratuities. This is and must remain the responsibility of the services since they alone have the service records upon which the gratuities are calculated, and the actual administration will be carried on either by the Department of National Defence or that department along with the Department of Finance.


Howard Charles Green: Which departments did the minister say?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It would not be-the Department of Veterans' Affairs that would have the administration because we do not have the records of the men serving either at home or abroad. Then, with regard to the employment of veterans, I am advised by my legal advisers that the words "care and reestablishment in civil life" are broad enough to give jurisdiction for operation of any employment projects for veterans for which parliament may make provision. The department would, however, for lack of the necessary machinery, require the cooperation of some other department, such as the Department of Public Works, or, as just mentioned by my colleague, by the Department of Labour. At this time I wish to express my appreciation of the fine contribution to the debate made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston).
Then the hon. member for Vancouver South referred to reinstatement in civil employment.


Howard Charles Green: I did not mention that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In any event that is at present administered by the Department of Labour, but it could conceivably be transferred later on to this department.


Howard Charles Green: Is it not to be transferred?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It can be done, because the word "minister" in that act can be made to apply to both departments. It can be done quite simply. My hon. friend said that no mention was made of dependents, but the department is made responsible for the care, et cetera, of any person. The old act limited benefits to persons who served with military forces and their dependents. By the War Measures Act provision has been made for the merchant marine, salt-water fishermen, fire-fighters, A.R.P. workers and many other groups. The phrase "any person" was used in the present bill deliberately as being language broad enough to include all these groups, as well as dependents. There has been no intention in the world to neglect or ignore them.
Then my hon. friend said that there is no mention of pensions in the bill. I would direct his attention to section 9, subsection I, which states that wherever in the Pension Act reference is made to the Department of Pensions and National Health it shall be deemed to mean Department of Veterans' Affairs.
My hon. friend said also that there was no mention of the honorary citizens' rehabilitation committees, to whom such eloquent tribute was rightly and1 properly paid a few minutes ago by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon). I can assure my hon. friend that the work of these committees is appreciated by myself possibly more than anyone else because I am in very close touch with this splendid voluntary work all across Canada. Provision is made for them by P.C. 6282 of November 27, 1940, passed under the War Measures Act and setting up the veterans' welfare division.
The new bill gives the minister ample authority to reenact such regulations and also similar regulations for cooperation with provincial governments, veterans' associations, commercial, industrial and agricultural groups, as mentioned by the hon. member.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any objection to including them?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is definite objection. The legal advisers held that it was not desirable to mention every aspect or detail of the business likely

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
to come before the department lest other desirable activities be excluded. If my hon. friend would look up the Department of Trade and Commerce Act, chapter 200, of the Revised Statutes of Canada-I am sure he knows it well-for the jurisdictional clause, he will see it is very similar to the clause in the present bill. If the Department of Trade and Commerce can carry on its many ramifications under that clause, surely the business of the Department of Veterans' Affairs can be carried on under clause 5.
Then my hon. friend mentioned, I think, paragraph (g) of section 7. The draftsman introduced this to enable the department to act as the agency for payment of any moneys in the nature of pensions which parliament may at any time in the future authorize. That was set up last year when we had allowances for widows by special appropriation vote. I am now advised that under the Pension Act the pension commission is required to deal with any kind of pension referred to it by the governor in council, and that any award so made must be paid by the department. I thank the hon. gentleman for drawing my attention to his paragraph. I really think it is not necessary, and I propose to have it deleted from the bill when we reach it in committee because there might be an improper imputation placed in regard to it. Therefore I think it is better to have i't removed from the bill.
Then the provision carried over from the original Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment Act, authorizing the establishment of staff is to be withdrawn. That provision has been there since 1919. It was reinserted and reenacted in 1928, and when we reach that section I shall give some correspondence with the civil service commission in regard to it. In any event there will be four amendments moved in committee. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni made some observation last night in regard to not publishing the regulations. I must say that I am in full accord with what he said. I understand that he is moving an amendment to that effect, and I Shall be glad to adopt it on behalf of the government.
There is also another amendment to section 4 which has been advised by the Department of Justice to be necessary for the transference of staff. There will be the deletion of section 6 as we have it now in the bill and the amendment to section 7. These are the four amendments that I can see at the moment. Therefore the observations made by hon. members have been very useful to us. In the limited time we have had since the speeches were delivered, we have acted upon two. Some
of the suggestions that were made are being accepted and adopted. In the spirit of the discussion on second reading we shall discuss every clause of the bill, and if it appears to us that we can improve any one of these sections I Shall meet the suggestions with the most-I can say Liberal frame of mind possible -in the most accommodating frame of mind possible.


Gordon Graydon: Quite a difference there.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Progressive. All of us have the same idea in our minds, which is to produce a piece of legislation here that will stand the test of time, improved as it must be from year to year when new activities show that these improvements are advisable. This will be done, of course, to serve the purpose we all have very close to our hearts, namely, to establish an administration for the boys who are overseass to-night, and also those who have been discharged already,
136,000	of them, and who are now back in Canada, those who shall have saved Canada by their heroic fortitude and their wonderful example. Therefore in the spirit of the debate which has just been concluded I trust we can as soon as possible finish the sections of the bill and have them enacted into legislation, so that we can have at least one permanent monument to those who are doing so much for us to-night.


Mr. GILLIS:: I should like to ask the minister one question before the bill carries. In his reference to the merchant marine he seemed to think they are now taken care of by the present legislation and it is merely a matter of carrying on. I should like to ask, what provision there is for the merchant marine? Only to-day I reecived a letter from two men in my section of the country who were torpedoed on March 22. They are still without compensation of any kind. Evidently in the section of the country from which I come there is no machinery through which these men can receive the benefit of the legislation that now exists.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Where were they, in Nova Scotia?


Clarence Gillis: Yes, Louisburg, Nova Septia.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would my hon. friend give me those names to-night. I cannot understand any reason for the delay there.


Clarence Gillis: Yes, I shall give the names. Every time I run into these men there does not seem to be any machinery set up in my

Department of Veterans' Affairs

section of the country through which the merchant marine can work to get what is their due.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is no pension office or welfare office there?


Clarence Gillis: No.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any reason why the men of the merchant marine should not now be specifically covered in the Pension Act instead of having to depend on an order in council? It does seem to me that they and the other groups, such as fire-fighters and men of the auxiliary services, should be expressly covered in the Pension Act. If that were done they would not have to rely on some doubtful orders in council which may or may not continue after the war.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They will all be in the act. All amendments passed by orders in council during the war must be consolidated in the Pension Act, as was done in the last war, and all those amendments inserted therein. There will be no possibility of endangering the security of those men who have received benefits during the war, such as the auxiliary services and the merchant marine. As a matter of fact I think the auxiliary services are now part of the services by order in council.


Howard Charles Green: I am using the merchant marine as an example. The difficulty is they are not recognized as the fourth fighting service.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is true.	.


Howard Charles Green: They only have recognition by order in council.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They will have by statute the same rights as they now have by order in council.


Howard Charles Green: Why cannot they be put under the Pension Act? This question would then not be cropping up every session. We are all in favour of having them treated as the fourth arm of the services, and the public feel the same way about it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I can assure my hon. friend that there is every intention in the world of securing by statute every right they have received by order in council, and it will apply to all the other services as well.


Mr. FAIR:: On Wednesday afternoon I had an opportunity of speaking on the second reading of this bill. On that occasion I found it necessary and desirable to devote my time (Mr. Gfflis.]
to the veterans of the last great war. I made my plea on behalf of the applicants who came here and those whom they represent. I wish to thank the six ministers of the cabinet who received that delegation, and I also wish to thank those hon. members who have expressed the desires of the delegation that came here, gnd particularly my hon. friend here who spoke so eloquently in that connection, and who stated that the appearance of the men themselves was better evidence of what they had gone through than anything else. I feel that the members of this house who had the opportunity to meet that delegation felt exactly the same way. I had intended to speak on pensions and other matters to-night but will accept the suggestion of the minister to take them up when the civil estimates are before the committee; but I wish to say a few words on the Veterans' Land Act.
In connection with the Veterans' Land Act I was very glad to see the increase in the amount granted as credit for land. It has been extended from $3,600 to $4,800. I am now going to make a suggestion to the minister that the amount for implements and equipment be also increased. At the present time it stands at $1,200. When one considers the present prices that the settlers will have to pay I feel that is not nearly sufficient. I hope the government will give that matter their earnest attention.
The next point I should like to touch on is that of interest. I believe that could be reduced a little more as well. There is no necessity for the settlers to pay three and a half per cent interest as suggested. Another lesson we learned with regard to the treatment of the soldiers under the old settlement board act is the price at which they were compelled to sell their products. It does not make any difference if the land and equipment are given as a gift if the settlers are compelled to sell their products at as low prices as were the settlers under the old Soldier Settlement Board 'Act, they are bound to go broke. I suggest to the minister and to the government that the cost of the land and equipment should have some relation to the price that the farmers are receiving for their produce. I am going to suggest to the government that any year the prices at which farmers sell their product are lower than the prices obtaining to-day, the government should give the settlers credit for the difference between present prices and those at which they are compelled to sell. I believe that this suggestion should meet with the approval of the government, because in my opinion settlers who are buying land at to-day's prices should be protected to this extent and should

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
be credited with the difference between the prices of to-day and those that may prevail five years from now.
As I said before, I appreciate very much the courtesy which was extended to the delegation that came here to represent the soldier settlers, and before we go home I hope that the minister, on behalf of the government, will tell us that these men are being given clear title.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Much as I appreciate my hon. friend's remarks I must point out that the Soldier Settlement Act and the Veterans' Land Act are not yet under the administration of whoever is to be Minister of Veterans' Affairs. They come under my colleague the Minister of Mines and Resources.


Robert Fair: I am suggesting that before we leave for home they will be under this department.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall bring my hon. friend's remarks to the attention of my colleague.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Is it the intention of the government to bring those two measures under the control of the new minister?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, definitely; both the Soldier Settlement Act and the Veterans' Land Act will be under the control of whoever is appointed Minister of Veterans' Affairs.


John Horne Blackmore: In a general way I
should like to commend the minister or whoever is responsible for this move. It is high time responsibility is centralized, so that one may know where to go in connection with these matters.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That recommendation was made a year or two ago by the committee on land settlement.


John Horne Blackmore: I hope that committee goes to work on several other departments of the government.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Definition.
Mr. STIRLING:: This bill deals with
veterans' affairs. Should it not, therefore, define what is a veteran? It appears to me quite wrong to have to go to some other act for that definition. I suggest that this section should contain a definition of a veteran.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am told that except for the title of the department and of the minister, the word "veteran"
100-247i
is not used for any purpose in any section of the bill. I suppose the definition of a veteran would be one who has been engaged either in the great war or the present war. I understand that in the other acts which will come under the control of this department later on, the word is defined, and probably that is why no definition was put in here.


Grote Stirling: It does not seem reasonable to me. We are setting up a department to deal with veterans' affairs, and certainly I should have expected that the public could turn to this act, as it will become, and ascertain what is a veteran within the meaning of this legislation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I understand that the interpretation of a veteran varies in the different measures.


Grote Stirling: That is just why there
should be a definition in this bill.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is why it might be impossible to have it defined here, because it must apply to the various measures coming under the control of this department. I am told that matter was considered very carefully.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Deputy minister.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have an amendment to this section, suggested by the Department of Justice, which I shall read to the committee. It will be subsection 3:
(3). Notwithstanding anything contained in the immediately preceding subsection of this section, the governor in council may, by order, designate persons who, prior to the commencement of this act, were members of the staff of the Department of Pensions and National Health, to be members of the staff of the department, and, upon such designation, such members shall be deemed to have been transferred to the department on the date of the commencement of this act, but no person shall by reason of such designation be eligible to be certified as permanent by the civil service commission.
This is a technical amendment which is suggested by the Department of Justice as being desirable, and I move accordingly.


Douglas King Hazen: Is the effect of that amendment to bring them under the civil service commission?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are under the civil service commission. I am going to move an amendment to section 7 when we reach it, which will meet the point my hon. friend has in mind.

Department of Veterans' Affairs


Grote Stirling: I believe that in the amendment the minister read the words, "the commencement of this act." I suppose that means the coming into force of this act?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. The act comes into force by proclamation. That is so for the reason that the other cognate bill has not been passed, dealing with social security or health, and you cannot have one in force without the other. They should come into effect simultaneously.


Grote Stirling: I should think "coming into force" would be better phraseology, because "commencement" does not mean anything.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 5-Duties and powers of minister.
Howard Charles Green: This is one of the key sections of the act, and I should like the minister to give consideration to an amendment which will describe "person" more fully than the word is described in the section at the present time. Incidentally I should like the minister to make some further extensions that I recommended last evening, but apparently he is not prepared to do so.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We gave hours of consideration to every suggestion made by my hon. friend last evening. I thought they were very constructive, but after full consideration with legal and other advisers we decided that the section was all right, with the exception of the deletion which I announced.


Howard Charles Green: It will help a bit to have the statement by the minister to-night that it is the intention to cover all these different activities, though I think it would have been better if they had been included in the bill. However, I am not satisfied yet with the words "of any person." I think it would be far better if the wording followed more closely the explanatory note, which says:
The purpose of this bill is to establish a Department of Veterans' Affairs under the direction of a Minister of Veterans' Affairs who shall be responsible for the care, treatment, training, or reestablishment in civil life of ex-members of the armed forces and of persons * otherwise engaged in pursuits relating to the war, and for the care of the dependents of such person.
I think the latter part of that explanation could be used in section 5 to show the group of people we want to' have dealt with by the new department. It would also remedy the other defect, that dependents are not

mentioned, and I think would state far more clearly the purposes of the bill and the type of work the new department is to carry on.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would my hon. friend permit me to have this section stand until Monday, so that we may look carefully into the suggestion he has just made?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, if that could be done.
Section stands.
On section 6-Contracts with institutions for care of persons.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I desire to move the following amendment:
That clause 6 be deleted and that paragraph (b) of subclause (1) of clause 7 be amended by deleting the word "such" where it appears in the 2nd line thereof, and by deleting the words in such paragraph after the word "of" in the 4th line and adding in substitution therefor the words "persons entitled thereto under any statute or order of the governor in council administered by the minister.


Howard Charles Green: Could the minister read us the paragraph as it will be when it is amended?


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: That will be section 7.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The explanation of the change is as follows: When the drafting officers examined the legislation in consultation with officers of the Department of Justice, it was considered that the former act did not confer upon the minister specific authority to arrange for the care, treatment or training of persons in hospitals and institutions other than those owned or acquired by the department.
As the committee is well aware, the department only operates institutions in a few of the larger centres in Canada and, as a consequence, it has been necessary, and I may say highly desirable, that patients be cared for in municipal, religious and other institutions throughout the country, which practice has been followed since and during the great war.
During the fiscal year just ended some
2.431.000	patient days treatment were furnished by the department. Of these over
908.000	were furnished in non-departmental institutions.
The general custom has been that the department should enter into a contract with these larger non-departmental hospitals whereby the hospitals undertook to give service to patients and the department undertook to compensate the hospital at an agreed rate per patient per day. Although, as stated, many such formal contracts have been entered into,

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
there are many hundreds of hospitals throughout Canada, and those used outside of Canada, with which no such formal contract has been made by reason of their location, size or the limited extent to which patients may be admitted as the occasion demands.
When the drafting officers appreciated that there was no specific authority in the statute authorizing the minister to make such arrangement, they considered that the present bill would be strengthened by the inclusion of a definite clause conferring this power. Clause 6 as it appears in the bill was the result.
When, however, the administrative officers of the department had had an opportunity of considering the implications of clause 6 as it appears in bill No. 83, they found it might impose a great hardship upon numbers of individual ex-service men, apart altogether from the increased administrative complications.
Let us consider the case of a veteran living in a remote part of the country where the department has no hospital but where there is a small municipal or other institution which serves the requirements of the area.
In the event of this man becoming suddenly ill from a condition with respect to which he is entitled to treatment from the department, our desire would be to arrange for his admission to the nearest hospital and to have medical services provided by the nearest qualified practitioner.
Such an arrangement involves an undertaking to pay and is in effect a contract between the department on the one hand and the hospital and the doctor on the other hand. It has been customary to make such agreement by telegram or telephone in emergency cases for many years. In fact, under the present regulations, the department may accept responsibility for a limited period preceding the reporting of the case to the department if the serious illness of the patient was the reason for his not making application.
Clause 6 as now before this committee would, if adopted, preclude the department from making these informal arrangements for treatment in such emergent or far-removed cases until the department had entered into a contract with the hospital and the doctor and until such contract had been ratified by order in council.
This effect was not anticipated by the legal officers who drafted the clause nor, I am sure, is it the desire of parliament and of the people of Canada that there should be any such cumbersome procedure prohibiting the prompt extension to the ex-service man of necessary medical or hospital care.	.
I illustrate the point with an extreme condition which, however, arises with a fair degree of frequency. This clause would hamper-administration in many other ways.
For example, when an ex-service man requires dental care, it is the department's practice as an economy measure to arrange,, where feasible, for his treatment by a dentist in his own locality rather than put the country to the expense of bringing the patient to a centre where the department has a salaried dental officer and of incurring further expense to reimburse him for loss of time from work which otherwise could be avoided.
The present clause 6, if adopted, would require the department to enter into contracts with every dentist in Canada or would prevent us from continuing the present economical procedure which is regularized through the medium of regulations which permit the department to establish schedule of fees for services performed by non-salaried dental an! medical officers.


Grote Stirling: Would the minister read section 7 (1) (b) as amended?


William Henry Golding: Could we first deal with the deletion of section 6.


Howard Charles Green: What is the change?


William Henry Golding: As I understand it, the amendment is to section 7. Section 6 would be deleted, and section 7 would be renumbered as No. 6.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In paragraph (b) the word "such" goes out, and-


Grote Stirling: Would the minister read it as amended?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It would read:
Respecting the care, treatment or training to be furnished in any hospital, workshop, home, school or other institution and providing for the care, treatment or training therein of persons entitled thereto under any statute or order of the governor in council administered iby the minister.


William Henry Golding: Section 7 will now be section 6. Shall subsection 1 carry?


Howard Charles Green: I should like to ask a question about paragraph (a). Can a man get training in his own home? Take the case of a man who is disabled and cannot be helped by further hospitalization. Is this section wide enough for him to get training in his own home?

Department of Veterans' Affairs


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, it is.


Howard Charles Green: It does not read that way.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am informed by my associates that it is wide enough.


Ernest Edward Perley: The minister has said that
he knows one or two workshops or schools for training have been established prior to this. Will this section include such schools? He will recall that I brought this matter to his attention a little while ago.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, it will, definitely.


Ernest Edward Perley: It will include that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.	*


Ernest Edward Perley: Carried on similarly?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Ernest Edward Perley: With certain assistance
which they were not assured of?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 'Yes.


Charles Edward Johnston: Does the word "home" mean an institution or a home? I should think the word "home" would cover the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green).


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is the interpretation which would be placed upon it, I am told.


Charles Edward Johnston: Either definition would apply, then. It is either a private home or an institution.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Douglas King Hazen: Then it should be so defined, because that is not a correct interpretation of the word. If it will mean both an institution and a private home it should be so described.


Howard Charles Green: The difficulty is that section 7 (1) (a) is not being amended. It reads:
For the control and management of any hospital, workshop, home, school or other institution . . .
And so on. Then we take the very same words, namely "hospital, workshop, home, school or other institution" and put them in 7 (b). I do not think they can be considered as including a private home. I do not think the word "home" can be understood as meaning a private home.
'Mr. Green.]
Mr. MACKENZIE i(Vancouver Centre): We shall have the section stand so that we may look further into the wording. There is another amendment to section 7, is there not? I have an amendment that paragraph (c) of subsection 1 of section 7 be deleted. That deals with the possibility of appointment not being made through the civil service commission. We had correspondence with the chairman of the commission in which he gave us the assurance that in cases of emergency we would get prompt appointments. The department was afraid it might have to wait too long at the time of demobilization for appointments to be made. That is why this section was put in in this way. There was some objection raised by the civil service commission, so that we are striking it out.


William Henry Golding: Shall paragraph (a) carry-just so that
we may have it in order?


Howard Charles Green: No; it stands.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That stands, and paragraph (b) stands.


William Henry Golding: And there is an amendment to paragraph (c).


Grote Stirling: Paragraph (c) is deleted.


William Henry Golding: Shall the motion to delete paragraph
(c) carry? The motion is:
That paragraph (c) of subsection 1 of section 7 be deleted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday June 19, 1944