1944-06-15

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to
table an exchange of notes between Canada and Newfoundland recording permission for
Criminal Code

Canadian fishing vessels to land salt and fish in Newfoundland for temporary storage in bond during the calendar 3-ear 1944, dated respectively at St. John's, May 1, 6 and 15, 1944. Treaty series 1944, No. 14.



CAN ADA-BR AZIL-CULTURAL RELATIONS

William Lyon Mackenzie King: On June 5 the leader of
the opposition asked me a question with regard to an announcement that had been made with respect to the exchange of notes between Brazil and Canada on cultural relations. I now beg to table an exchange of notes between Canada and Brazil constituting an agreement for the promotion of cultural relations between the two countries, dated at Rio de Janeiro, May 24, 1944. Treaty series 1944, No. 15.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved:: That the report of the Canadian wheat board for the crop year 1942-43 be referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 139, to amend the Criminal Code.
He said: The purpose of this bill is to provide three amendments to the Criminal Code. The first is to do away with the provision under which the minimum sentence for theft of an article from a post office is three years' imprisonment. We are taking out the minimum because it has been found by experience that in a great many cases it is difficult to get a conviction when the conviction would necessarily entail a minimum penalty of three years.
The second is to increase the maximum penalties provided for defrauding the government in sales to the government of miltary stores. The maximum penalty was two years imprisonment or a fine of $5,000. It is proposed to increase that maximum to three years and a maximum fine of $50,000. The third is to substitute the Superior Court of Quebec for the Court of King's Bench for the hearing of appeals from summary convictions. The Court of King's Bench is the court which hears criminal cases with a jury. The sittings

of that court in the rural districts are quite infrequent, sometimes more than a year elapsing between one sitting and the next, but the Court of King's Bench is presided over by the same judge who presides over the superior court, which is the high court of original jurisdiction. The amendment would substitute the superior court for the Court of King's Bench so that appeals from summary convictions would be more speedily disposed of. It has been found in some cases that when appeals were taken from summary convictions, the appeal was abandoned when the court sat many months after the appeal was entered. This amendment will be in the interests of the expeditious administration of justice, because appeals may be heard at the ordinary term of the high court in each rural district.
Mr. CHURCH:: Mr. Speaker, when a similar amending bill was before the house last year the minister said he would consider suggestions from the bar and chief constables' associations and my own proposals to curb highway motor accidents-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: -and other matters of criminal negligence.	-
Mr. SPEAKER. Order. Leave is being asked by the Minister of Justice to introduce this bill. Does the hon. member wish to speak to it?
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Who are the members of the board of physical fitness to administer the act herein of 1943, by provinces or otherwise, and what provinces are now under it?
2.	Who are the chief officers and what are their qualifications, salaries, living allowances, travelling expenses and all other emoluments?
3.	Are any of them returned soldiers of this or the last war and in what theatres of war did they actually serve?
4.	Why are not these positions reserved exclusively for those who were overseas in a combatant area?
5.	Who selected them, how were they appointed and what are their duties?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	Members of the national council on physical fitness: W. A. Wellband, Regina, * Sask.; A. A. Burridge, Hamilton, Ont.; Dr.
J. Gilbert. Quebec, Que.; J. Mathison, Vancouver, B.C.; J. H. Ross, Calgary, Alta.; Dr.

Questions
3S31
W. C. Ross, Halifax, N.S.; M. Brewer, Fredericton, N.B.; R. W. Youmans, Winnipeg, Man.; Major I. Eisenhardt, Ottawa, Ont.
Agreements under the National Physical Fitness Act have been signed by authorities of the following provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island.	_
2 and 3. Of the members of the national council on physical fitness, Mr. W. A. Well-band had service in France and Dr. W. C. Ross had service in England during the great war. They receive travelling expenses while attending meetings at Ottawa.
Of full-time paid officers, there is only one. Major Ian Eisenhardt, army sports officer, has been seconded from the Department of National Defence to the Department of Pensions and National Health as national director of physical fitness, effective June 1, 1944.
Major Eisenhardt is a graduate of universities of Rennes, France and Copenhagen, Denmark. The field of physical education has been his life's study and work. From 1932 to 1935, he was supervisor of playgrounds for the city of Vancouver; from 1934 to 1940, he was director of physical education for the province of British Columbia; from 1940, he has served as an infantry officer and, during the last year, was given the responsibility of developing an army sports programme for the Canadian soldier, a programme which has been accepted by army authorities. His salary is $5,000 per year, and he is allowed actual expenses while travelling on duty.
4.	It was in the public interest to make an immediate appointment and Major Eisenhardt was selected from a group engaged in the field of sports, games and recreation, as the person whose training and experience, together with his actual achievements, qualified him best for the post.
5.	Appointment : by order in council on the recommendation of the Minister of Pensions and National Health; duties: to develop a national physical fitness programme in conjunction with the provinces, which will eventually improve the general state of health of all Canadians.


*UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. COTE:: 1.	How many district offices has the unemployment insurance commission throughout the country?
2.	At what date was each of the said offices opened?
3.	What is the name and address of the officer in charge of each of said offices?
4.	How many insured persons are comprised in each of the territories served by the said offices?
5. What was the total amount of insurance benefits paid through each of the said offices during the year ending December 31, 1943?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	Nine.
2.	January, 1942.
3.	Moncton-M. L. O'Gorman, Dominion Public Bldg.
Montreal-A. J. Bouthillier, 420 Lagauche-tier St.
Toronto-W. I. Hetherington, 174 Spadina Ave.
London-H. L. Turner, Bell Bldg.
North Bay-W. J. Russell, Masonic Temple.
Winnipeg-C. B. Howden, Old Customs Bldg.
Saskatoon-M. R. McKellar, 701 Avenue Bldg.
Edmonton-H. H. Valens, 10042-109th St.
Vancouver-E. W. Thomas, 475 Howe St.
4.
Moncton	 180,729
Montreal	 742,254
Toronto	 659,447
London	 199,502
North Bay	 58,473
Winnipeg	 154,774
Saskatoon	 59,277
Edmonton	 104,651
Vancouver	 220,358
2,379,465



$ 88,604 62 401,709 22 99,799 76 17,457 93 9,476 45 118,390 29 48,037 62 69,165 31 76,578 13 $929,219 33 MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-FIREWOOD-CHARLES CANTIN, QUEBEC CITY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):
How many cords of firewood were delivered to the Department of Munitions and Supply by Mr. Charles Cantin, of Quebec city, pursuant to call for tender dated April 13. 1942, No. Q-22-4-793, firewood, Valeartier camp?
["Fiscal year: April 1, 1943-March 31, 1944*\n1 and 2.\n(Sub- mitted jointly\tBy em- ployees\tBy em- ployers\tTotalNational Board...\t. 172\t155\t712\t1,039Regional Boards P.E.I\t. 1\t1\t277\t279Nova Scotia....\t. 32\t83\t987\t1.102New Brunswick.\t. 25\t36\t854\t915Quebec\t. 392\t420\t5,030\t5,842Ontario\t. 363\t245\t8,064\t8,672Manitoba\t.2,059\t23\t5\t2,087Saskatchewan. .\t. 4\t5\t2,120\t2,129Alberta\t. 120\t113\t1,324\t1,557British Columbia 577\t312\t4,560\t5,4493,745\t1,393\t23,933\t29,071\n3. Employees involved-2,299,477.\nIly national board's decisions-494,341.\nBy regional board's decisions-1,805,136. (Information is not available by calendar year ending December 31, 1943. Records are kept by fiscal year only.)\n4. Types of applications:\nTo pay or increase payment of cost-ofliving bonus\t\nTo exempt or decrease cost-of-living bonus, and to decrease\nwages\t\nTo pay war risk\nbonus\t\nTo increase wages.... To establish new classifications and\nrates\t\nT o establish wage\nincentive plans\t\nTo establish group\ninsurance plans\t\nMiscellaneous cases..\nNo. of\napplica- Employees\ntions\tinvolved\n1,274\t174,176\n39\t2,091\n12 18,803\t1,064 576,956\n3,572\t74,575\n257\t22,092\n1,370 3,744\t398,921 1,049,602\n29,071\t2,299,477"]
Mr. CHEVRIER:: Contract with Mr. Charles Cantin, Quebec city, Q22-4-793/C.D.F. 167/F.E. 0012, serial 8-253442, for Valeartier camp. May 9, 1942-Delievered-443 cords hardwood, dry, 24" length; 2,057 cords hardwood, dry, 12" length.
5.
Moncton .. Montreal . Toronto .. London .. North Bay Winnipeg Saskatoon Edmonton Vancouver
Questions



Mr. COTE:: 1.	How many petitions have been filed by employers and by workers with the national war labour board and also with the regional boards during the year ending December 31, 1913?
2.	By whom were these petitions made?
3.	How many workers were involved in these petitions?
4.	If these petitions are subject to classification. what is their number in each category and what is the number of workers covered in each category?


Mr. MARTIN:: Fiscal year: April 1, 1943-March 31, 1944*
1 and 2.
(Sub- mitted jointly	By em- ployees	By em- ployers	TotalNational Board...	. 172	155	712	1,039Regional Boards P.E.I	. 1	1	277	279Nova Scotia....	. 32	83	987	1.102New Brunswick.	. 25	36	854	915Quebec	. 392	420	5,030	5,842Ontario	. 363	245	8,064	8,672Manitoba	.2,059	23	5	2,087Saskatchewan. .	. 4	5	2,120	2,129Alberta	. 120	113	1,324	1,557British Columbia 577	312	4,560	5,4493,745	1,393	23,933	29,071
3. Employees involved-2,299,477.
Ily national board's decisions-494,341.
By regional board's decisions-1,805,136. (Information is not available by calendar year ending December 31, 1943. Records are kept by fiscal year only.)
4. Types of applications:
To pay or increase payment of cost-ofliving bonus	
To exempt or decrease cost-of-living bonus, and to decrease
wages	
To pay war risk
bonus	
To increase wages.... To establish new classifications and
rates	
T o establish wage
incentive plans	
To establish group
insurance plans	
Miscellaneous cases..
No. of
applica- Employees
tions	involved
1,274	174,176
39	2,091
12 18,803	1,064 576,956
3,572	74,575
257	22,092
1,370 3,744	398,921 1,049,602
29,071	2,299,477



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. O'BRIEN:
1.	Is Honourable Michael Dwyer of New Glasgow, N.S., employed by the government or any board of the government, with headquarters at Moncton, N.B., or elsewhere?
2.	If so, when was he employed?
3.	What are his duties?
4.	What sum is paid him per month and to date for salary, expenses and office equipment and help?

Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	What are the basic or regimental daily rates of pay for the following officers of the armed forces: (a) navy-captain, commander, lieutenant-commander, lieutenant, sub-lieutenant, executive, engineer, accountant and medical branches; (b) army-colonel, lieutenant-colonel, major, captain, lieutenant, medical and other than medical branches; (c) air force-group captain, wing commander, squadron leader, flight lieutenant, flying officer, general list, non-flying list and medical branch?
2.	What daily rates of staff pay are paid to the officers of the armed forces listed above, (a) in addition to basic or regimental daily pay; and (b) as an alternative to basic or regimental daily pay?
3.	What daily rates of headquarters pay are paid to the officers of the armed forces listed above; what percentage of the officers of the armed forces (individual) receive such pay; is such pay paid in addition to basic, staff or regimental pay?
4.	(a) What is total daily pay rate, including all allowances other than dependents' allowance, subsistence and living allowances, of the officers of the armed forces listed above, who are serving at National Defence headquarters, Ottawa; (b) if different rates are in force for some or all ranks, what percentage do the officers receiving the different rates bear to the total number of officers of the same rank?


GASOLINE-METHOD OF PURCHASE
Mr. HOBLITZELL:: 1.	Does the government call for tenders in purchasing motor gasoline?
2.	Does the government call for tenders in purchasing aviation gasoline?
3.	If not, what method is employed, and what is the reason for not inviting tenders?


VETERANS' AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, June 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for the second reading of bill No. 83, to establish a department of veterans' affairs.
[Stage Direction]
Department oj Veterans' Affairs
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned last evening I was discussing the mechanics of the organization which this bill proposes to set up. I was endeavouring to point out to the minister the importance of the organization in the welfare offices in communities which were recommended by the pensions committee some considerable time ago. I had emphasized the fact that while we may have an efficient organization in Ottawa, it is not in Ottawa that the returning service personnel are going to demobilize, but back in the home communities. The machinery for dealing with this matter through the welfare offices is in my opinion entirely inadequate. Across Canada to-day there is one such office in Prince Edward Island, one in Nova Scotia, one in New Brunswick; there are two in Quebec, four in Ontario, two in Saskatchewan, two in Alberta and1 two in British Columbia. The most important machinery at the time when demobilization takes place will be these welfare offices. Returning service personnel being discharged to-day and going back to their home communities know very little about the programme of rehabilitation which the government has set out on paper, and unless there are efficiently staffed offices in their local communities it will be quite a problem for them to find out what their rights are under the demobilization and rehabilitation regulations. In Nova Scotia, for example, as I have already pointed out on many occasions here, while the office has a very capable person in charge, it is completely inadequate for the routing of returning service personnel into vocational training or securing for them the employment preferences which exist under the regulations. That office is located in the city of Halifax, at the extreme western end of the province. The largest percentage of service personnel from that province will be returning I think to the other end of Nova Scotia. I have endeavoured to impress upon the minister on one or two occasions the difference between that end of Nova Scotia and most of the rest of Canada, in that there is a complete heavy industry set-up there. A man returning from the service with any kind of disability, even if it be only five or ten per cent, is completely unemployable; there is nothing for him-. Only this morning I received a protest from the Army and Navy Veterans of the town of Glace Bay, and I have had letter after letter from returning service personnel to the effect that when they seek employment and go to unemployment insurance and selective service offices they are routed into the regular channel of the unemployed, and unless they are physically capable of taking employment
underground or in a steel plant there are no openings for them. On many occasions I have referred to the necessity of the appointment of a welfare officer at the Sydney unemployment insurance office. The appointment has been vacant for the past two years. A year ago the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) assured me in this chamber that the appointment was to be made immediately, and I felt very happy at this announcement.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: All these appointments are made by the civil service commission.


Clarence Gillis: That is correct, and I am just coming to that. I believe the minister was quite honest in making that statement, and that so far as he was concerned the appointment would have been made; but wThile several persons w-ho I feel are qualified in every way have made application-and it is immaterial to me which one gets the appointment; my concern is to have someone there actually doing the work-the civil service commission, I understand, take the position that they are having difficulty in securing a suitable person in that area. In my opinion that statement does not hold water, because a year ago I recommended someone who was qualified in every way and who at that time was prepared to go in and try to do the job. To-day, of course, he would not take the position. I am afraid, and I want to leave this thought with the minister, that in the filling of these positions it is not a matter of making a selection based on merit, but local patronage committees are interfering and retarding the machinery which the minister desires to set up. I have reason to believe that that is correct so far as the area I am discussing is concerned.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does my hon. friend suggest that local patronage committees have any influence with the civil service commission?


Clarence Gillis: Yes, I certainly suggest that; because, as. I pointed out to the minister a moment ago, the plea that it is not possible to secure a suitable person in that area is not well founded. The person to whom I referred, who applied a year ago was, I know, qualified in every way, but he was never given the opportunity of an examination. If there is no local interference, something is wrong in Ottawa with the civil service commission, and it should be rectified and this machinery set up now. While only yesterday I stated that all these appointments should be made on the basis of merit and under the Civil Service Act,
Department of Veterans' Affairs

the civil service commission will have to see to it that there is no interference with the application of the act.
The most important function of the new Department of Veterans' Affairs is to be the organization of these welfare offices back in the communities. Service personnel now coming back from this war are not being interested in this vocational training programme, because there is no one to sell it to them ; there is no one back in their communities to whom they can go who can point out the advantages which they can obtain from it if they utilize it to prepare themselves for employment in the future. I think the minister should endeavour as far as possible to set up welfare offices in every section of the country, so that the official who has the first approach to the soldier in the field of employment shall have had sufficient training to enable him to sell this programme of rehabilitation with particular reference to vocational training. It is only in this way that the programme which the government has mapped out will be implemented.
I also emphasize the necessity of vocational training facilities. In the province from which I come there are no such facilities adequate to handle the post-war problem if we are going to be realistic about it. Almost the only facility in Nova Scotia is the technical college in Halifax, expanded very little beyond its peace time basis. There was a training centre located at New Glasgow connected with the Clark Ruse Aircraft plant, but since that plant has been closed the school, too, has ceased to operate. It should be immediately taken over by the Department of Veterans' Affairs and made available to returning service personnel of our province for vocational training purposes. When you approach the average ex-service man to-day and suggest that he take vocational training, the first question he puts to you is, "Well, I am paid about $14 a week; I am obliged to go to Moncton, to Montreal or some other distant place in order to take vocational training, and with the amount of money which I am paid it is not possible for me to maintain myself in some other province* during the process of vocational training." If there were an establishment in the centre of the province it is possible that more returning service personnel would take advantage of the vocational training.
The same consideration applies in the matter of routing men back to jobs. While under bill No. 5, which I hope will be administered by this new department-it is now, I believe, handled by the Department of Labour-a man has a right to the job he held prior to
[Mr. GUlis.l
his enlistment, if a man in our province is leaving the army to-day, it is because he is physically unfit, and that being so, he is also physically unfit for the job he had prior to enlistment, because, as I stated before, ours is a heavy industry section and there is no light work. When application is made to the selective service offices for employment, the selective service or unemployment insurance officials have no authority to implement the rehabilitation regulations as applicable to exservice men. One man came to me and told me that when he suggested that something might be done for him by way of lighter employment than shovelling coal underground, the selective service official in Glace Bay remarked to him, "Well, if you can turn that discharge certificate into a light job, that is the thing for you to do." That is not selling the programme of the government; and while you have a programme on paper, unless you also have the machinery to give effect to it there is absolutely no use in having it.
In the matter of hospitalization, pensions, et cetera, I am pleased" that the minister has taken the necessary steps down in my end of the country to establish a suboffice. I hope that is not just a hope also. I am hoping that in the near future the personnel will be selected and the machinery put into operation. But I want to leave this thought with the minister. In my opinion, across Canada today, hospital facilities provided by the Department of Veterans' Affairs will be totally inadequate to meet the post-war problems, and I suggest that an expansion of hospital facilities will be necessary. The second thought I want to leave with the minister is that we do not repeat the performances of the last twenty years in the staffing of pensions and national health hospitals, putting them under the guidance of part-time medical officers, where the medical officer strolls in at eleven o'clock in the morning. He has his tea and he is in a rush to get out, and he has a line-up on the bench for a couple of hours waiting for him, so that it sometimes takes two or three weeks before the medical officer can discuss the case of a patient who is waiting for him.
I think the job of the pensions and national health hospitals across the country is to make a complete examination of the patient, and it is the obligation and responsibility of the staff of the hospital, including the medical representatives, to see to it that the best treatment is provided and that every means at their disposal be utilized in order to get the man well and in a position to go out and take his place in the economy of the country. But that cannot be done with part-time rep-

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
resentatives. That was one of the evils of the hospital set-up, as I saw it, after the last war and in the period between the two wars. I know that at the present time with so many of our doctors out of the country that may not be possible. On the other hand, there may be many doctors under national defence who have not very much to do and could be utilized in these hospitals until such time as a regular organization is provided.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We are doing that.


Clarence Gillis: I am glad to hear it.
I have no intention of discussing all the ramifications of the rehabilitation programme at this time. I merely wish to stress the importance of the welfare organization as it applies to the whole demobilization period and to suggest to the minister not to pin too much faith on the voluntary committees that have been set up across the country We have had a good deal of experience with voluntary committees. They have nice honorary jobs and they get their names in the papers occasionally, but they have not the facilities to do the job which is necessary in guiding and routing ex-servicemen back to gainful employment after the war is over. In some sections of the country the voluntary committees do a good job with such machinery as they have to work with, but in Nova Scotia, to the best of my knowledge, these committees have not even made a start on getting into contact with industry and accepting the responsibility for guiding the service man back to gainful employment. The thing we have to do now in every section wherever possible is to have a competent man in an office preparing files, getting in contact with national defence, securing relevant data on every service man in the country who will be returning to that particular area, and selling the vocational training programme, advising them on their rights under the whole scheme. Unless that is done, I see a good many headaches in store for the personnel who may. be handling the national administration of the programme.


Thomas Langton Church: From the district which I represent over fifty thousand volunteers took part in the last war, and therefore I want to say something with reference to the new consolidated board to be appointed by the government to handle the problem of the returned soldiers of this war and to suggest a cure for a great many of the defects that have existed in the various pension acts since the last war.
At last, after twenty years, we are apparently taking a forward step in the way of a
national policy and a consolidated department to look after veterans' affairs, something long overdue. Between the two wars we had five or six separate departments handling the various phases of the work. I do not wish to offer any criticism of those who have to do with one of the most important offices of government, under the head of this particular department. They have done good work, but red tape and technical small decisions have defeated the purpose of the act.
One of the reasons why I came to Ottawa in the first place in 1921, after the close of the last war, was the fact that callous indifference had been exhibited by all the authorities towards those who had fought the battles of the country in many wars and thus had saved it. But it was the same in the South African war and in the Red River rebellion of 1885. The veterans who in 1885 marched across the territory of lake Superior in the rebellion of that year did not get what they should have been given, or anything since. The same is true of those who took part in the Fenian raid. Grants of land were no doubt given them, but the lands were so far from the scene that they were practically valueless.
I am glad to note that the discussion on this subject is non-partisan, and I hope it will continue on that level. No doubt a forward step has been taken on the basis of service, in that the onus of proof will rest on the government. Every soldier who went overseas should per se be entitled to qualify for a pension. No means test should be applied, and what is given should include full compensation for the services he has rendered so as to enable him to take care of his family and put them back where they were before the war started.
Many of the very same points that were dealt with yesterday by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) were brought up and discussed by myself in the debate that took place on soldiers' reestablishment and pensions when I first entered this house in a debate on June 21, 1922. Some nine or ten of the questions referred to yesterday, which are still unsolved in this country, and which have been raised in various applications that have been made with respect to proof of claim, callous indifference to soldier families, and so on, were brought up by me at that time. The work that has been done speaks for itself. We all know that but for the soldiers who are serving in this war we would have had the awful horrors of war perpetrated right on our own soil and we would not have been able to restore the country. Indeed, all the money that has been
Department oj Veterans' Affairs

spent on the soldiers is only pin money compared to the money spent on material things, the building of railways, public works and many other things of that description. In the great war these men went away voluntarily. A million men went voluntarily from the. dominions overseas and 130,000 died on the field of battle in the common cause and changed the whole history of the world.
While we have had a pension act, there have been many defects in it and proper treatment has not been given either the soldiers or their dependents. I wish to refer to one or two matters which are not covered here. First of all, the housing situation; what is to be done regarding housing for returned soldiers? In the city from which I come there are only -62 vacant houses, less than one per cent. I go around the city of Toronto; I visit the homes. I find soldiers and their families living in cellars that are not fit for human habitation, aceordiug to some of our local soldier authorities.
Let me mention one of the first things to be done by the government in conection with this veterans' department-and by the way, that is mysterious wording-veterans-to give to a department that will have to do with boys just out of high school. In the city from which I come, 896 boys who came from the secondary schools have been killed overseas. They are not veterans. Some of them had cadet training in the schools. In that connection may I say that the cadet services throughout the country have done magnificent work in the three branches. I suggest that the cadets in the high schools associated with the navy, the army and the air force be given a dollar a day, three days a week while they are training as cadets for this war.
I would rather see this department called the Soldiers' Aid Department than Department of Veterans' Affairs. When the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) was speaking yesterday he referred to an industry in my constituency, Lever Brothers, that great British company. They have put out a very fine red book. They see all the soldiers' off. They are willing to take them back at their old jobs and give them a better job. They send them parcels, cigarettes and supplies, and they do a great deal in looking after the women and children while the men are overseas. They have carried on most glorious work in that connection. The president of the company is Mr. Naim, a patriotic worker and great citizen. The hon. member for Vancouver North also visited' this industry. The president told me and yesterday the hon.

member also said, that they have some difficulty in connection with this work in getting a complete record of the soldiers' services, et cetera. It is true that they have their attestation papers, the unit to which they belong and all that kind of thing; but there is no record of the soldier during the time he is away from the industry. I have pleaded with the government for over twenty years to reorganize the records office from top to bottom. I have referred to this on many occasions.
In connection with the victory loans, income tax collections and other matters they have a proper record. The victory loan headquarters can tell within twenty-four hours after the closing of a day's campaign how much was subscribed by a particular village, town or city. Our records office is very largely a relic of the South African war. We have made, so far as I can see, no progress. We cannot tell how many soldiers enlisted from any particular municipality, town or city. Our industrial employers are not interested in many of the small details. They are not interested in primary matters, in finding out something about the work of the soldier while he is away. That was referred to yesterday by the hon. member for Vancouver North. I have in mind a young boy in Lever Brothers who wrapped soap and who was given a decoration at the front, and has risen to the rank of captain. On his return he should not have to go back to the job he had before he enlisted. His company want to use his services, perhaps, in an executive capacity, not at his old job, because with training he would go from the bottom to the top of any industry if he had a chance. They will give him a chance yet. The industries are not giving the protection that they should. In that connection I should like to refer to the various local boards, women's organizations, welfare boards and others who are doing so much for the soldiers in the different municipalities. They have helped every war effort. In addition to that, our clergy of every denomination in Canada have done magnificent work in this war.
So far as the $65 clothing allowance is concerned it is utterly ridiculous. I see some of the veterans coming back from the front going around in winter clothing, because they cannot afford to buy a proper suit of clothes. Some of these men have been overseas for over three and a half years. This is the seventy-fourth day of the session. Surely the government can come to some decision. If it is a matter of money, what does money amount to when compared with seeing that these young people, many of whom have

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
borne the heat and burden of the war and some of whom-those not yet home-will be over there the sixth Christmas next Christmas, are properly clothed when they do come home. I do not like to see them on the streets in the civilian clothes they are wearing; and it is a bad advertisement, and unjust and unfair for the country, the way those soldiers are also housed. I do hope that something will be done along that line.
Ever since the outbreak of the war I have had on the order paper a resolution relating to the protection and treatment of the returned soldiers as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should immediately consider the advisability and urgent necessity of adopting improved measures for the better protection of all soldiers who serve in His Majesty's forces, and more particularly-(a) that a system of life insurance on all soldiers be established, to include provision for their dependents, both during and after the war, and to include, for three years after the war, provision for their insurance against unemployment and want, and free hospitalization; (b) that a daily allowance be made for local car fare and for free fares on Canada's railways, under the Railway Act (R.S.C.);	(c) provision for a revision and
improvement in rates of pay, subsistence and other allowances of all ranks, especially privates and non-commissioned officers and removal of existing inequality between all ranks; (d) a high-cost-of-living bonus to be paid to all
dependents of soldiers, adjusted from time to time and to include better allowances for their children; (e) provision for a moratorium from foreclosures, eviction and certain other immunities from debt while absent on war duties, and for six months after the war, and more adequate and improved housing for themselves and their families at low cost; (f) a better and more adequate and quicker system of paying the dependents of those reported missing.
I also brought to the attention of the house, first, a national policy of soldiers' insurance the month this war broke out, and the need of a Sparkman act adapted to Canada's circumstances. I immediately sent copies of this United States act to the three ministers of the forces and the finance minister, and frequently dealt with it here. First, some of it was adopted in the last war insurance measure. After Pearl Harbor I still advocated it here, and others have also done so since. I was glad to see that at the last session of the Ontario legislature two bills were passed along this line, one providing financial protection for members of the armed forces and the other providing protection for life insurance policies of those members who are insured. I am glad to see that some progress has been made in that connection.
With regard to transportation, I shall read a return made to an order of the house, on my motion, in that connection, as follows:
Department of National Defence-Army
The total yearly (not monthly) payments made to Canadian Pacific Railway Company and Canadian National Railways for the transportation of His Majesty's forces for the calendar years 1941, 1942 and 1943.
The information is as follows:-
Canadian National Railways Canadian Pacific Rly. Co.
1941	
$ 6,286,115 32	$ 6,687,317 451942	
9,328,845 47	7,509,741 591943	
11,450,816 25	9,920,643 54$27,065,777 04	$24,117,702 58
The above figures comprise navy and army payments for the full period and R.C.A.F. payments for calendar year 1941. It is understood R.C.A.F. have reported separately. for the calendar years 1942 and 1943.
Department of National Defence for Air
1941	1942	1943
To be included
Canadian National	 in army returns	$5,613,151 89	$8,359,765 27
To be included
Canadian Pacific Railway	 in army returns	4,914,713 41	7,064,854 26
Surely, if all this money has been made, more in one year than in the whole four and half years before the war, the railways can afford to give some measure of relief to the soldiers by way of cheaper fares and better transportation all along the line than they are now doing.
With regard to this bill, the proposed veterans' affairs act, I may say that we should adopt more human rights regarding this particular problem and that bonuses, subventions and subsidies should be given all along the line to soldiers and their dependents. I hope the Industrial Development bank will do
383S
Department of Veterans' Affairs

something in this connection. Civil aviation, if properly utilized, will become one of the most important agencies for providing employment. I doubt whether we are going to get the benefit we should from the policy of the government. With regard to jobs, I believe the soldiers' children should be put back in the position they were in before the war. Why should the soldiers' children be penalized because the father has enlisted and gone to the war? Why should there not be a provision in the rehabilitation programme which would give an opportunity to these young people, the children of soldiers, to go to the high schools and complete the courses that the soldier father intended for them before the war?
Three years ago a return was made to an order of the house in my name showing a survey of hospital accommodation in Canada. It showed that there was not enough hospital accommodation to provide for the condition of affairs that existed three years ago. What is to be done with the heavy casualties that are occurring in Italy and other theatres of war? In the city from which I come it is hard for a civilian to get into hospital. It is true that the present minister has made some start in acquiring the east general hospital, but there will be ten or twelve times the hospital accommodation needed in that city before many days pass. I do hope that some more active proceeding on Sunnybrook will be taken regarding matters such as these.
There are some other matters which are covered by the proposed act. For some twenty years a great many deserving people have not been able to get the help they required. I agree with the policy that in making appointments to this department those who have seen overseas service during this war should receive the preference. It is true that there are in the present department a great many experienced men of other wars who should not be set aside, but as far as possible these positions should be given to returned soldiers.
I wonder if I could have the attention of the minister for a moment; after all, this is not the banking and commerce committee, and dear knows it is nearly time that committee made a report. I can wait, if necessary, but after all we are discussing perhaps the most important problem this government has to face at the present time. I have a case here of a veteran who was a forty per cent disability after the last war. I saw perhaps 350 people at his funeral, veterans of the last war and post office employees. He had two sons, one seventeen who has enlisted in the navy already, and the other a younger boy

who has joined a cadet corps. His widow is very nearly helpless, but she will be turned out on the street unless something is done for her. Yet when a matter of this kind is referred to the department nothing but callous indifference is shown. I am not going to give the name, but this man's number was 348266. His policy number was 8888. I am going to send this letter to the minister for his attention. I am sorry to interrupt him; he is courteous, but I would like the minister to look into this case, because he has given every consideration to numerous matters I have referred to him.
Many matters may be dealt with in this debate. Most of them were referred to yesterday, so I need not detain the house very much longer. In passing, however, I should like to refer to the great difficulty being experienced in this country in regard to domestic help. Many of these mothers have to go out and work; others have young children at home, many of them are now with child, and they cannot get domestic help. I hope something may be done about this matter, and I propose to put a question or two on the order paper concerning it. Reference was made to this situation not long ago in Britain by Sir Edward Grigg, a great soldier who has done so much for the empire. In a recent letter to the Times he had learned from a doctor that during the previous fortnight he had attended three miscarriages-
- 'for which he could find no cause hut grave domestic over-strain. The mothers were young and strong. They and the children they lost were just victims of an anti-domestic mania under whose influence all-powerful officials are instructed to act as though mothers, homes and children were of no account to the nation by comparison with factories and canteens.
Many of those officials do their utmost to help; others are hostile to domestic claims. But whether they be sympathetic or not, the result is that mothers and their children, born and unborn, are going 'to the wall. If race suicide is to be a national policy, firing squads would be more merciful.
Many maternity and child welfare clinics with their voluntary helpers are also struggling against blind official indifference or discouragement. I gave a disgraceful example to the Minister of Health a short time ago. But the official sabotage of maternity goes on, more destructive than German bombs.
Then at page 375 of the National Review for last May, where reference is made to this letter, it is stated that this correspondence drew letters from many people, and the Review goes on to say:
There was a general consensus of opinion that "something ought to be done" to relieve the over-strained mothers. But what? Mr. Bevin has from time to time let it be known that he has it in mind to organize, at some future date, a vague corps of domestic helpers. This reminds

Department ol Veterans' Affairs
us of the little boy who pulled the wings off the flies and then, surprised that they could^ no longer fly, -tried to stick them on again. What Mr. Bevin and his brother socialists do not know is that it is easier to pull down a social structure than to rebuild it. They are slowly acquiring this information at the expense of the community-in this particular case the price is paid in the lives of young women and their children. There is a remedy for this almost desperate situation, and that -is to release from the factories and workshops the women who are finding that work too heavy for their strength . and who are therefore unsatisfactory workers, wasting their own and other people's time. A recent report on absenteeism in the war factories shows that there are a great many women who stay away from work they do not like. If they were released it would not be necessary to "direct them into domestic work," they would find it for themselves either in -their own families or in other people s. Once the strait-waistcoat into which women have been forced is relaxed the domestic situation will get better automatically. We may add that 'the women's services strain the health of all but the very robust, and that- it can be of no earthly good -to the country to keep young women in uniform when they are perpetually in hospital.
I believe that if an investigation were made here, as it was made in Britain, it would be found that many of the young women in the three services are in hospital or not able to carry on for a great many days during the year. The women's army services and organizations have done glorious work in this war; there is no doubt about that. They have released many men for the army, the navy and the air force, but I think this situation should be looked into by the department in view of the lack of domestic help for the families both of soldiers and civilians. I know the hospitals and rest homes throughout the country are suffering from this lack of help, and I think that situation should be remedied.
To make a long story short, the key to the whole problem lies in the choice of men to administer this department. We have had am example before us now for twenty-four years, and we hope things will be conducted differently in future. Now I believe a number of very fine returned men both on this side and the other side of the house, who have taken a great interest in this work, wish to speak on (his bill, so that I shall conclude my remarks.


Mr. FRED ROSE (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support bill No. 83 and the principle of establishing a department of veterans' affairs. This bill is vital both to the people at home and to our men now fighting overseas. Some people suggest that perhaps we are talking too much about the post-war period and the problems of rehabilitation, but I suggest that now, when our men are in action, is the time we should make them believe that
we are sincerely trying to make sure that their wishes and desires, their hopes and aspirations will come true, and that we will not have a repetition of what happened after the last war. I have in my hand a book called "The Aftermath" by Right Hon. Winston S. Churchill, which I have read a number of times, particularly certain chapters. At page 16, dealing with the immediate post-war period and the men returning from the war, he said:
The boundless hopes that had cheered the soldiers and the peoples in their tribulations died swiftly away. The vision of a sunlit world redeemed by valour, where work would be less and its recompense more, where justice and freedom reigned together through centuries of unbroken peace-that vision which had flickered over the battlefields and beckoned from behind the German or Turkish -trenches, comforting the soldier's heart and fortifying his strength, was soon replaced by cold, grey reality.
And then later on:
A cruel disillusionment was at hand for all. All men, all women, all soldiers, all citizens were looking forward to some great expansion, and there lay before them nothing but a sharp contraction.
The same sort of vision that the men in the last war had while they were in the trenches in France and Turkey is being had to-day by the men overseas. They are all looking forward to something better. They want to be sure they will come back to a Canada where they will have jobs at good pay. They are not asking for too much. But they do look forward to a Canada that will not be the same as the Canada after the last war. There must be no contraction, as Mr. Churchill said was the case after the last war. While we can discuss the affairs of the veterans it must, be understood that they are connected with the whole project that we have in mind for Canada, a project that will lead to expansion instead of contraction.
This bill proposes the setting-up of a separate and strong department of veterans' affairs which shall be responsible for the care, treatment, vocational training, reemployment and reestablishment in civil life of the veterans of the armed forces and the care of their dependents now and after the war. With those principles I fully agree, but there is one proposal lacking, and that with regard to the men of the merchant navy. We hear glowing reports about their heroic deeds at sea under difficult conditions. Many of them have had their ships blown out from under them three or four times. These men should have the same guarantee given to them as is being given to the men in the armed forces. It is true that they come under some of the provisions
Department of Veterans' Affairs

of the Pension Act, but this is not sufficient. In his little book, "When the Boys Come Home," Mr. Senior says:
Since merchant seamen are engaged in a normal civil vocation-presumably the one of their choice-the question of rehabilitation into
civil life after the war does not arise as it does in the case of a member of the armed forces who has been taken away from his normal occupation.
That is not altogether true. Many of these men left trades to join the merchant marine believing that they were needed, believing that they were doing their patirotic duty to Canada. I do not believe it is fair to separate them as Mr. Senior has done. No doubt he means well, but at the same time it is not helping the men of the merchant marine.
We have three responsibilities to the men and women of the armed forces. First, we must realize that the wrar is not yet won, that hard battles are ahead and that weapons of war must be given to these men in greater and greater flow. Our second responsibility is to plan for the kind of Canada that these men hope to come back to. Third, we must set up that streamlined machinery which will guarantee civil reestablishment and jobs to the men and women returning home.
The bill now before us is a good contribution in that direction. However, in itself it is not sufficient. We must have the broadest approach to this problem facing the men and women of the armed forces because we owe them everything. In order to show the aspirations of the men in the armed forces I should like to read something of what has been proposed by the men themselves. After a lengthy discussion, a document known as the charter of the Loyal Edmonton Regiment was prepared. This charter, which was submitted to the Minister of National Defence while on tour in Italy, states:
1.	The Canadian government has a moral responsibility for the return of the fighting forces into civilian life, with jobs.
2.	Security and livelihood for every citizen should be assured by all means available, notably minimum wrage, health and hospital insurance, and national security measures along the lines of the Beveridge plan.
3.	A large standing army, navy and air force sufficient to meet Canada's international obligations for the maintenance of world peace should be established and the active army should be given preference there.
4.	Out of the existing overseas army a Canadian group for attachment to the allied military occupation army should be established on a voluntary basis but maintaining Canadian identity and officered by Canadian reinforcements to be drawn from trainees.
5.	Preparations to be made forthwith to let men waiting discharge begin trades and other training as soon as possible to obviate the necessity for purely parade square routine. Existing educational personnel and trades school staff could be used as a nucleus for this purpose.
IMr. Rose.]
None of us knows as well as these men exactly wdiat they want and what they expect to find in Canada once they. come back, and by all means those proposals should be considered most seriously.
There are still some shortcomings in our treatment of these men which should be overcome. In this connection I agree fully with a statement made by Mr. Walter S. Woods, associate ..deputy minister of pensions and national health, when speaking to the Winnipeg veterans' welfare committee on March 7. He said:
I don't think our democracy will survive another experience like the thirties. These men returning from overseas must get jobs. The man who has seen service should be given special recognition by employers.
The fulfilment of what is contained in those words of Mr. Woods is the responsibility of government and parliament, of industry and labour. All must collaborate and work together to see that it is possible to give these men a better Canada. Organized labour is collaborating with the men of the armed forces to a much greater extent, I would say, than in the last war. In the memorandum submitted on February 25, 1944, to the cabinet by the trades and labour congress there is a full section dealing with matters affecting the armed forces. They recommend better treatment, and they deal with the problem of clothing allowance and emphasize the fact that $65 is insufficient. The memorandum of the Canadian Congress of Labour submitted to the government on February 21, 1944, says this:
The congress recommends that demobilized members of the armed forces be continued on full pay and allowances until they can be gainfully employed, and that the clothing allowance on demobilization be increased to at least $125.
Recently at a conference held in the city of Vancouver, organized labour, together with representatives from the legion, considered the problems of the returning men, the problems of the armed forces and the problems of labour, because they realize that you cannot separate one from the other.. They considered a master plan that would provide employment for the workers and for the returning men.
I want to refer especially to parents in connection with the problem of dependents and pension allowances. Since I have been in the house I have received letters from parents whose sons have been killed overseas, and in all cases the parents have been unable to get any pension whatsoever. There is one case which I particularly want to mention. Here is a man, the father of twelve minor children. His boy overseas, an air gunner, was killed. The father is blind in one eye,

Department of Veterans' Affairs
and has rheumatism, but he cannot get anything at all, despite the fact that it is recognized that the boy had supported the family to quite a substantial amount before he went into the forces. He sent S40 a month home to his parents, and now the family cannot get a single penny. Surely it should be possible, by an amendment to the pension act, to provide for helping the family in cases such as this. The father may earn $25 a week, but how does that help a man with twelve minor children?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How old is the oldest child?


Fred Rose: Less than sixteen.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will my hon. friend send me the details of
the case?


Fred Rose: I shall gladly do so.
Then there is the problem which has been mentioned by everybody, that of the clothing allowance. Organizations and individuals have all agreed that there should be an increase in the clothing allowance up to $125. I for one find it very hard to understand why $35 was ever fixed upon in the first place. It is true that it has been increased to $65, which is a step in the right direction, but it is still insufficient. I think I cannot do better to show how the men and the parents of the men in the armed forces feel about the clothing allowance than by reading this letter which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of February 29, 1944. It is as follows:
As the mother of two boys at present in the battle of Italy, may I say one went overseas in 1940 when he was 21, the other in 1941, when he was 19. I wonder if our law makers realize that many boys like ours went overseas at the youthful age of 19, 20 or 21, still growing, and thm clothing they laid aside to don their country's uniform will be outgrown, which means when they return to civilian life they will require a whole new wardrobe. How far, Mr. Law Maker, do you think the sum of $65 will go towards an overcoat, a dress-up suit, an everyday or work suit, shoes, shirts, etc., etc.,? It would not much more than buy an overcoat or one suit much less all the other articles they require.
It is a disgrace to Canada to suggest giving these boys anything less than $200.
A number of organizations as well as individuals have asked that the clothing allowance be increased to $125. It would be good news to those now fighting overseas if the minister were to announce publicly that this question had been settled once for all and that the clothing allowance is to be $125 for all men honourably discharged from the armed forces.
I shall not take more time, Mr. Speaker. A number of other speakers have dealt with the problems of returning men, and there has been unanimity almost amongst all groups. All that we need now is action on the part of the government to make sure that our returning men will receive the finest of treatment, which is a debt we owe to them.


Mr. FREDERIC DORION (Charlevoix-Saguenay):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to give
my support to this measure in favour of the veterans. I wish to draw the attention of the government to some special aspects of veterans' problems.


Frédéric Dorion: Mr. Speaker, I must say, at the outset, that I have had the opportunity to come into contact with the veterans of the last war and to- become acquainted with them-. I have had the privilege of working, with them since 1918, because they did me the honour of requesting me to become their legal adviser and I was pleased to accept. I deemed it my duty to help them in their distress and to give them my assistance during the depression that affected so many people. I have known a great many veterans, as well as their wives and children. I have seen on all too many occasions, the distress undergone by those men who had brought great credit on themselves from 1914 to 1918 and who, on their return home had certainly not received the help and the support to which they were entitled. I have all too often noticed, for instance, that because a veteran was in receipt of a small monthly pension, he was denied employment opportunities, preference being given to others. He was then left to shift for himself, and he was only getting $5, $10 or $15 a month from the department of pensions. That is why, after living among them, and witnessing their distress, I cannot but support any action that may be helpful to those who are veterans of the last war and to the men who are fighting in this war.
Evidently, the legislation now before the house deserves all our support because, as I said -a while ago, its purpose is to help the veterans and, in itself, it is a very good enactment. I want to add, however, that it is not sufficient, as everyone knows, to have excellent legislation-this statement is almost a truism-since the main thing consists in having the law suitably applied, and in all fairness which implies that there will be no discrimination.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, whatever legislation we plan or pass, I submit that we will not achieve our purpose unless this act is applied fairly. We all know that it is not
Department oj Veterans' Affairs

enough to admit the existence of certain evils, not enough to make laws allowing us to establish such facts and then pretend we are trying to improve conditions if, in truth, we do not apply the remedial measures needed to root out the anticipated evils. I would like to add that, knowing the veterans, as I said a while ago, I realize that what they ask is not so much a pension-they want no charity from the government, from individuals or from companies. Those people have their pride like other citizens, and they want the right to say like everyone that they are able to earn their living.
Obviously a wounded man, one who has lost a leg or an arm, cannot, in civilian life, render as efficient services as a physically fit man. On the other hand, it is a well-known fact that there are in our industrial plants and elsewhere all kinds of jobs which wounded or crippled war veterans could fill. Our dominion, provincial and municipal governments should pay special attention to the cases of wounded men who will return home after the war as well as those of the veterans of the last war who are still living. I am convinced that our governments could readily find, for a large number of them, jobs which would enable them to earn a decent living. Moreover, our industrialists, tradesmen, business firms and even private business men should realize the obligations that we will have to fulfill towards veterans after the war. If it is true-as has been so explicitly stated-that they have retained their possessions, that our system has stood the test, that companies and business men can continue their activities, thanks to those who have fought overseas for five years or more, and some of whom will return home wounded after enduring untold hardship, I claim that all these industrialists and business men should make it their duty to find easy work for all these crippled veterans, so they may honourable earn a living. I shall go even further and state that it is the duty of the government and the new minister who will be directing this department to organize a liaison service between the department, and the industrialists and business men of the country. Thus they would be in a position to locate all positions available to veterans, and when I use this expression I mean especially the crippled veterans. The minister should undertake a thorough investigation through the whole of Canada, in order to find work for all those who have given their blood to safeguard our industries, and to preserve the institutions we enjoy at the present time. The minister should, after this comprehensive investigation, invite these industrialists and business men to offer employment for the crippled veterans.

The same pitfalls that we had to avoid after the last war may well be met again at the end of the present armed conflict. We must avoid any method based on political patronage. I am unfortunately aware that politics have often played an important part when a veteran was in need of a job. Let us avoid such partiality this time and let us make sure that every veteran shall enjoy the full measure of consideration he deserves, no matter what may be his political affiliations.
This week, Mr. Speaker, w'e have voted quite a considerable sum in order to provide help for the united nations. We have voted much money for that purpose during the last two years. The soldiers who are now fighting know it. The veterans of this war will remember the gifts we are making to-day. The men who have fought for five years will, on their return to this country, remind us who are now sitting in this house, of what w7e have done during this war, the gifts we have made. Will they not have a right, to ask us to afford them a decent livelihood for themselves as well as for their wives and children? It is therefore imperative that we should now devise some plan for taking care of the large number of men who are now returning to this country and of the still larger number of those who will come back after the war.
(Text)
In closing, I assure the government that I shall always regard it as a duty to collaborate with any government to help the veterans; and I hope that when good suggestions are made, even by members of the opposition, the government will not put them aside for the simple reason that they come from hon. members belonging to opposition groups.


Mr. HARRY LEADER (Portage la Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I always contend that when a man makes a public statement he should have knowledge of his subject. I was greatly interested in the speech made yesterday by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair); he spoke as a soldier, and concern for the betterment of the conditions of our soldiers after the war was the thought uppermost in his mind. I did not hear the speech made yesterday by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair), but 1 read part of it, and I wish to pay tribute to him for his tenacity in maintaining that the indebtedness still owbng by veterans of the last war to the soldier settlement board should be cancelled. I agree with the request which was presented the other day by a delegation from a western body of soldier settlers, that these men now be presented with free title to their lands. I say that, knowing full well

Department of Veterans' Affairs
that there are those who would not make a success of farming if you gave them another fifty years to pay for their land. But we cannot legislate for that sort of farmer. The great majority of these men, I believe, did the best they could under very difficult circumstances. Therefore I am pleased, if it is going to help any, to support the resolution which asked for the cancellation of soldier settlers' debts and the granting of free title to these returned men.
I want to speak in this debate from my experience as a farmer. I support the legislation which has been enacted and the proposals now under consideration for the rehabilitation of returned men who must resume civil life when the war is over. As a farmer I am interested in the Veterans' Land Act; I believe that it is a good measure if properly administered. I do not think I can do .better than to read some provisions of the act as contained in this little booklet called "Back to Civil Life". I quote:
The Veterans' Land Act, which is administered by a director under the Minister of Mines and Resources, gives a new meaning to the term land settlement in the rehabilitation of exservicemen. The main purpose of the act is to assist suitably qualified ex-servicemen to buy and own a farm to be operated on a full-time farming basis or to buy and own a rural or semi-rural home (small holding) with the main income earned from industrial or other employment in the community. To give practical effect to this purpose, the act provides:-three distinct types of establishment; that the state shall bear a substantial part of the cost of each establishment by means of a conditional grant; that each ex-serviceman assisted shall be qualified for the particular type of settlement; and that he shall pay down ten per cent of the cost of land and buildings at the time of his establishment.
For veterans who have practical experience in farm operation assistance is available to engage in farming as a full-time occupation. Encouragement will be given to sustain the "family farm" as a Canadian institution.
For veterans whose normal sphere in Canadian society is in industry or commerce or in the field of agricultural employment, provision is made for assistance to be established in a good home, with small acreage of land outside the high taxation areas. Mechanics, carpenters, masons, electricians, factory workers and white collar men may benefit. It is believed that seriously disabled veterans in receipt of substantial pensions may be especially interested in this type of semi-rural settlement.
And then there is an inducement to fishermen to follow along the same line. I quote:
Small holding (coupled with commercial fishing). For the veteran whose normal occupation is in the commercial fishing industry provision is made to assist him to purchase a comfortable home, a plot of ground and fishing equipment required for his occupation.
Let me now read the financial provisions:
The act provides a maximum of $6,000 to cover cost of land, improvements, live stock and
equipment, including fishing equipment. The maximum for land and improvement is $4,800; maximum for live stock and equipment or fishing equipment, is $1,200.
As to terms of sale to qualified veterans:
At the time he makes application to purchase, the ex-serviceman must deposit in cash ten per cent of the cost of land and improvements, namely, $480. He then signs a contract to repay only two-thirds of the cost of land and buildings, or $3,200 over a period of 25 years, with interest at 3J per cent amortized. The annual payment including principal and interest is $194.14. The entire $1,200 cost of stock and equipment, plus $1,120-the difference between the cost of land and buildings and what the veteran pays-is borne by the state. In this case the state conditional grant is $2,320 or 38 per cent of the total cost of the farm establishment.
It goes on to say that in order to take advantage of this assistance the position of the farmer must be maintained for at least ten years, and if you wish to sell or assign your property, you lose the benefits I have enumerated. Let me now read another short excerpt from these conditions:
The veteran may select his farm or small holding in any location in Canada but the farm must be such that in the opinion of the director of the act it offers reasonable opportunity for successful rehabilitation.
Here is another interesting provision I should like to read:
Provision is_ made for the granting of loans at 34 per cent interest rate to veterans who own farm land and may require funds to resume farming operations. Advances not exceeding 60 per cent of the value of the land, or a maximum of $3,200, may be made to pay off a mortgage, effect improvements, or buy live stock and equipment. If an advance for live stock and equipment only is desired, the total may not exceed $2,500, or fifty per cent of the value of the land.
I have been much interested in this phase of the rehabilitation programme. Owing to circumstances over which I have no control, I have never been able to offer a word in this house in regard to these projects. I am very glad to have this opportunity to support what I think is commendable in the government's actions. About two years ago, before the act was being considered, and anticipating that I might not be back in the house for some time, I presented a submission to the minister of pensions in which I outlined my ideas of a land settlement act. I pointed out in these submissions that farmers with experience should be the only ones allowed to come under this scheme. I pointed out that returned men should have the choice of location, and that it was desirable that they should select good land in good districts. I did not think there was need of going beyond the boundaries of our organized municipali-
Department of Veterans' Affairs

ties; I believed that there was plenty of land available for the settlement of these soldiers right in our organized districts, where they could have the benefit of good roads, schools, churches, and the advantage pf electricity, which goes with any properly constituted farm. I sent this submission to the minister, and he replied kindly by saying that I would find that some of the recommendations would be contained in the bill. I think perhaps that is so, although I am not taking any credit
I wish to deal with another phase of this important measure. Let me call attention to section 33 of the War Veterans' Land Act, which provides:
No person, firm, or corporation shall be entitled to charge or collect, as against or from any other person, firm or corporation any fee or commission or advance of price for services rendered in. the sale of any land made to the director whether for the finding or introducing of a buyer or otherwise.
That is contained in section 33 of the War Veterans' Land Act. Now let me read my submission in that regard, which I made to the minister:
In my opinion, whatever measure is devised it should be administered in cooperation with the provinces and the municipalities. Especially. I would say, the municipalities. Municipal officials could keep on file a list of the lands available for resettlement, location, price pel acre and other information required by the land inspectors. This information kept on file in the municipal office would tend to speed up transfers and guarantee a better deal for all concerned.
I added:
I am sure that you will agree with me that the legislation proposed should not be enacted as a relief for the mortgage holders, either corporate or private, but for the reestablishment of our returned men in happy homes after their release from army life.
That was my attitude at that time, and I still adhere to it.
I was interested in receiving a short time ago a notice from a real estate firm stating that a meeting had been held by the Canadian association of real estate boards in Niagara Falls and that a committee had been appointed to interview the government and that a resolution had been submitted. I shall read the resolution:
Be it therefore resolved, that the members of the Canadian association of real estate boards in session at Niagara Falls, Ontario, this fifth day of April, 1944, petition the Right Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada: that section 33 of the War Veterans' Land Act be amended by adding the words "save and except to a duly licensed real estate operator," thereby permitting real estate agents to deal for remuneration in all lands required in this connection.

It will be noted that this resolution emphasizes the words' "save and except." If this resolution were given effect to, that one body would have the sole right to buy this land for the soldier settlement board. That seems to me to be bordering on a monopoly. I do not think that any association should have the right to be the sole agents of any company. Especially am I against any action of this kind being taken by the government. Our returned men will be coming back after offering their all in our defence and in the defence of our homes and families. Here is an association asking for their pound of flesh in securing lands for their rehabilitation. I kpow that the government has not granted any rights to any real estate agent or association. I want to bring this forward to the minister and to the government and to tell them that I support them in the action they have taken, so far.
I hope that they will not weaken. I do not want to be taken as being antagonistic to any legitimate business. I believe the business of real estate dealers is legitimate and that there is a place for them in this country; but in this one particular where we are fighting for proper treatment of our returned men I do not believe that this association should get its finger in this particular pie.
Now I wish to deal with another phase of the land act which I mentioned a while ago, namely, small holdings. These small holdings would be secured adjacent to industrial centres. I believe the provision is an excellent one. I believe that the families will be all the better off in a semi-rural home and surroundings, but I am thinking of how it will affect returned men from western Canada who have volunteered and offered everything. As the house knows, in western Canada, and particularly in the prairie provinces, industries are conspicuous by their absence. We hear ' a good deal these days about the decentralization of industry. I think that it is long past due. If we are to have a balanced economy, both east and west and in our country as a whole, we must have industries in the prairie provinces. Very few industries are located there at the present time. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNieol) has contended that thus far the industries of eastern Canada have not been fair to western Canada-and I hope I am not misquoting him. Along with many other hon. members I agree in that. We have had industries in western Canada but they were subsidiaries of the big industries in the east. They came out to further their own business. They established industries or assembly plants in different cities throughout western Canada when times were good. But when we had the depression period

Department of Veterans' Affairs
in the thirties, most of those industries-and I know whereof I speak, because this is exactly what happened in Portage la Prairie; I could enumerate several of them-closed down because business was not good and they went back to the parent company. Some of the employees who were raised in the west went back with them. We lost not only the industries themselves but part of our population. I think that government measures should be enacted which would compel, if not those parent industries which I mentioned, other industries, to establish themselves in the west. If that is done, if we have industries in our cities or larger or smaller towns where a returned man can get a job and have his family living in a semi-rural district, this provision dealing with small holdings will be all to the good. But if that is not done, farmers from western Canada who want to establish themselves in a rural home adjacent to an industrial centre will not be able to do so and they will go back east. I do not think that is good for Canada. I think it militates against the interests of the whole country.
I did not intend to take up much of the time of the house, but in conclusion may I say that no government policy can bring the desired result without the whole-hearted cooperation of the returned men themselves. I think that these men must have the will to win and the desire to work. I believe if they have these two requisites that we shall establish them in happy homes throughout Canada, with benefit to the whole country. I hope that these men will not come back and find their interests unprotected. As the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) said yesterday, a political promise is not going to satisfy these men who have offered their lives in our defence; they want these promises redeemed. After reading the different provisions in the Veterans' Land Act and the other measures which have been passed by the government, I feel confident that the government have the best intentions in the world and that our returned men are going to be established in the country to which they belong.


Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: I have always urged that all veterans' affairs should be handled under one department. I think it is fitting that while our thoughts and our prayers are very much for the welfare of our men and women now engaged in the invasion and liberation of overrun Europe, and. yes, of their dependents, we at home in this parliament should be giving consideration to bill No. 83, an act to create a Department of Veterans' Affairs.
First of all I should like to endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) and the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White) with respect to this measure. I should like also to concur in what was said by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) with respect to titles to the land of settlers under the old soldier settlement board. I think the great problem is going to be the matter of rehabilitation; and as has been stated on different occasions, I know of no better lift that could be given to the morale of the men who are now fighting than an assurance by the government that we are now planning on how properly to rehabilitate and reestablish them in civil life when they return.
The minister has pointed out that up to the present some 135,000 men have been discharged, while another minister has stated that so far only some 3,000 have taken vocational training. That is a very small percentage, and I think is proof of the fact that the allowances are not sufficient to enable these discharged men to take the training they would like to get. On several occasions I have pointed out that I thought the insurance principle should apply to those on active service anywhere. That should be our basic principle. I have said also that the pre-enlistment physical condition of a man or woman for all future purposes should be considered to be that obtaining at the time of acceptance by the armed services. That would make it much simpler for the officials of this board to carry on its administration. On several occasions I have asked that the widow of a soldier who received a pension of less than fifty per cent should be entitled to hospitalization and medical care on the same basis as the widow of a veteran receiving a war veteran's allowance. Yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver North very ably pointed out the difficulty experienced by many young wives, with their little families, in getting along under somewhat harassing conditions while their men are away fighting for all the worth-while things we in this land enjoy. I believe a great deal of consideration is due these young women and their families.
There is also the matter of the $65 clothing allowance, which I think everyone will agree is not nearly sufficient to equip properly a man who is discharged after having seen service for several years. There is also the matter of the Sparkman Act. I believe Canada should have had similar legislation to protect the legal rights of the men serving in the armed forces. If that had been done it would have been much simpler to rehabilitate many of these men who are carrying on under many handicaps in the matter of life insurance and



Department of Veterans' Affairs
other obligations which they are not able to discharge with the remuneration they are receiving. I say that instead of leaving this matter of legal protection to the various provincial legislatures a measure should have been passed by this federal parliament, or it could have been handled under the War Measures Act.
Something has been said already about land settlement by veterans. The hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) quoted from the little green booklet dealing with that subject. I do not know whether or not he entirely agreed that the matter was sufficiently covered, but I was privileged to be a member of the committee which dealt with the Veterans' Land Settlement Act. It was a very interesting committee, and many worth-while recommendations were advanced. On one point I do agree with the hon. member for Portage la Prairie; that is, that commissions should not be paid to real estate men. I agree that these people have a rightful place in this country, but I have some recollections of personal experiences under the soldier settlement board following the last war, when, I am sorry to say, many of these soldiers were settled on submarginal land. I have tried to point out, as have many other hon. members of that committee, that every possible safeguard should be adopted so that we shall not make that same mistake again.
A little booklet entitled "Back to Civil Life" sets out the three types of establishments under the Veterans' Land Act. They are for the full-time farmer; for urban and^ other workers desiring small homes near their employment, and for commercial fishermen. Provision is made for a government grant of $2,320 on land and buildings costing $4,800 and stock and equipment costing $1,200, with loans to ex-service personnel owning farms and repayment over twenty-five years at 3i per cent. Briefly that sets out the three forms in which this land settlement may be carried on. I believe this is a very worth-while act, because I do not know of any occupation in which a man can better quiet his nerves and raise a young family than in farming, under proper conditions.
If I may be permitted I should like to refer to what I said in discussing the Veterans' Land Act on July 20, 1942, as reported at page 4386 of Hansard:
As has been stated, it was the purpose of the dominion government to provide a measure of financial assistance to veterans, upon their performance of the prescribed settlement conditions, in order to permit of their engaging in agricultural pursuits, either as a full-time occupation or as a part-time job coupled with some other employment.

May I say at the beginning that if it were not for the fact that I have some faith in the future, and a hope that agricultural parity will eventually be established in Canada, I would not have been able to support the bill even in principle. In the great nation to the south of us, the United States, there has been parity between agricultural and other products for a year now, and under the Washington wheat agreement of June 27, 1942, signed by the Argentine, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States, the representatives of these nations have recognized the basis of a parity price for wheat which will return a fair remuneration to the producers as well as being fair to the consumer. On the basis of these agreements, and having regard to what has been done in the United States, I think we may hope that we are doing these settlers justice by establishing them on the land, because we hope that they will be able to carry on under parity prices, in the future at any rate. As I say, if it were not for that hope I for one could not have supported the bill.
This bill is distinctive. It is different from the soldier settlement act, both in name and in principle. It provides for the granting of a loan, and refers to ex-service men as veterans rather than settlers. In connection with section 5 of the act, I have felt some concern because in the early years, under the old act establishing the soldier ' settlement hoard, the municipal authorities had very many difficulties owing to tax arrears. I remember our western municipal union executive having to make trips to Ottawa on several occasions to have these difficulties ironed out. I am happy to say this was taken care of under section 5, which reads:
"5. The main purpose is to establish the legal entity and corporate powers of the director."
Then at page 4387 I said:
A great difficulty under the old soldier settlement board was that the authorities allowed these settlers to settle on a great amount of submarginal land. We cannot take too many precautions to prevent a repetition of settlement even in small numbers on submarginal lands, because it is detrimental both to the settler and to the country as a whole. We must guard against that at any cost. I should like to recommend that to avoid such difficulties our regional or provincial advisory committee should include a provincial soil expert from the university of that province, a representative of each provincial municipal organization of the province-because I do not know of any organization which would be more interested than the municipality in which the settler is placed- and a member of the provincial command of the Canadian Legion. Without their approval no settler should be settled on any land.
I believe the approval of a soil expert is most important, because the vast majority of the difficulties under the old settlement board came about as a result of the settlement of submarginal lands. In most provinces, certainly in the three prairie provinces, much has been accomplished during the past few years in connection with soil surveys by the experts of the provincial governments, and I believe any settlement under this

Department of Veterans' Affairs
scheme certainly should be guided by the findings of these surveys. It is all-important in connection with any land settlement scheme that these men should be placed upon the very best land available. In making his statement on this bill the minister said:
The Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment was responsible for many services in connection with the placement of discharged men in civil life with one definite exception, that of land settlement, which was placed under the Minister of the Interior. The measure to be based upon this resolution will place both the Veterans' Land Act and the other soldier settlement system under the Department of Veterans' Affairs. That was one of the recommendations hon. gentlemen will recall that was made to this house by the same select committee which studied the question of land settlement and which was responsible for the amendments to the Veterans' Land Act adopted by the house at that time.
I want to compliment the minister upon making a step in the right direction, upon doing something for which many of us have asked for many years. Let me repeat that I think it is all to the good that all veteran matters are included in the one department.
As has been pointed out in other arguments, probably the minister does not have his own way in these matters. It has been stated that the great difficulty in this matter, as in many others, rests with the treasury board. It has been pointed out that of the six members of the treasury board, only one is an ex-service man. It has been very difficult to get matters through the treasury board, but I trust that those people and the government will realize that they owe-I was going to say a debt of gratitude, but it is not a debt of gratitude- something which is due to the service man as a right, that they owe him proper rehabilitation and reestablishment after the war.
These service men made the worth-while things of life possible for us all. In many cases their wives and children have undergone hardship quite apart from having to put in many years without the guidance and assistance of the good husband and father. I know the government will be supported by the people of this country in the proper spending of money for the rehabilitation, reestablishment and general welfare of these people and their dependents.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) in speaking on this bill expressed satisfaction at the consolidation of various departments into one. He said he was heartily in favour of that and then he went on to say:
Nothing is more disheartening to persons seeking information or 'help from the government than to be passed from department to department to department.
100-242J
He said that now he would be able to go to this one department, go to one man so to speak, in order to deal with any soldier troubles. I heartily endorsed his belief in that expression. I, too, thought what a beautiful thing it would be to be able to go to just one man, whether you wished to take up the case of a soldier wanting to get out of the army, a soldier who wanted a pension, or a soldier who wanted to be buried. No matter what it was in connection with the returned man, it could be dealt with in one place. However, I am afraid the hon. member for Vancouver North is due for disillusionment as I was. That is not the picture as it now presents itself.
On May 30 I wrote to the department about a man's -case. Like many other cases, there were several things to be taken up. There was the question of pension, for one thing, as well as other matters. It had been stated that this man had been discharged as being unable to meet required military physical standards. This man had suffered considerably in Sicily, Algeria and Africa; he had been wounded and had contracted a serious disease. The man's wife or somebody thought that was a rather cold way to treat him, to discharge him as being unable to come up to the military requirements. There was some other stuff like that.
It was stated also that while in a mental hospital he had been asked to sign a discharge which contained as a condition the release of the government from all liability. That did not make sense to me. I do not believe that such things are true, but those were among the things I took up with the department. I got a letter back from the pension commission dealing with the pension angle and saying that they would try to get me replies to the questions which were outside the province of the pension commission. I got another letter a fortnight later which dealt with the pension case, but dismissed the rest of the matters with this language:
The other questions referred to in your letter are matters which come under the jurisdiction of the Department of National Defence.
So that I have to begin all over again the weary trail of discovering which of these gentlemen is the man to deal with, which is the man to put the matter before and have it pushed along. Some of them are not too ready to exert themselves too much to push matters along unless they are exactly down their own alleys. A couple of years ago I wrote to an official about a certain matter. I said, "Possibly this does not come immediately within your jurisdiction, but, if not, would you be kind enough to send it along to
Department of Veterans' Affairs


Mr. GRAYDON:: It is more than a trend.


Alan Webster Neill: I am always moderate in my language and I want to give the government the benefit of the doubt. The first time it is a mistake; the next time it is an accident, and the third time it is a habit. It has become a habit to pass a sort of skeleton bill which readily goes through the house because we are in a hurry to go home. When we ask about things we are told that they will be fixed up in the regulations. Then, when the regulations come down we find that substantially a new bill has been introduced. I am thinking, for instance, of the Old Age Pensions Act. By means of regulations they created practically a new bill, and that sort of thing is going on all the time.
By whom are the regulations made? They are made by the officials. We do not suppose

that the minister sits down and makes them because he has a lot of other things to do. Officials are apt to get into a rut. The way it works out is that these regulations contain perhaps the minister's ideas, perhaps the deputy minister's ideas and then the ideas of some of the officials. The great temptation is for the officials to draw up the regulations in such a way that they will be convenient to carry out. I have been a government official myself and I know my instinct was to stall off the man who wrote me the first letter.
There is another department-it is not the minister's-where they are definitely inclined to draw up regulations that will be convenient to carry out rather than to meet the interests of business or of the common people. There is no control over these regulations. Of course it will be said that I am quite wrong, that they have to be laid on the table within fifteen days after they are made if parliament is then sitting, and, if not, then within fifteen days after the commencement of the next ensuing session. But have we any control over that? Not at all. They are to be laid on the table. Last session we left here at the beginning of August and came back at the end of January, and any orders in council passed during that interval remained more or less unobtainable by us until we came back here in January. The section says that they shall be laid on the table within fifteen days if parliament is then sitting. We seem to be sitting a great portion of the time, and one might think we can get these orders in council. This "laid on the table" has a wonderful sound to our constituents. It sounds almost as if it were laid on our breakfast tables. But that is not at all what it means. It may mean nothing. The Minister of Pensions and National Health was kind enough yesterday, when he brought down his order in council, to lay it on the table and to give orders, quite without legal justification so far as I know, that it should be printed at once, and I got a copy of it a couple of hours ago. That was very fine. But ordinarily when an order in council is laid on the table it is sent down to Mr. Boulet's office and you can go down there and see it. Ordinarily only one copy of it is made, although in some cases there are two copies, and you can keep one of those copies for twenty-four hours. Then Mr. Bordet's staff telephones you and says that somebody else wants it. It is true that you can demand a copy, but there is only one solitary stenographer in that office and there are 245 members of the house, and if only half of them asked for a copy it would be a big order for one stenographer. Are we to put on extra staff for that?

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
The other day I asked for an order in council that had been passed. It consisted of forty typewritten foolscap pages, and I had not the audacity to ask that one girl to sit down and copy those forty pages, with perhaps Mr. Jones coming along the next minute and asking for another copy. I said to myself that this order in council must be available in a certain department and perhaps I can get a copy from the minister. I was told by an obliging secretary that I could, but he telephoned later and said he was sorry that only six copies had been made and I could not get one. Suppose half of us had wanted a copy of that forty-page order in council. Laying it on the table is more or less-I will not say it is a farce, but it is unworkable, so far as being available to the members.
The minister of pensions was kind enough to order this particular order in council printed, which he had no legal authority to do, and we have all got it. He has done a grand thing. The principle is sound. He has wiped out all orders in council which have been passed in days gone by and has made a new record. We can now study it and when an ex-soldier comes along we shall be able to discuss the section that refers to him. But it should be arranged, so to speak, that we can get copies of orders in council and get them readily. Even if we have the orders in council, perhaps we do not like the look of them. They have not been passed by this house and perhaps we may feel like kicking. Surely the government has some control. I say without hesitation that these regulations are more comprehensive and more difficult to handle than the bill itself. Is there any control? Oh, yes, there is control because the minister has to get them passed by council. That means the cabinet. I never was in the cabinet, but I have a vague idea that each member of the government has his own troubles and when he brings down regulations and places them before the council the others are not going to oppose his regulations for fear he might do the same to theirs. There is no parliamentary control.
Most of these things happening nowadays have happened before. I wTant to read a short paragraph from the London Daily Mail, which has the same credence perhaps as its namesake in Toronto, possibly more. The article is headed "Stop on Delegated Legislation", and reads:
The British government's acceptance of a check on delegated legislation will be welcomed by the country.
Delegated legislation is, of course, the system under which general laws are made-
Like this one here.
-and the details left to be filled in by the departments in the form of orders and regulations.
The new check is to take the form of a scrutinizing committee, which will examine every order and, if necessary, report on it to parliament. It will then be for members to take what action they think fit.
It would be wrong to regard this move as. a victory for legislature over the executive. Both, under the crown, form the government of the country.
We may look upon it as just one more example of how the British unwritten constitution, "broadening down from precedent to precedent," is elastic enough always to serve the needs of the times.
That is just where we fall down. We are too prone to statute legislation, to passing laws that do not work. We ought to have a scrutinizing committee applying not only to these regulations but to all regulations. I submit that to the minister and to the government. I am quite certain that it will not be accepted because they never do. It would be too much for them to yield to democracy as against bureaucracy.
There is another phase. Be the regulations good, bad or indifferent, there is one thing we ought to know about them, and know quickly. We ought to know what they are and when they come into effect. That we can achieve by an amendment to the bill. What publicity do they get? Subsection 2 of section 7 says:
All regulations made hereunder approved by the governor in council shall be laid before parliament within fifteen days after they are made if parliament is then sitting, and if not, then within fifteen days after the commencement of the next ensuing session thereof.
The next ensuing session is a long time away, and if the house is not sitting the regulations are practically unobtainable. The only publicity apparently is to lay them on the table. I might put in a modest kick right here. I do not know if I should, because he is a good friend of mine, but I should like to know why the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) enjoys the privilege which I do not have of getting an advance copy of the regulations. He said on June 14 that the minister had been kind enough to send him a copy, "since the house began its session this afternoon". I have great respect for the hon. member's legal erudition and his ability to handle these matters, but for that very reason he is not entitled to any more privilege than I am in this matter because I have not his legal mind and so on, and people in the far corner of the house and myself are therefore entitled to get the information before him Why should he get it twenty-four hours before we get it?

Department of Veterans' Affairs


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I think it is only fair to the minister for me to say that I asked him for a copy because I had heard his radio broadcast.


Alan Webster Neill: Then I here and now ask the minister and all the other ministers to send me a copy of all orders in council as soon as they are passed, beginning from this day on.
I give the minister notice that I am going to move an amendment when the bill comes into committee. I have it here, and he can think it over. If he does not like one, he is open to accept the other. I suggest the following:
That section 7, subsection 2, be amended by adding at the end of it the following words: "That such regulations immediately on being approved by the governor in council shall be printed or mimeographed in sufficient numbers to provide a copy for each member of parliament and for such bodies of veterans or individuals representing veterans as shall apply for a copy."
I do not want to put the government to any great expense; they have only to print or mimeograph a few hundred co-pies and let interested people get them. If the minister does not like that, I suggest this amendment:
That such recommendations immediately on being approved by the governor in council shall be printed in the next issue of the Canada Gazette.
It- would not cause a great deal of expense to print these once so that everybody-lawyer, soldier and everyone else-would know exactly where to go to find them. A lot of these pension cases are handled by members of parliament wdio are not lawyers-


Mr. REID:: That is to their credit.


Alan Webster Neill: and who have not a legal library; also by legion secretaries, who, too, are not legal men; and when they get a regulation or amendment, for instance, that order in council No. 4978 is amended by striking out the words "and when" in the third line and substituting "together also," they are supposed to know all about it. But where is that order in council which is to be amended? They have not got it, they do not know where to get it. If they write to the clerk of the privy council he replies, "I cannot tell you unless you give me the date," because these orders are kept according to the dates. It has been suggested that there is no occasion to make all this fuss. I wrote to the department, and they were kind enough to explain how these orders in council are circulated. They said that they were laid on the table; that was one thing; and then they stated that they were also expressed in what they called "press releases"; that these were taken up by the press quite generally and printed, and that, 
therefore, we could get our information in that manner. But we all know, even though our knowledge of press work is extremely superficial, that a newspaper man cannot go into the whole thing; he cannot record the entire order, and if he puts in less than the whole he is providing only a summary. He may leave out some important stipulation which changes the whole situation as regards some particular case. I have received some of these press releases, and have seen them in the newspapers. They lack definiteness.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They are
mere propaganda.


Alan Webster Neill: No; they are not propaganda, but they" are just a brief, sketchy summary. Here is how one reads:
Honourable Ian Mackenzie, Minister of Pensions and National Health, to-day tabled in the House of Commons three orders in council

There is no date.
-dealing with veterans' affairs.
Then it goes on to say:
The first order-
Which is the first order? There are three, and he does not name them.
-substantially increases the maintenance allowance.
That is a grand thing, but these people want to know, when? And what is the answer? A man comes in and says, "How much more does my wife get under this order in council"? I do not know which order in council it is. It is the "first one" referred to in this release, and it "substantially increases" the allowance, but I cannot tell him by how much. Other releases are along -the same lines. They are very good and interesting, and to people who have no immediate personal interest in the subject they provide a general outline. But what the man who is tiying to do something for the returned soldier and what the returned soldier himself wants to know is, exactly w'here he is at, and he can find that out- only if the order in council is put in such language, right in front of him, that he will know where he stands.
I believe there is a rule regarding the drawing up of bills that you have to put an explanation on the right-hand side of the page. If a section is to be amended, it is not sufficient to say, "strike out the words 'so-and-so' in the third line and put something else in"; you have to quote the whole section to which it refers. You can then read what the old section was and learn what the bill proposes to do; you have the whole thing in a nutshell. But with these orders in council you have to go back and look for other

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
orders to find out what the amendments mean. I have one here, upon which I commented as follows:
I refer to P.C. . . .
So-and-so.
It would be only possible for a man having the original Pension Act and all the subsequent amendments to dope out what is meant by this P.C. To begin with the original Pension Act and' look through every amendment since then . . .
It was passed, I think, in 1919 and was incorporated later in the Revised Statutes of 1927. You have to have every one of those statutes in front of you and then see if the particular section has been amended. It is quite a job, and it has to be done every time there are references to the order in council.
For instance, subsection (d) refers to something provided in subsection 10 of section 22 of the Pension Act. There is no subsection 10 of section 22 of the original Pension Act as passed in 1919. Therefore, one has to look through every amendment that has been made to the Pension Act from that time-
Twenty-five years ago.
-until now to find out when this subsection 10 was enacted.
It would be quite a job for a competent lawyer, and utterly impossible for a man who has not access to all these amendments and has no legal training.
What I suggest is that we follow the example which we are compelled to adopt in bringing in a bill, namely that when an order in council is passed dealing with any matter and amending another order in council, the previous order in council be set down there in black and white so that it will be seen what the proposed amendment is. Does that not suggest itself as a common-sense proposal? It would greatly expedite the work of members of parliament, secretaries of boards of trade, secretaries of the legion, and many a man who does a lot of unpaid work trying to push through soldiers' cases. Some of these cases require only an explanation; others require adjustments. If we made this work so much easier it would not cost anybody anything and it would certainly facilitate the labours of everybody connected with soldiers' cases. In this way, when an order in council was passed, we would see what it really meant, and not that it just meant striking out the first three words on line seven or something of that kind. I hope the minister will give way on this point, and on the other matter I suggested. I was going to move, when the bill goes to the committee, either that these regulations be printed in the Canada Gazette, or that a few printed or mimeographed copies should be made. I am
sure that this would facilitate the work of the department, and I am equally sure that that is what he wants-to make his department work with the greatest ease, not only for the benefit of the soldiers but for the sake of himself and the various officials of his department.


Mr. W. F. KUHL (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the stage at which it is usual and customary to consider the fundamental principles involved in any bill under discussion. While I am concerned, of course, about the details of the bill, I wish at this time to occupy a few minutes in considering the fundamentals and the objectives which are involved in it. The explanatory note indicates that its object is the 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. The object is the reestablishment in civil life of these various persons mentioned.
I have listened to all the speeches which have been made thus far, and I have been endeavouring to ascertain what, in the minds of hon. members who have spoken, constitutes reestablishment and upon what premise reestablishment is based. I think it is conceded by all that the success of any undertaking, whether it be on the part of a government or on the part of an individual, is dependent upon the soundness of the premise upon which the action is based. I should like to examine into the soundness of the premise that has been laid down or suggested by practically all hon. members who have thus far spoken. What is to be the means by which members of the armed forces, and those who have done their share in the war industries and in industries related to the war effort, are to be reestablished? What is the means suggested by hon. members thus far for reestablishment? I would say that in every case hon. members have implied and stated that the means to reestablishment is employment, jobs, full employment. Every member in turn who has thus far spoken has repeatedly stated that reestablishment of members of the armed forces and of others is dependent upon providing jobs and employment for them.
At this stage of our economic history and life it is imperative that we make absolutely sure we recognize, in contemplated action, a sound premise, and I wish to put the question to hon. members who have spoken, to the government, to the minister and to those who are still to speak: Is employment, jobs for all, full employment a sound premise upon which to base any proposal?
Department of Veterans' Affairs

First of all, before we can even intelligently discuss the subject we must have an understanding of what is involved in full employment. I would ask hon. members, when they say that we must have jobs for all, that we must have full employment, that we must have employment for everyone, exactly what do they mean by that term? All intelligent discussion commences with a definition of terms, and we shall make no progress in this house or anywhere else until we define our terms. I have put this question on previous occasions in this house, asking hon. members, when they discuss the question of full employment, to indicate what they have in mind with regard to that term, and I have not heard anyone so far define the term "full employment". We see the term used in newspaper editorials and articles published everywhere these days: "Our objective in the post-war world must, be full employment." But I have not yet seen anyone indicate what he understands by full employment. Do those who have suggested full employment as the objective mean that none of the people of Canada, the armed forces and those in civilian life, shall enjoy the standard of living they ought to enjoy at this stage in our economic history, unless they put in eight or ten or twelve hours of work a day? Is that what hon. members understand by the term "full employment"?
I should like to hear them indicate so.
Will they suggest that it is impossible for the people of Canada to enjoy a high standard of living unless they put in eight or ten or twelve hours a day? I should like to hear a commitment on the part of the minister, or of the government, or of hon. members, or of anyone else who discusses the subject, whether that is what they believe. We ought to know. It is imperative that we should know what they understand by that term. Or do those who suggest full employment as the means to reestablishment mean by that term that no one is entitled to live unless he puts in eight or ten or twelve hours a day? Is that what they ^understand by the term "full employment"? Or do hon. members understand by that term that the people of Canada shail not be obliged to do any more work than what the machines are unable to do? Or, to put it another way: Do hon. members believe that full employment means that the people of Canada shall be permitted to enjoy all the production of Canada up to the limit of their desire to consume? It is imperative that we have some discussion of that aspect because it is fundamental to the question under discussion at the moment and to all similar questions.
_ This question arises again and again. There is scarcely a department that is considered in

this house in reference to which the question does not come up. The hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) said some excellent things yesterday, and he is well aware of that fact, for he said:
Therefore our entire programme of rehabilitation should be based on the assumption that adequate employment will be available. If that is not so, our programme of rehabilitation will be nothing but a programme of glorious relief, with a little training thrown in to pass the time away.
I do not think one needs to be a prophet to say that that is exactly what is going to happen. The present government had five years prior to the war in which to find jobs for all, and our friends the Conservatives had a term of five years in which to endeavour to find jobs for all, and they both failed miserably.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: During a great depression.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Do not pass the buck. The same was true in every other country. The. same conditions obtained elsewhere.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And there was unemployment in every country of the world.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: If I allow the hon. member to pass the buck to other countries he will finally end by blaming some other planet-Mars or some other planet-for the ills of this world. Where will he stop? I have discussed this question in the past and, though I dislike repetition as much as any other hon. member,
I must say that there is no indication on the part of the government or of the majority of members that they recognize what I regard as the truths in collection with this subject. And until that is done I intend to keep on repeating ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
The hon. member for Vancouver North, as do most other hon. members in this house, made a statement which implied that it is the duty, the obligation of industry to employ people. I think one of the strongest proponents of that philosophy in this house is the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), but he has plenty of company. The statement is made that it is the duty of industry, the obligation of industry, to employ people. I wish to challenge that position.


Mr. MacNICOL:: My hon. friend would not understand what industry is, much less employment.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: The hon. member-


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am not a preacher; I could not go and make a speech in a church; but I do know a lot about industry, having spent twenty-five years in it.

Department oj Veterans' Affairs


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: You have said that a lot of times.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: That is all the hon. member knows.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It needs to be said a lot of times to get something into the hon. member's head.


Charles Edward Johnston: Do not pat yourself on the back.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not need to pat myself on the back; I have done things.


Charles Edward Johnston: If you sit there and listen to things you will get along much better.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: All the hon. member knows is that which he has seen inside his own little shop.


Mr. JAQUES:: You have not done it all.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: To come back to the subject-


Norman Jaques: If you are willing to learn a little-


John Ritchie MacNicol: It was not a little shop.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: The hon. gentleman had five years in which to do something.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I did a lot in those five years.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: He failed miserably as far as employing people is concerned. The hon. gentleman has made the statement again and again that he is a great employer of people. I want to tell him that if that is the premise upon which he runs his business he may be a good philanthropist, but he is a poor business man. No business man operates his business for the sake of hiring people. Let him put that in his pipe and smoke it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The only person my hon. friend has ever employed was likely someone to run a lawn-mower.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: The only reason the hon. member ever hired any man was to make the greatest possible profit for himself.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The argument should be
addressed to the Chair.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: The point I am endeavouring to make, Mr. Speaker, is that we must have a sound understanding of what constitutes a sound premise, and unless we base our actions on sound premises we shall get nowhere; we shall end up in chaos. I am satisfied we are not going to be helped by any such measure as this so long as it is predicated on the assumption of employment. I repeat that a large number of hon. members assume that it is the duty of industry to employ people. I
say that I challenge that position. It never was the duty of industry to employ manpower.


Mr. MITCHELL:: What is its duty?


Walter Frederick Kuhl: The only sensible, sane and sound function of industry is to produce goods, and that alone, whether it takes man-power or not.


Thomas Vien: Order. I have been looking through the bill that is before the house. I wish the hon. member would refer me to the section of the bill which deals with unemployment; I cannot find it.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Mr. Speaker, the relevancy is this. The bill proposes to reestablish exmembers of the armed forces and others. It has been indicated by all hon. members thus far that the means of reestablishment in civil life is to be employment. I am endeavouring to indicate that if that is the only means to be used to reestablish ex-members of the armed forces and others we are going to fail in achieving our objective. That is the relevancy. I was saying that I challenge the statements and the proposition that it is the duty of industry to employ ex-members of the armed forces or anyone else. I said that the only logical function of industry is to produce the greatest possible quantity of goods and services with the least amount of work and trouble. I challenge anyone to refute the soundness of that premise.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Nobody will be bothered answering.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Because the hon. member has no answer; it is too sound, that is why.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is not a question of duty; it is a question of consumption after it is produced.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: The hon. gentleman is learning fast. He is much more advanced than the hon. member for Davenport in that respect. I grant what the hon. member has indicated, and we in this corner have pointed out on innumerable occasions that the problem which will confront the nation in the post-war world is not one of finding employment for the ex-service men or any others, but one of distribution. We did not have the problem of production prior to the outbreak of the war. There were goods on every hand and the shelves were filled up with them. There were ample supplies of every commodity. The problem we were faced with was one of distribution. That will be much more the case when the war is over. That is the problem to which both the government and the official opposition ought to be directing their atten-



Department oj Veterans' Affairs
tion. Thus far in this bill as well as in others the only means of distribution which has been suggested is employment of people. The term used is, "work-creating jobs". I am endeavouring to point out that the distribution of goods which will be available in Canada after the war can not be accomplished by providing employment; for in the first place I say it is impossible, and in the second place I say it is undesirable.
I wish to put one or two figures on the record, particularly for the benefit of the hon. member for Davenport and of all others who think like him, with regard to the situation that confronts us in industry. I have repeatedly made the statement that we are living at a stage in our economic history in which the power machine has displaced human labour to the point where the number of hours of work necessary to produce a high standard of living in Canada is far less than what is indicated by most people to-day. Most people to-day think in terms of working an eight-hour day. The fact of the matter is that the substitution of solar energy for human energy has taken place to such a point that the number of hours necessary to produce a high standard of living could be much less than eight hours a day.


Thomas Vien: I have directed the attention of the hon. member to the fact that we are dealing with a bill to reestablish soldiers, and I asked him the degree of relevancy he attributed to the remarks he made in regard to employment. He is now going farther afield in what he is proposing to do. I have already given an indication that it has no bearing whatever upon the terms of the bill. The explanatory note of the bill reads as follows:
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 pursuit relating to the war, and for the care of the dependents of such persons.
It does not deal with the question of unemployment. Therefore I must rule that the remarks of the hon. member are entirely out of line with the terms of the bill.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Do you not agree, Mr. Speaker, that the question of reestablishment involves the employment of members of the armed forces in the post-war world? Is that not the case?


Thomas Vien: Their reestablishment in ciivl life, yes. The board will be charged with the responsibility of reestablishing veterans in civil life, but I take it that the board will not
(Mr. Kuh) .]
be responsible for the employment of these men, nor will it have anything to do with the question of industry being capable of absorbing them. That is a subject which may be discussed on some other occasion, not in connection with this bill.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but really I cannot follow your reasoning, because if the reestablishment does not depend upon employment it must depend upon something else.


Thomas Vien: I cannot allow any discussion of my ruling. I may say that I gave a great deal of consideration to the point while the hon. member was speaking, before I interrupted him.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Well, sir, I shall conclude that portion of my remarks simply by saying that I am heartily in accord with the objective of chis bill. No one could be otherwise. Those members of the armed forces who will be so fortunate as to return to Canada, one of the greatest countries in the world, certainly will be worthy of a way of life the like of which we have yet to see. But I must say with regret that I am convinced that neither this bill nor any other measure either on the order paper or on the statute books will provide mch a standard of living. I believe that we must raise our sights as to what constitutes a, genuine way of life far higher than anything we have done in the past. In years gone by our life has consisted of the somewhat sordid task of merely making a living; and I sincerely believe that the nation's heroes, as well as its civilians, should be permitted to enjoy life as an art. We must reorganize our whole national life so that our efforts will be directed to the art of living rather than to the mere making of a living. At this stage of our economic history it is not only possible for the people of Canada to enjoy a high standard of living as far as material things are concerned ; if we organize our national life properly it is physically possible for people to enjoy a good deal of leisure time, during which they may give expression to their creative instincts. That is an aspect of our national life which I am afraid has been greatly neglected. Through the laws which have remained on our statute books we have obliged our people to spend most of their time in merely thinking about the next meal. In the post-war world this country should provide a very high standard of living in material things with a much shorter work day, perhaps as low as four hours, with a per capita income much higher than it is at the present time. Certainly this country can provide in material things an income of well over $4,000 a year

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
for a family of four. In addition, I believe that not only members of the armed forces who return but all people should have a much greater opportunity to become a cultured, leisured people than they have had in the past.
I should like to have developed this point more fully, but I may have the privilege of doing so on another occasion.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: Mr. Speaker,
the bill which is before the house for consideration is evidently of great importance and, I think, meets with quite general approval by the members of the house, judging from the speeches already delivered. I have not had an opportunity of studying the bill in particular, having arrived only yesterday in the house, but I have read it over and from what I can see I believe it will meet not only with the general approval of hon. members but with the approval of the public.
As was said yesterday by one hon. member, the establishment of a Department of Veterans' Affairs is possibly long overdue. All the legislation in connection with veterans' affairs passed since the last war has met with change after change. It has been a sort of evolution. I am satisfied that this department will be one of the most difficult departments to administer. It will have to do with human affairs, and we all know that when you are dealing with such matters you run into more difficulty than when you are dealing with more abstract things. I think it is wise to have all possible plans made as soon as possible. On many occasions criticism has been offered in this house because of the lack of preparation after the last war. But we should remember that the last war came to a very sudden end in 1918; it ended much more quickly than was expected by the contestants or by the people generally. That may happen in this war, although that is something we can only hope for rather than expect.
I have heard it said at different times that the men in the armed forces are thinking keenly of what is to happen when the war is over. I have had considerable to do with the armed forces during the last four years, and personally I do not think I can state what these men are asking for or what they are thinking as far as the after-war period is concerned. But I do know that what is uppermost in the minds of the men of the forces at the
present time is the wunning of the war. That is their first consideration and great determination. Another matter which is giving them considerable thought is the question of reinforcements, or whether or not well-trained men will be available to give them sufficient backing in the great task which lies ahead of them.
The men in the armed forces are prepared to give some advice and they are giving splendid advice at the present time. But they realize, as do hon. members of this house and the country in general, that a great responsibility rests upon the members of parliament. They expect us to make proper provisions. They realize also that a responsibility rests upon the people of this dominion. I was surprised to hear one hon. member say this afternoon that the returned men are not looking particularly to industry for jobs.
The men in the armed forces hope that when this war is over there will be jobs for them. They know that the only way in which jobs can be provided is through industry. As the hon. member said, industry is for the production of goods, but goods cannot be produced without work. These men are hoping to obtain this work from industry. They believe that the government should see to it that they are given preference as far as work is concerned, not only by the government but by industry as well.
We who served in the last war remember how difficult it was for some to obtain positions after that war was over, but I believe that at least eighty per cent of the men who served in that war found employment when they came back. I do not think they were any burden upon this country. They did not want to be a burden. They were satisfied if they could obtain work through their own energy. I am sure that eighty or ninety per cent of the men in this war will come back and will rehabilitate themselves to as great an extent as did their fathers before them.
But there is always a minority which must be looked after. There are many men who give splendid accounts of themselves when they are fighting the enemy, but who do not seem to have the same success in fighting the battle of life. This country owes a great debt to those men and we must see that they suffer in no way. The question of pensions has been discussed fully in this house. A pension is not compensation, and I do not think the country or the government looks upon it as compensation to the men who have served in war.
I would ask this question of hon. members: How many of you would be willing to accept 850,000 for your right leg or right arm? How

Department of Veterans' Affairs
many hon. members would accept S100.000 for their eyes, or for the complete destruction of their nervous system? There is no price that would pay us for the destruction of our mentality. How many of us would accept any amount of money as compensation for the loss of a limb or any of our faculties? Therefore I say that a pension is not compensation to these men who have been wounded or disabled, because nothing compensates a man for the losses I have just mentioned. The men are hoping that if they have losses the pensions given them will provide a decent living, decent homes and decent opportunities for their wives and children. That is one of the things they feel should and must be provided for them.
Then, so far as the men themselves are concerned, they feel-and I say the country should feel-that they should be made as comfortable as possible under the circumstances in which they find themselves. Men returning wounded and maimed do not live normal lives. Most men like to join in certain activities such as sports, fishing, hunting, camping and so on. The wounded men are denied these privileges. For this reason we must, we should-and I know we do

take a very sympathetic attitude. We realize we owe a great debt.
The legislation which has been brought down in the house in. the twenty-five years following the last war. and during the four years of the present one, should be good. There is no question about that. I believe that if one were to compare the legislation in Canada providing for rehabilitation, pensions and the like, with similar legislation in other countries he would conclude that we have done very well in this country. If there has been any weakness-and I know there has been-it has been in the administration of that legislation. The men who have been acting in administrative capacities have not always approached their task with what might be described as a humane approach. Possibly they have carried out the letter of the law, but they have not always carried out its spirit. Nor have they carried out the intention of members of parliament- and I believe we are^all humane in this respect -or the intention of the public in general.
I should like to pay a tribute, if I may, to the Canadian Legion and to the other war organizations which have done so much for returned soldiers from 1919 until the beginning of this war, and during its progress. In those years the men in these organizations have picked out the flaws in whatever soldier legislation has been brought before the house. I know the Minister of Pensions and National

Health (Mr. Mackenzie) and other ministers have been helped immeasurably by the contribution these organizations have made.
Someone has said that men who were in the last war are getting old, and that the younger men who have taken part in the present war will have to take their places. That, of course, is a natural conclusion; but I know the men in this war will feel that the advice of many of the men who fought in the last one can be used to good advantage, and I am sure advantage will be taken of it.'
There have been difficult cases; we hear about them in the house. But of the hundreds of cases which are not difficult we hear very little. I am sure that only the difficult ones are brought to the minister's attention, and (hat he hears very little about the cases which have been worked out successfully under our legislation. This, again, to a great extent is due to the hard work performed by men in the Canadian Legion. I have had to handle many pension cases, but when I find a difficult one I usually send it to a representative of the Canadian legion, or to some other veterans' organization. I find they look after such cases much better than I can.
Another organization which comes under this legislation is the soldiers' land settlement board. Much has been said in this debate about the inequalities brought about by this board, and unfortunately, most of what has been said is true. The greatest attention should and must be given to settling men on the land. I think we might say, speaking generally, that the act passed at the time of the last war was not a success; there were many failures. Possibly there were reasons for those failures. No one could foresee what was going to happen. While failures occurred, still I am satisfied that those who tried to formulate the act did the best they could at the time.
After the last war I happened to be engaged for a few years in my own province as school inspector, and as such I had good opportunities to see how the act- was working. In many cases good land, buildings, stock and machinery were provided. But the price paid, was too high, and the men could not make a success. Another question which entered into the matter was the lack of farming experience of the men who were undertaking the work. Then, these men were also placed on farms in isolated districts.	They were away from
schools, telephones, churches and other social organizations. If we have learned from the experience of the past we shall see to it after this war every consideration is given to placing these men on farms where they will have

* Department of Veterans' Affairs
at least the social amenities and that they will have an opportunity of living normal lives.
Another mistake that was made was that, not only were the men inexperienced in farm life, but their wives were girls who had come from cities and towns. Many of them had come from the old country, and had not had experience either in working or in living on our Canadian farms. The hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) spoke about giving clear title to the men who are in debt on the farms. I believe that matter was also discussed by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader). I agree wholeheartedly with what both these hon. members said.
Another matter upon which I should like to touch for a few minutes is the rehabilitation grant. I do not think that at the present time a sufficient grant is being given to the men who are discharged. A man is asked if he has a job, and if he says that he can go back to work he is given one month's rehabilitation grant, and is discharged from the army. I contend that no matter whether he was a carpenter, a farmer, a lawyer, a barber, a painter-no matter with what profession or craft he may have been connected-one month's rehabilitation allowance is not sufficient. Those men, upon returning, must enter into competition with others who have been doing that work for the three or four years the soldiers have been in the army. Their tools may be considerably worn, and they are not given enough money to buy new ones. If they turn to farming work they will have to purchase stock. Some of the men would have to stock farms which they had left three or four years ago and which have not since been cultivated. All these things would take more than one month's pay. In some cases two or three months' pay would be required, and in my view some provision should be made to give the men a larger grant than is permitted at present.
Yesterday the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) spoke eloquently about hospitalization. That is a subject he is well qualified to discuss. Apart from his criticism respecting some of the hospitals, it is within my knowledge that in Canada hospitals which have not been satisfactory have been used in the last twenty-five years. An hon. member spoke to-day of men going to hospitals and having to wait for doctors. I do not know whether, as the hon. member suggested, they were having afternoon tea or morning tea, but I agree with him that there has been a good deal of difficulty in this connection and that men have had to wait.
I suggest to the minister that these hospitals should be located in the finest surroundings it is possible to find. For men who are under hospitalization, the hospital is their home; it may be their home for years, and the very best conditions are none too good for them-not in some crowded urban area, but in a beautiful location, preferably where men can enjoy, in part, country surroundings and, in part, the amenities of city life.
I should like to know from the minister whether the care of war graves is provided for under this measure.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It comes under the department now. We have a special director of war cemeteries, who was appointed within the last six months.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is that for overseas graves?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; for graves within Canada.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Why not also for graves
overseas?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: After the last war the matter was placed under the Imperial War Graves commission, upon which body we had a representative or two from Canada.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is that arrangement still in force?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is. Colonel Osborne is on that commission.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It seems to me that overseas graves might well have been included in a measure which relates to soldiers' affairs.
In past years in this chamber I have listened to considerable criticism concerning what has been done for returned soldiers and their dependents. We realize that not sufficient has been done in the past, but we also wonder whether hon. members or others who have criticized, during the past twenty-five years, the provision which has been made, could have done any better. The Pension Act and other measures on behalf of returned men have been in course of evolution; they have been tested and improved throughout all these years. I wonder whether twenty-five years ago those who are so critical to-day could have produced a perfect act. We know that the Pension Act has been amended time and time again; other acts in the interests of returned men have also been amended a great many times.
The treatment of soldiers after the great wars of recent times has been far from generous. As a matter of fact the veterans of Greek and Roman times were probably treated better than the fighting men of later days.
Department of Veterans' Affairs

Kipling points out that men are acclaimed as heroes during war time, but when the war is over, little attention is paid to them. After the Crimean war many soldiers were reduced to begging for a living. We know, too, the appalling conditions under which they lived during that great campaign. After the South African war, land grants were given to the volunteers who returned, but these men were exploited so far as their grants were concerned and very little money reached them from the sale of their lands. The great war was the first occasion when any real effort was made, at least by the parliament of this country, to see to it that the soldiers received justice and fair play. As I have said, a great many mistakes were made, but I believe that the people of this country and parliament representing the people made a real effort to deal justly with the veterans. As far as this war is concerned, there can be no excuse for this parliament or for the people of Canada if everything is not done that should be done with regard to the rehabilitation of returned men.
I ask the indulgence of the house to illustrate and emphasize the fact that in the past men who should have received great consideration were neglected. I have before me a copy of a soldiers' magazine, published in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, called On Parade, June, 1944, edition. It contains an article dealing with the first V.C. in British America. I wonder how many members of this house know that the first Victoria Cross awarded to a Canadian was won by a man of the name of Hall, the son of a slave. Hall was born in April, 1827, at Newport, Hants county, Nova Scotia. The article, which is written by Robert B. Blauveldt, describes how, in 1852, Hall became a Royal Marine on board His Majesty's Ship Rodney, on which he served throughout the Crimean war. In 1856 he joined the British ship Victory, and, after the outbreak of the Indian mutiny, he served in India, where General Sir John Inglis, also a native of Nova Scotia, was besieged in the Residency at Lucknow by an army of 50,000 sepoys. The garrison, reduced to a mere handful, were in desperate straits when help arrived. General Sir John Campbell, in charge of the relief force, decided to send from one of the ships a gun close under the walls in an effort to open a breach in the walls. The crew proved to be one man short, so that Hall, in charge of another gun, volunteered to fill his place. One after another the gun crew were killed under the murderous fire of the natives, until only two men, Hall and a Lieutenant Young, the latter badly wounded, remained to serve the gun. In the recital of the circumstances under which Hall won his V.C., it is said:

Finally, in one of the most supreme moments in all the age-long story of human courage, Hall fired the charge which opened the walls and enabled the British forces to push through to the relief of the garrison and, ultimately, to the quelling of the mutiny and the restoration of peace and order to India.
For this signal courage and devotion to duty Hall was recommended for and received the Victoria Cross.
In 1901, when the late King George V visited Halifax, Hall was honoured by being given a carriage in the procession, but soon afterwards he was forgotten. Three years later, in August, 1904, he died, and was buried in Hants county, Nova Scotia. The writer of the article goes on to say:
But to the everlasting shame of his native province-and, in fact, of the great empire which he had so nobly served-his mortal remains lie in an unmarked and neglected grave, under a tangle of bushes and briers, its exact location unknown except to the very few who have taken a personal interest in preserving the memory of one of an ungrateful country's greatest heroes.
I bring this to the attention of the house simply to show that we have come a long way as far as attention to our fighting men and recognition of our heroes are concerned. But I also bring this incident to the attention of the house in the hope that a great wrong, in the disregard of the memory of this brave man, will be righted. I hope that some historical society or some other organization in Canada will see to it that his memory receives fitting attention.
I think we should look to the future and not to the past as far as building up our institutions is concerned, so that our post-war world shall be built on a firm foundation. We must provide greater services, greater leisure, greater security, greater opportunity for our returned men and also for the people of our country.


Mr. J. W. NOSEWORTHY (York South):: I associate myself with hon. members who have spoken in favour of this bill to coordinate all the work pertaining to the veterans of this and the former war. Since the war began, more than 2,000 young men and women who passed through my classes in two schools in the years immediately preceding the war joined His Majesty's forces. As I listened to the news of the invasion last week I could not help thinking of the care-free life which those boys and girls lived, of their ambitions and their hopes, which they were forced to abandon on receiving a higher call to duty for their country. For their sake particularly, I am keenly interested in any legislation that will provide for their future welfare. I never see or hear from one of them without being asked what we at Ottawa are doing to prepare for their return to Canada. A great responsibility rests

Department of Veterans' Affairs
upon us here at this particular time. In n-o way can we show our gratitude for the work which they are carrying on at the present time better than by passing legislation that will grant them security after they return.
Two things are required of us: first, that we do everything humanly possible to contribute to their success during the war; second, that we do everything possible to make conditions in Canada worthy of the sacrifices they are making.
I should like to join with other hon. members in complimenting the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair). In the light of the grand fighting speech which he made on behalf of our men in the forces, I am quite ready to overlook even his political gibes at this party. If the effect of his speech upon the members of the treasury board were anything like its effect upon the private members of the house, I would say he did a good day's work for his comrades.
I associate myself also with the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) in his fight for those veterans who secured land in western Canada after the last war, to obtain for them a clear title to that land. I had the privilege of meeting and talking with a deputation representing those veterans, and as I studied their brief, it appeared to me that the government would have been just about as far ahead if it had given those men free titles to the land to start with. The oost to the government has come very close to eating up all the income that the government has received from that project.
I think a good point from which to begin my speech would be to go back to a resolution adopted by the Liberal convention on August 7, 1919, a resolution on pensions moved by the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston). I think the house should recall that resolution:
That such pension or allowances be granted as shall enable the soldiers or their dependents as the case may be to maintain a liberal standard of living sufficient to guarantee health, education and all the necessities, comforts and amenities which go to make up a standard of living worthy of Canadian citizenship.
Incidentally, I may say that the word "liberal" in that resolution is spelt with a small and not a capital "1". That was on August 7, 1919. We have only to contrast with that resolution the facts regarding the treatment of men in the last war as borne out by history. I know of many scores of veterans of the last war to whom I would be ashamed to show that resolution to-day. What are the facts? Can we wonder that, as the hon. member for Vancouver North stated, the confidence of the people in promises of governments and
political parties is at a very low ebb at the present time. Governments since 1919-and this goes for both Liberal and Conservative governments-failed to provide adequately for the rehabilitation of able-bodied men who returned from the last war or to take ample care of those who came back incapacitated and disabled.
We talk about conditions under which no one who takes part in this war shall be worse off for his having done so. I wonder how many there were who took part in the last war who did not suffer by reason of the fact that they served their country. I need not dwell at length on the extent to which both governments failed to rehabilitate the men who returned, nor need I elaborate upon the extent to which both governments failed to provide adequately for those who were disabled. The fact is that vast numbers of men who fought in the last war are to this very day in need of the necessities of life. I know of instances in my own riding. I have taken some of those men to the chairman of the pension board, who was ready to admit that the men were entitled to more than they were getting, but said that there were cast-iron regulations which prevented him from doing for those men what he felt was the country's moral obligation.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Liberal regulations
too.


Joseph William Noseworthy: More than, that,
there are men, scores of them, who have returned from this war who are this very day in need of the necessities of life, in need certainly of that which would give them a standard of living worthy of a Canadian citizen. I know some of those men personally. I have sent some of those cases to the minister's department.
Hon. members have already referred to the fact that the act, as most acts do, provides for the setting up of regulations by the governor in council. In the days when I taught school I thought I knew what governor in council meant. Since coming to Ottawa I have come to the conclusion that governor in council, in most cases, means a group of civil servants or members of a regulatory board. I wonder how many of those regulations are actually made either by the minister or by his colleagues. I thought again during the years when I taught Canadian history that government was subject to the will of the majority of parliament. I have been forced to reach the conclusion that this is scarcely true; that regulatory bodies can make regulations and that these regulations can remain in force, although every member of the cabinet must know that the desire of the majority of the
Department of Veterans' Affairs

members of parliament are opposed to some of the regulations. I cited a couple of instances a few nights ago; I am going to refer to them again. I doubt if there is a private member who would support on the floor of this house the practice by which an old age pensioner's pension is reduced because his son overseas has assigned pay. I doubt if any private member in this house would support that principle; yet that practice, because it is a regulation, remains in force from day to day and many pensioners suffer thereby.
I wish to make a few general observations. We should realize once and for all that we cannot discharge our obligations to the men who are serving in this war by granting some cash pittances and then leaving them to fend for themselves. I think we all realize that at this time our obligations go much farther than that. To care for those disabled in the war and the rehabilitation of those who return able-bodied is, I believe we all recognize, the responsibility of the government. The cost of that care and rehabilitation must be considered as a part of the cost of the war. We shall not have paid for this war so long as an active participant in it or one of his dependents requires aid or rehabilitation; and just as we have been generous in providing all the material needs that it is physically possible for us to provide for the winning of the war, so we must be equally generous in providing for the human needs that arise out of the war. Just as we have never held up the production of anything material to the war on the excuse that there was no money for that job, so must we never permit one who has suffered because of participation in the war to go in want of any of the necessities of the life on the flimsy excuse that we as a nation cannot afford the expense. The country that can afford to spend $25,000, $35,000 or $40,000 for the training and equipping of young men for war can ill afford to let that man come back to civil life and go in need of anything that is essential to a standard of living worthy of Canadian citizenship.
Other hon. members have already referred to the word "pre-enlistment." I suggest that that word1 be deleted completely from the pension department's vocabulary. Thousands of veterans in this country to-day will recall their disappointment when on coming before the pension board they were informed they were non-pensionable because their physical disability was a pre-enlistment one. It is unfortunately true that men coming back from this war are still being deprived of pensions for the same reason. I have in mind one man in particular who was declared by the pension board to be non-pensionable because his dis-

ability was a pre-enlistment one. The man had a back ailment. I saw certificates, statements from former employers, showing that that man had been employed in firing a railway locomotive, working on a dock, working in a lumber yard, and they all bore evidence to the fact that in no case had he been unable to work because of any illness or weakness; yet his disability is declared to be pre-enlistment, I wish to join with those hon. members who have stated already that we should accept the principle that where a medical board has given a recruit the classification A-l, when that man comes before a pension board there should be no question of any pre-enlistment disability.
For a few moments I should like to deal with the training and educational programme of the government. I would suggest-I think there is need of this-that the department prepare a statement setting forth all the educational opportunities in every field, vocational and academic, to which a returned man or woman is entitled with government assistance. There may be such a record already, though I have been unable to find one. I am asked constantly by boys who are interested in improving their educational status whether this or that course is available to them and for how many years they may hope to get assistance in connection with their education. I believe that these educational opportunities should not be limited too rigidly, either because the young man or woman concerned did not give evidence of a desire to follow a particular course before enlistment, or because the length of service was not sufficient. Many of these boys have now spent four years away from Canada. Thousands of them left high school to enlist; others had not gone beyond public school. To-day who is to say what courses these young men would have followed in those four years if they had been permitted to live normal lives in normal times? We cannot give them back those four years which, from the point of view of gaining an education, are the most precious years of their lives. We can, however, give them every encouragement to make good that loss as far as that may be possible, and we should see to it that it is financially possible for them to do so. I urge that we should place no obstacle in the way of their getting whatever education they have the ability or the desire to obtain.
The hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) made it quite evident that in his opinion no returned man should be required, either while undergoing training or until such time as he could get a job, to live on less than the pay and allowances he received while in the forces. This should be

Department of Veterans' Affairs
the case particularly in connection with all those up to army lieutenant or equivalent rank. I want to join with the hon. member in asserting that until the country is able to provide that man with a job, under no circumstances should he be required to live on less in peace time than we were willing to pay him in time of war.
I shall not delay the house by taking time to go into further detail. As other hon. members have said, very little research is required to discover that even the present S65 clothing allowance-which is so much better than the previous S35 allowance-is much too low to enable a returned man to secure a complete outfit of clothes at present prices. I am sure any investigation would show that anything less than $125 or $150 is inadequate. I should like to relate the rehabilitation programme to the entire reconstruction programme, but Your Honour ruled that discussion out of order when a previous speaker attempted to deal with it. Therefore I shall close with a couple of quotations, tire first from General Sir Archibald Wavell, spoken in Cairo on January 1, 1941:
Have you ever thought what a world we could make if we put into peace endeavours the same energy, the same self-sacrifice and cooperation as we use in the wastefulness of war?
The second quotation is by the VicePremier of Czechoslovakia, Jan Masaryk, as reported in the Saturday Evening Post of January 3, 1943:
Sooner or later we shall have to adjust ourselves spiritually and intellectually to the changes produced by this material revolution and reshape our institutions accordingly. In the field of economies the supremacy of the common good, as contrasted with selfish gains by a few, must be recognized and furthered by concerted national and international, private and public action.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add my contribution to this debate which has to do with the setting up of a Department of Veterans' Affairs. I shall not detain the house at any length, because I am not going to repeat what has been said already during this debate by other speakers and in other words; what I wish to say is along perhaps somewhat different lines. I could never figure out why there should be any extended debate on the question of giving anyone security. I could never understand why there should be any argument to it, and this is particularly true in connection with those in our fighting forces who have offered their lives on the altar of sacrifice. Surely, if anyone in this country deserves security, it is these men who have offered their lives for their country. There should
be no argument about it. This sort of bill and subjects of this kind seem to involve a tremendous amount of debate. There can be only one reason for that. As far as 1 can see the government are not prepared to go as far as the members of this house think they should go in giving to these worthy men of our fighting forces the adequate security we think they shoidd have.
I have listened to hon. members who have preceded me and I was much taken with the speech yesterday of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair). I could not help feeling that perhaps he should be with this group over here. He manifested some of the attitude toward monetary matters which this group has been recommending for a good many years. However, I think he was a little bit off in one or two things he said. For instance, he said that the policy of the government, his government, this government in power to-day, was that what is physically possible and desirable should be made financially possible. That never has been the policy of the Liberal party of this country.
We have been preaching that policy in this house for a good many years. As a matter of fact I think I can say without any fear of contradiction that that phrase was coined by none other than Major C. H. Douglas, one of the great world exponents of social credit and, I think I can say also without fear of contradiction, one of the greatest economic minds of the age. The hon. member for Vancouver North said that that was the policy of his government. If there was any semblance of truth in that, it has not been because this is the policy of the government; it is because the circumstances of the war have forced the government's hand to do financially what they were never able to do before. At least if they were able to do it, they refused to do it. The hon. member for Vancouver North also said that no financial obligation should stand in the way of the government giving our returned men that which is their due. I think we shall all agree with that. When the hon. member made that statement, by whom was he applauded? He was applauded by all the members on the opposition side. I noticed particularly that that statement was not applauded by members on the government side of the house.


Thomas Reid: Oh, j'es, it was.


Ernest George Hansell: Someone over there on the Liberal side says, "Oh, yes, it. was." I shall have to take his word for it, but all I can say is that I am not hard of hearing and I did not hear it.
Department of Veterans' Affairs


Thomas Reid: All I can say is that I am speaking the truth.


Ernest George Hansell: I accepted that. May I suggest to my hon. friend that it is the one lone voice crying in the wilderness.


Thomas Reid: No; there were two of us. You are wrong again.


Ernest George Hansell: Well, there were two. I am sure that is a glorious record. What was the statement? The hon. member for Vancouver North said that no financial obligation should stand in the way and I am told now that two Liberals applauded that statement. If there was ever a truer statement made than that I should like to know what it is. Applying that statement to this bill to establish a Department of Veterans' Affairs, I contend that if that department is established and is to be subjected to financial limitations, it will end where all other departments have ended, far short of the objective the people of this country want.
We know what happens under the present administration. We know that when a department desires to put over a programme-I am not complaining about its desires-it is subjected to the dictates of the treasury board. If the treasury board say, "We are sorry, we have no money," that ends it. It does not make any difference if the programme is physically possible or if it is desirable; if they say, "We have no money," that settles the question. I am wondering if a thing of that kind should be. As far as I am concerned, the whole thing is wrong. The fact of the matter is that the government should be able to do anything that is physically possible. Anything that parliament desires and moves that is physically possible, then the department or the government should say, "Very well; we are the servants of the people; you represent the people and we will do this; we will not let any financial limitation stand in our way."
One or two speakers have said that if this department is to be set up it must be provided with the proper machinery. I have no argument to offer there because I think that is so. But if that is all that is so, then it will fall far short of the mark. If it is administrators that we want I declare that you can get them in Canada for a dime a dozen. You can get the best administrators in the world. You can get the men who are at the head of industry, at the head of our financial institutions; if you like you can get the men who are at the head of our political movements. Put them all together; give them charge of this department, and if they do not have enough money they will fall down absolutely on the job.

I have not heard a great deal of criticism about the administrative ability of the present Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie), and I have no criticism to offer of him as an administrator. However, I do not know that he is doing any better than any other cabinet material, either in the Liberal party or in any other party. We go to the Minister of Pensions and National Health and we say to him, "We notice that you are giving so much for clothing to our soldiers; we notice that you are giving them so much for allowance on demobilization; do you really think that is enough?"


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Neither of those two allowances is from this department.


Ernest George Hansell: All right. Whether it is the minister's department or not, we will suppose it is for the sake of illustration. Wo go to him, and say, "Do you think that is sufficient?" He may say "yes," or he may say "no." I fancy he would say "no."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I will say "no" now.


Ernest George Hansell: However, I will not put words in his mouth. My next question would be, "Would you not like to give them more?" Of course he would say "yes." He has said he did not think it was enough. Then he would say, "Of course, I would like to give them more." "Well," we say, "why do you not?" What is the answer to be? There is only one answer, and that is, "Well, I am sorry, but the fellow higher up won't supply me with enough money."
The trouble is not in the administrative machinery. There may be a cog loose here, or a cog loose there, but I do not think the trouble is with the administrative machinery. The trouble is, always has been, and always will be under this or any old-line party administration, or any other administration subject to the present financial power, "Where are you to get the money?" That will be the trouble with any administration working under a debt economy.
There is not a great deal to offer when we talk about the kind of administration we should have. If my car stalls on the road I do not get out to see if the bumper is on wrong, or if the licence plate is hanging straight or if the windshield wiper is working. If the car stalls I want to find out what is fundamentally wrong. I want to see if the ignition works or if the gasoline is flowing properly. In examining legislation of this kind -and this applies to all post-war reconstruction, and matters of that kind-if there is

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
anything wrong with it when it is set up there is no use in going to this man or to that man or to the other man. Look for the fundamental error; and if the error is that there is not enough money, then let us admit that fact and either supply the money or put someone in power who knows where to get it.
I have just one further observation to make. I trust that people are not going to be fooled by this new department, or by the government's action in setting it up. There is a tendency to say, "Oh, this is a great thing; we are to have a new department of government, and it is to be known as the Department of Veterans' Affairs. That is a great thing; now we shall begin to go somewhere." I think I had better say that you are not going anywhere you have not been before. The setting up of a new department does not for one moment guarantee that our returned men will be cared for adequately. It is just another piece of machinery. The best way to show that the government means business is to start with the soldiers of the last war, many of whom are still in need, and with the soldiers who are now coming back from the present war. This does not need another department. Let us see that the government means business. When we see that the soldiers are treated better we shall know that the government means business. All the new departments in the world are not going to convince me or the legion or anybody else, unless they can show the people that this thing is being done.
I say, in closing, that it will not be done until the vital principle of the social credit philosophy, namely, that of making that which is physically possible and desirable financially possible, is accepted. Make the figures fit the facts.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to create a department which will be responsible for the care, treatment, training and reestablishment in social life of ex-members of the armed forces, and of persons otherwise engaged in pursuits relating to the war, and for the care of dependents of such persons. This is a laudable purpose, but it is entirely covered by the present act. The unfortunate thing is that the present act is not applied as it should be. There were legitimate grievances of the returned men and the men who have been discharged for one reason or another, and instead of those grievances being corrected we are told that a new department will be established. It is an old wagon with a new coat of paint, and with the old driver in the seat. There is practically no change, except that the matter has been studied very carefully by some zealous members.
But, sir, there is an easy way to correct these wrongs. To do so one has to come down to earth, come down from the clouds and try to improve the conditions of the returned men.
I regret having to repeat the same thing so many times. I have a soft thought for the minister, a congenial and likable man, much more so than some of his colleagues. In fact, he is so congenial that he could share that quality with them, and still keep enough to be well liked by all. How many times must I repeat that it is absurd not to give pensions to men who deserve them, or to men who have been promised pensions by the minister?
I hold in my hand data respecting regimental number D-554528, C. H. Pelletier, of Riviere-du-Loup. This man was riding a motorcycle in the bush for the first time, in process of doing some commando training. He was in company with a corporal. The motorcycle was then put on the road in high gear. The man in question sat on it, and as soon as he was in the saddle the corporal removed the clutch, with the result that the motorcycle went off at full speed and struck a tree. The man's leg was broken in three or four places, and he also suffered injuries to his spine. My understanding is that the leg was badly broken, and one or two inches of it were broken like dust. He went to the hospital, and his leg was in a plaster cast fur several months. Then I had the promise of the department that he would have a pension in August- He went several times to Quebec. He can hardly walk; his wife asked for a pass, but it was refused. Finally, upon my advice, he reported to the doctor, came back, and got nothing. He repeated this several times. It is evident that this man was badly hurt while in the service through the guilty carelessness and criminal negligence of a non-commissioned officer, and is entitled to a pension. I have the promise of the minister, who writes me very fine letters about the matter, but nothing comes from the pension department for this man. It is a sad case. When I meet him I give him something. Although my means are limited I try to help him, but what I can give him is negligible. The other day he came to my office and asked me to write a letter to his bank manager to say that I am working to obtain him a pension. "Tell him," he said to me, "that you are trying to get me a pension. I owe him $25 but I cannot pay it. My wife works a little; I cannot work at all. I hope that, with a letter from you, the bank manager will grant a renewal of my note."
At a time when we hear so much about what is to be done for the veterans, why not begin now? There must be a start. When will the start be? Will it be made only after
Department of Veterans' Affairs

the war is over? That is absurd. A beginning should be made now. There is no excuse for the pensions branch not paying a pension to that man. To-day is June 15; I was told by the minister in August last that the man would have a pension; but the board are so stubborn and their attitude is so unbelievably absurd that, as recently as last Monday, when I met this man on the street, walking with difficulty, and asked if he had got anything, he said, "no." One reproach which was made [DOT] against him was that he did not go to the hospital when the doctor told him to. But he had been there for months. He had a conversation with a doctor in Quebec city who, having told him that it was useless for him to take hospital treatment, afterwards told him that he should go there. So that soldier said, "If it is useless for me to go there, why should I go?" He needs the means wherewith to live, but so far he has got nothing.
Here is another case, of E-621922. I have a big file here dealing with this case, which is that of a man named Yvon Belanger. He had pleurisy in one lung. While he was in the army he contracted pleurisy in the other lung, imputable to his service, since it occurred while he was in the service. He was told to resign from the army, and that he would have an opportunity to go home right away. This is the policy of some doctors, especially of the pensions branch.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, no.


Mr. POULIOT:: It is not the pensions branch, but it is the practice in the army. As I said, this man was told to resign, and that he could then go home immediately. Upon my suggestion he refused to do that.
I advised him not to resign, that he had full rights to a pension, and that it was a crime to deprive him of it under the pretext of saving money for the country. He is now at his home in Riviere du Loup. He is sick; when he leaves his bed he has to sit in a long chair on the verandah or in the sunroom, and he cannot work. He has received no pension, and how long it will take for him to get a satisfactory answer from the department I cannot tell. But here is a man who is surely entitled to a pension. I have a letter from the pension officials in which it is admitted that the man suffers from pleurisy, but it is said to be an affection of anterior origin; that is, prior to enlistment, aggravated during service in Canada but not entitling him to a pension under article 11 (2). The interpretation given to that section by the pension board is inhuman. They say that his disability was incurred prior to enlistment. That 
is perhaps true as regards one lung, and it is a reason why this man should never have been accepted in so high a health category. But the pleurisy in the other lung was contracted* during his service, and for that reason he is entitled to a pension and also to all the care necessary to restore him so far as is humanly possible to the same condition he was in prior to his enlistment. His case was turned down by the pension board, with the right of appeal, but when any man appeals from the board he has no success.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is not right.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is my experience.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is not correct.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will ask the minister not to speak like this, because-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I state facts.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have here the case of a veteran who could not walk and who was given no more than $3.75 a month as a pension, an amount so small that he had to get a special allowance by way of compensation. I brought this case to the attention of the minister, who agreed that the ruling was absurd, and helped the man to get a small allowance which gives him a chance to live. This case is on record. How can a man who is sick, who can hardly walk, live on $3.75 a month? The minister understood the situation. I do not blame him; I blame the system, and I want a change. I do not see why there is no change there. I have received letters from doctors who have protested that I have been uncharitable to them on some occasions, but when I say what I do I have no interest at all either in praising doctors or in saying that they are unworthy of their jobs in the army. The only ones I am interested in are the soldiers, the sailors and the airmen who come to me wanting to be cared for. They will not wait for the millennium to be well looked after. It is now they have to be looked after. When a man is in the army, and when one considers the money that is spent for the war, there is no excuse for not affording that man, for not affording every man in the army, the treatment he has a right to expect there.
I have discussed the matter with friends, in the most friendly way possible, in the expectation of securing satisfactory results; and if a medical doctor finds that I am exaggerating in complaining of the way in which soldiers have been dealt with there is the case of E-630952, Private L. P. Beaulieu. I have taken that case up with the parliamentary

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
assistant to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald), who is most helpful, and I say that with great pleasure. It is one of my great satisfactions to tell my hon. friends the good I think of them. But here is the case of a man who suffered from his heart. He was a fellow in delicate health, an accountant for the Fraser company at Cabano, but the doctors decided that he was fit for the army, although, as I say, he suffered from his heart, and when he passed before the board-I have the information here-the specialist mentioned that he was suffering from his heart. But that was erased by the chairman of the board.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Which board; the discharge board?


Jean-François Pouliot: It was'the first examination before going to the army. It was the army, and I mention that fact to my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax.


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: That case is under investigation.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know, but there is a
pension attached to it. That is why I mention the case now, and I thank the hon. gentleman for what he has done already and will, I hope, continue to do. The situation is something unbelievable, and when some members express surprise at the fact that members of the army in the Quebec district leave their unit, very often there is a reason for it. That man was ill, and yet on account of the fact that the note from the specialist was erased, his record was white, and he was sent to his unit. He said that he was tired and the sergeant told him that he was all right, that he was just a faker, just because the fact that he was suffering from his heart had been erased by the chairman of the army board. He was sent to bed. He asked for a doctor. He could hardly speak, but he asked for a doctor and they refused him a doctor. He asked for a priest. They did not have a priest ; the chaplain was in the camp. The next morning they found him dead. They may say that these men are not sick, but when they are dead they cannot be resuscitated, and that is what I complain of. I complain bitterly that there are some doctors who are kept in employment, and I was insulted by the Minister of National Defence because I was defending the underdog, a soldier. I was insulted by the penguin of Vancouver and the Eccles Gott of Fraser Valley because I was fighting for my men. There is no power on earth that would prevent me from defending my people and trying to get better treatment for them, and when I say that I say it with the knowledge of my responsibility. There is no reason for such treatment as I have mentioned.
The other day I referred to the case of young Horniblow in Toronto. His number was B-621503, a classical case. I was deeply touched, because his father and mother took the trouble to, transcribe the whole file in their own hand. There is a case where the doctors of the camp in Halifax should be punished, should be demoted. We should get rid of them. Why at times do I express the idea that I do not believe in some of the so-called measures for the future? It is because I do not see how the civilian population will put up with the medical treatment from some of the blacksmiths that are in the army. There are some good doctors, but those good doctors never miss an opportunity to defend and protect those who are no good. There must be an end to that unbelievable solidarity. I trust the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence, and I am ready to pass all these files to him. He will be impressed by the fact-


William Chisholm Macdonald: There was a very full investigation of the particular case to which the hon. member is now referring.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know that, but it was a
whitewash, the same as there was a whitewash in Fredericton.


William Chisholm Macdonald: The conclusions reached were quite proper and I have no doubt, with reference to that particular case, that the medical officers had acted quite properly and that there was no negligence attributable to them-if that is the case to which the hon. member is now referring, the Horniblow case.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will not discuss it now.


William Chisholm Macdonald: That case has nothing to do with the department of pensions.


Jean-François Pouliot: No; it may be so, but to show my good faith I will lend the file to the hon. member.


William Chisholm Macdonald: I have seen the file.


Jean-François Pouliot: In spite of what my hon.
friend has said, that case has a bearing on the discussion, for this reason. It is my view that when a man is put in category "A", when he is admitted into the army and is afterwards put in a lower category, it means that he has contracted some disability in the army, and it is most important that that examination should be made with care. In my humble view, a man who is in good health when he goes into the army, and who is not so well, or is disabled, when he is discharged has a right to be compensated by the government for that.
Department oj Veterans' Affairs

There was the case of another man who suffered from lung trouble. He contracted a cold that was not well looked after. He received no pension. His number is E-621251. There was also the case of Alfred Levesque, No. 23203. He is a veteran of the last war. I shall send this file to the minister. Parts of it are in French. I have letters from the parish priest. I have no secret to keep from anybody. This is an open book. I prefer to handle the matter in this way in order to put the least possible on the record. I still expect that some improvements will be made.
Then I have the case of Moise Robillard, C-10542. He was at Christie street hospital. He has been discharged. He has had very little. There is a connection between the medical examination in the army and the right of a soldier to a pension. Then I received a letter from the Canadian AntiVivisection Society, Victoria, British Columbia, with regard to the case of a man named Reuben W. Carlier, who died at Neepawa, Manitoba, after an injection of toxoid. He was a British airman. These cases come from all over. I am sending a copy of this letter to a doctor who complained that I was too hard on the medical faculty. I hope that the minister will take up these cases and will see to it that the thing is corrected so as to give the soldiers some faith in the future, and so that they will not lose confidence. At the present time such treatment has a very bad effect. All those men who are not treated as they should be have relatives and friends. This is all known to them. It has a very bad effect on recruiting and on the morale not only of the unit, but on the people who are at home, the relatives of those men.
What about other cases? There was a man who was totally deaf. He was put in category "A" in Quebec on September 12, 1939. He was put in category "E" at Sussex, New Brunswick. He was again placed in category "A" on June 6, 1941, and in category "E", five pulhems at Dartmouth in December 1943. When he was examined in Quebec city he was O.K. But when he was examined more carefully at other places such as Dartmouth and Sussex on two occasions he was placed in category "E". Those are many things that require correction and I hope that it will be done at once.
The minister has the power to instruct the officials of his department to do their duty properly to the men in the service, and to notify his officials that if they do not do so, if they do not act in accordance with the letter and the spirit of the law, he will fire them.
I do not want the death of the sinner; I want

his conversion. It is the last time that I shall say that with regard to the department
of pensions.
The men in my county have been treated very badly. When I spoke to some hon. members from Ontario they said that they were satisfied with the treatment the men had received here. How is it that it is only in the province of Quebec that the men do not get the treatment they have a right to expect from the pension board? There are reforms to be brought about in the army and in the department of pensions, as well as in many other places. Reforms in the department of pensions are the most urgent and I trust that the minister will see to it that those men are better treated.
Before concluding my remarks I wish to refer to another case which seems to be unusual. There was a big man that I have known, and unfortunately I have already mentioned this case without any success. His number is E-100257. He was a very strong and powerful man. He was on guard in Quebec city. He was given shoes that were too small for his feet. He could not wear other shoes. He asked for some but did not get them. He had to wear the regulation Shoes. He tried to wear them for some time, and they hurt his feet so badly that he can hardly walk and sometimes he cannot work for two or three weeks in a month. This is cruel and inhuman. What did that man have? It was true that he suffered very much; it was true that this came on during his service. His disability was assessed at five per cent for bronchitis and five per cent for a scar on his right foot. However, the commission ruled that the bronchitis was of pre-enlistment origin, not aggravated during service and that, therefore, no pension was payable in respect of it. The pension was paid at five per cent, effective from the day of his discharge in respect of the disability from the scar on his right foot. The letter from the commission reads:
As you, of course, know the assessment of disability is on direction of the medical advisers of the commission. In Mr. Cloutier's case we consider the award of pension in accordance with his degree of disability. I regret I cannot give you a favourable reply.
That is unfortunate. It is not true. Imagine what this poor fellow who enlisted voluntarily had to suffer! He -was there on guard voluntarily. He had a right to have shoes that were fit for his feet. He asked for the shoes. Evidently they had some, but he could not get any. He could not buy regulation shoes anywhere. He did not want to steal any. He made an effort to remain on guard wearing shoes that were too small. He thereby injured his feet, which is acknowledged by the com-

Department of Veterans' Affairs
mission. Finally he received a small amount as a pension, although at times he cannot *work for two or three weeks in a month because his feet swell and he cannot wear any shoes. The minister is a kind-hearted giant-
I say that very seriously. I hope that he will be moved by these facts which deserve full consideration. Those men are well known to me. I have tried to help them, and I am getting tired of repeating the same things over and over again. However, I do it for a good cause and in the hope that these wrongs will be redressed in the near future.


Mr. L. A. MUTCH (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, the success or failure of the Department of Veterans' Affairs has depended in the past and will depend in future on the understanding of the problem which such a department is designed to meet. We cannot hope to accomplish very much if we attempt to legislate for personal and individual cases. Perhaps in connection with no subject commonly discussed in this house is it easier to dramatize the discussion, because whoever speaks has lying ready to his hand all the elements of tragedy, and we must always guard against drifting into emotional fields. But we have twenty-five years of experience to guide us and, as a result of that experience, a classification of the problem, an understanding of which I think is essential if any discussion with respect to veterans' problems is to be helpful.
The indisputable fact is that from the outset it is essential to separate veterans' affairs into two divisions. The first division is that Concerning responsibility for those members of the services who have suffered disability in mind or body and who are or in the course of time will become pensioners. The record of Canada with respect to veterans disabled in the last war has been good. It is not good enough to say, as one hon. member said the other afternoon, that it is good only in comparison with previous experiences, which were exceedingly bad. The treatment of pensioners in Canada, with those unfortunate and inglorious exceptions with which we are all familiar, has been better than the treatment afforded to disabled veterans by any of our allies in the last war, and represents a type of world leadership of which we can be very proud. The second division includes all those who were on active service in any of the services. Following the last war that was a particularly vexed problem, because we had no experience. Even at that we produced the veterans' allowance board, which I submit was the most advanced legislation in the world dealing with the responsibility of government for those who had not suffered disabilities which could be established and pensioned.
Not only did we lack experience in the period following the last war; but those veterans who had not suffered noticeable and easily detected disabilities began to fail in their attempt to provide for themselves, just about the time this country entered the greatest economic depression which Canada and, in fact, the world had ever seen. Throughout that period we had discussion as to where the responsibility lay for those veterans who were not pensionable but who were destitute. In the beginning the responsibility was held to be local. As the problem became progressively greater, the responsibility became provincial and eventually, when it reached its full magnitude, there came a realization that the primary responsibility lay with the federal authority. All through that discussion, which dealt with the problem of destitution generally, it was argued-and with that argument I agree-that the responsibility for those who had been on active service was indeed federal, since the soldiers of Canada did not fight for a province but fought for the dominion.
This principle of governmental responsibility having been accepted as to the first division, relating to pensions, it seems unreasonable that the same general principle should not apply in the second division, dealing with all those who were on active service. By the same token, then, the loss of seniority in a job, the loss of a skill, the sacrifice of productive years and the invisible wounds of the spirit, though they be not pensionable, are indeed the responsibility of the national government. In a desire to spur successive governments following the last war, and particularly in recent times, to avoid the errors which occurred then and the failures; we have had expressed in this house great concern and fear for the future, fears which to my mind are not warranted by the record of the past. As a result we have induced in the minds of many of our people who are serving, and many of our people at home, a degree of trepidation which is not warranted by the history of our legislation. Approximately 600,000 Canadians served in the last war, of whom about 225,000 were Canadian born. The remainder fought as Canadians and brought imperishable honour to Canada as Canadians. Those who survived returned to Canada, and the history of how they became absorbed into the life of this country is not such as to warrant the oft-repeated criticisms of that post-war period. When we consider what the veterans of this war will return to I think it is worth while to study for a moment or two the conditions to which those who came back from the last war returned. Thousands of them had been less than five years in Canada. They had no homes, no jobs, and many of them had but
Department of Veterans' Affairs

very few friends. In my own experience I know of a little town where, of the first eleven men who enlisted, ten were not Canadian born. They had no homes and, in reality, no stake in the community. Seven of them returned, all of whom after a little time, with no other inducement than their own determination to be independent and to have a stake in the country of their adoption, succeeded in reestablishing themselves. All in all, in spite of 'the conditions that existed, we did not do badly.
The situation which will greet our returning soldiers this time is vastly different. More than ninety per cent of those in the services to-day were born in Canada and will return to their own homes. I have said that those who returned from the last war did not do badly. The proof of that statement is to be found in every community, in the long list of veterans of that war who are now the leaders, the backbone of business, of church and of state. It is to be found in the record of their children, their sons and daughters who serve in every branch of Canada's war effort to-day. I know there were those who fell short of the achievements I have mentioned, some through their own fault. Some were exploited commercially, some were exploited politically, some were caused to suffer by bad legislation, and more perhaps by the poor interpretation and administration of good legislation. Wellmeaning people who might have helped to alleviate the situation were cowed by the depression and the period of economic scarcity, and much less was done than we think could have been done under those conditions. But the conditions which prevailed in those depression years were more than a veteran problem.
The shadow of those years still darkens the hearts of parents and it dulls the hopes of youth in the service. I am sure it haunts the minds of honest employers who turn their attention to these problems in industry and consider what is to come again. The other day the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) suggested a policy and practice by which any veteran would be allowed to train on the same economic level as that on which he was trained for war. I venture to say that that suggestion is unanswerable; yet before we concur in it in its entirety there are questions to be answered, and I should like to propose some of those questions to-night.
How and by whom is the veterans' aptitude for training to be measured? We must remember that in the service he was trained for a specific job. Will his training be geared to his own desire or to his measured aptitude 
for the task? Will he be obliged to commit himself as to where he plans to use his newly acquired or retrained skill? Will his choice be governed by information made available by adequate surveys of the opportunities in his chosen locality? If it is to be a question of, "What would you like to do and what would you like to train for; here is a living while you train," how will the job balance be maintained not only in the community in which he lives but throughout Canada as a whole?
Something is being done with respect to this problem. To-day the soldiers returning to the various depots to be discharged from the Canadian services are interviewed first by the army examiners with whom they became familiar in the service. Part of the document known as WD-12 is prepared in conjunction with the officers of the Department of Pensions and National Health. This is a positive document which records the man's achievements in the service. It fills in the gap mentioned the other day by the hon. member for Vancouver North when he was referring to Lever Brothers, and their problem of getting information about the man's service. I am glad to say that this particular document is available in most districts to those officers of selective service whose duty it is to classify these returned veterans for positions in civil life in their community.
I should like to think and I would hope that that information, the appraisal part of that document, will be part of the record of the soldier which goes into selective service in the district to which he desires to go. Better still, I should like to see discharged veterans, both male and female, carry with them a record of the skills they have acquired, the training they have had and the advancement they have undergone during the period of their active service.
Not so long ago the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) stated that the returning personnel from the services did not want to be pampered. He might have added that they are not going to be fooled by demagogues who dishonour them by bidding for their support. Fortunately, between the two wars we in Canada have been singularly free from that kind of political jobbery with respect to veterans. It is my hope-and I see some indication that this hope may be realized- that this condition will continue in Canada and that we shall not have that type of bidding which dishonours but does not fool the people at whom it is directed.
Before we go into the second division dealing with the responsibilities of governments to the returning personnel who come back with-

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
out having suffered actual disability-' or damage in body or mind, we should perhaps make some estimate of the service they have performed. It is idle to say that everyone who volunteered did so with the idea of giving his life for his country. The man who volunteered no doubt realized that he might be called upon to make the supreme sacrifice for his country and he expressed the courageous willingness to do so, but that is not the only thing that motivated the men who enlisted. They went active for a variety of reasons. Sometimes there was a patriotic urge to do something about the despoiler of civilization; sometimes they did so through sheer boredom ; sometimes it was hunger; sometimes there were other personal reasons. I once interviewed a man who was doing his one thousand, one hundred and seventy-first day of detention over a period of three years. Rather abruptly I asked him, "Why on earth did you join the army?" He said, "Frankly, to get away from my wife."
That was an exceptional case, but I think it illustrates the danger we may get into if we consider this problem from the purely sentimental point of view of enlistment. There is a debt upon us to every one who volunteered for active service, no matter from what impulse, a debt which can never be repaid. Consequently it is more important that we should concern ourselves with those debts which can be repaid rather than to try to assess one man's or one woman's service as against another's with lesser service or in a different theatre of war. I should regret to see anything get into our legislation which would tend to create that discrimination.
This question of the obligation of the state to those who perform the highest duties of citizenship involves more than that. It has been raised already in this house. It involves some attempt to fix the differential between those citizens who do their duty in active service and those w-ho do their duty in any other capacity for which they were capable and to which they were physically limited. I think it is hopeless to try to do that by legislation. This is one place where we must trust administration to attempt to draw the line between common sense and sentiment.
This department which is being set up-it is really not a new department-must cooperate in a large way with local committees and local employers. I think this can be illustrated by giving the details of a case. A boy- at the age of nineteen was making $90 a month as a valued employee of a large concern. To-day he is a lieutenant in the army; he has reached the age of twenty-four, is married and has one child. He leaves the service and desires to
go back to the firm where he worked previously'. However, he has no skill or training which would make him valuable in any better capacity' than the $90 a month job he had before.
This department, in conjunction with the employer, or, where there is no employer, in conjunction with selective service, should devise some system of part work and part training. I know that is being done. With that cooperation a chap of this kind could work while training himself for a job which would be suitable to his capabilities and which would support himself and his family in adequate fashion. For such procedure I, for one, would hold up both hands for the suggestion of -the hon. member for Vancouver North. In the case of planned training for a specific job there can be no reason and no excuse for paydng less to the man in training for that job than he received when he was being trained for a specific job in active service. Unless this training is tied up to a specific job-opportunity, or at least based on established knowledge as the result of known opportunities in the locality in which he elects to live, then I am apprehensive that few more than the two or three per cent who at present take advantage of training will really be willing to take the training.
I think we talk too much in general terms when we speak of change, training and adjustment. We speak as though only by some upheaval of the conditions in which these men lived before they served could we hope to accomplish anything, or could any good come. I am inclined to think that if as many Canadians were looking boldly forward to-night as there are looking fearfully behind, this shadow of fear for the future of rehabilitation and reestablishment would pass from us. And, if by being fearful we inculcate fear in the minds of our returned youth in Canada we are doing them a great disservice.
If we train our returning youth to grasp security with both hands we shall never reach, or rise to the heights which some of us, at least, may have visualized for the future of Canada. Let us then care first for those who have suffered damage, and enable them to establish themselves in a way that they may not suffer as a result of that disabling incapacity. Having assured this, then perhaps if we fight and work for a new Canada which will give new opportunities as well as security7, and, if we meet to-day's problems in an adequate and satisfactory manner such as will give, hope and confidence to those who are returning, those who will return and those who wait for others to return, we shall have undertaken for the moment the main duty and
Department oj Veterans' Affairs

the greatest opportunity of the newly-reconstituted department. At a later time, when we are in committee on the bill, I shall have something further to say with respect to some of the problems which arise because of the difference between the conditions in the last war and those in this one.


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, this bill is described as an act to establish a Department of Veterans' Affairs. My understanding of the work of this new department is that it is to be responsible for all matters concerning war veterans. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made that very clear when he moved the resolution preceding the bill. These were his words, as they are reported at page 2102 of Hansard:
Parliament is anxious to make the fullest provision for all matters that are likely to arise which may have a bearing upon their interests-
That is the interests of the veterans.

through the period that is to follow at the conclusion of this terrible war.
Then the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) used words to the same effect, and in the same debate, as follows:
. . . the idea being that all measures affecting generally the welfare and rehabilitation into civil life of the members of our forces will be embraced within the ambit of the measure which will follow upon the resolution which is now before the committee.
So that I propose this evening to review this bill, having in mind that question, as to whether or not it is broad enough to enable the new department to deal with all matters of concern to war veterans.
I believe the house is unanimous in wishing to make the bill broad enough and modern enough and realistic enough to accomplish that purpose. This is one of those occasions, which are not so rare as the public believe, when all members of the house are trying to do a good job, and are cooperating to see that this bill is the best possible measure that can be enacted by the parliament of Canada.
Looking at the bill, and having in mind the test as to whether or not it meets the problem, I find several weaknesses which I consider fundamental. I believe they are serious weaknesses, and I urge upon the minister and the house that amendments be brought in to strengthen these weak spots in the bill. The first weakness, to my mind, is that the bill seems to have the approach of the last war. It reads as though it had been drawn by men who fought in that war. I am one of those men myself, and I think there is a grave danger that those of us who served in the last war are apt to judge everything by what hap-

pened to us. The fact is that conditions in the present war are vastly different, and there is need of a new approach.
I say that this bill has been drawn, having in mind the wai of 1914-18. If members go through it carefully they will find that it closely resembles the Soldiers' Civil ReEstablishment Act, which is chapter 187 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927. That was a measure which set up the first department to deal with soldiers after the last war. Furthermore, this bill is almost identical with part I of the Department of Pensions and National Health Act, passed in 1928 as chapter 39 of the statutes of that year.
Then, the duties, powers and functions given this new department under the bill are not wide enough. They are set out in section 5, the opening words of which are these:
The duties, powers and functions of the minister shall extend and apply to the administration of statutes enacted by the parliament of Canada, and of orders of the governor in council, as are not by law assigned to any other department of the government of Canada or any minister thereof-
And these are the key words:
-relating to the care, treatment, training, or reestablishment in civil life. . . .
Those are the key words. They do not go far enough. I say that the section should cover such things as rehousing the men in the present war. That is a very serious problem, and one which presents one of the greatest difficulties for the men returning from the war, particularly those w'ho are married. As we know, many thousands of Canadian sailors,: soldiers and airmen have married overseas. I have here a clipping from the Vancouver Province of June 7-about a week ago; it is headed, "Soldier Looks for House", and then, in quotation marks, "Sorry I Ever Came Back". The article goes on to say:
"I'm sorry I ever came back to Canada," is a familiar lament at the national housing registry these days, say officials here as 63 discharged servicemen and their families look for a place to live.
Most of the men have seen service on the battlefield. One was a prisoner in a Japanese prison camp.
The article then refers to one discharged man who belonged to our famous Seaforth Highlanders of Canada and who had been disabled overseas. He came back with his wife and three-year-old daughter, had been in Vancouver since May, and, the article states:
. . . since then they have been living in damp housekeeping rooms or separate boarding houses.
"We were happy in England," he said. "We had a little cottage in Surrey, with a garden, and chickens and rabbits."

Department of Veterans' Affairs
A card telling about post-war rehabilitation plans was given to him on discharge. "But how do we get them?" he said.
He is only one of the hundreds who are having the same difficulty.
Therefore, I say, Mr. Speaker, that power should be given to the new department under section 5 of the bill to deal with the re-housing of soldiers. It will never be adequately dealt with by any other department.
Another matter is that of the repatriation of the dependents of our men from Great Britain. This will be one of the great problems affecting veterans of the present war. Already men are being sent back and discharged as unfit; yet their wives and children cannot cross the sea to their new homes in Canada. That, too, should be handled by this Department of Veterans' Affairs. It will never be adequately handled if it is the responsibility of any other department, because with another department the operation would be only a side-show, and if it did not get the last consideration it would be very close to the last.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask my hon. friend a question? Does he not think that repatriation is essentially a function of the defence services?


Howard Charles Green: No; I think the rehabilitation-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; repatriation.


Howard Charles Green: The repatriation of the dependents of our men in the forces should be under this Department of Veterans' Affairs rather than one or other of the defence services, or the Department of Mines and Resources, where it is now-the immigration branch.
As to gratuities, the speech from the throne this year stated that during the present session a measure was to be brought down to provide war service gratuities. The session is drawing to a close; yet that legislation has not been introduced. Each day is important, because each day men are being discharged in Canada, and discharged without an adequate gratuity, with the result that they are handicapped just that much in settling back into civilian life. I suggest that these war sendee gratuities should also be handled by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and that power so to handle them should be set out in the present bill.
I come to the question of employment. There is nothing in section 5 which gives the department power to deal with the matter of employing veterans. It is true that power is given to deal with their reestablishment, but that is only the beginning. A man may be
reestablished when he comes back, and then in a year or two he may be faced with unemployment. Those of us who were in the last parliament know what a terrible problem that was in the years from 1935 to 1940; and as the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch) has said, most of us became convinced that the care of these men was the responsibility of the dominion government. Sooner or later th? question of who is to be responsible for finding work for unemployed veterans will come up again; and I suggest that power to meet that difficulty should be conferred in this bill upon the Department of Veterans' Affairs.
Also there should be power under section 5 to advise veterans. That is not set out here. At the present time there is no adequate provision for advising them either as to their rights and privileges or as to their opportunities. I know there are government officers whose duty it is to find out what jobs men are most likely to be suited to, but we must go farther than that. This department should be responsible for advising the men as to the occupations which are most likely to be open; and that, of course, would mean close collaboration by the various departments of government-munitions and supply, which would have to give some idea as to what types of manufacturing are to be carried on after the war, and other government departments. At the present time, I understand, these men get no idea of what types of jobs are likely to be available; they are simply asked what they would like to be and then, perhaps, given training for that particular calling. But we must go very much farther, and must advise them where there are most likely to be jobs.
Strangely enough, the one change made in section 5 is to delete from that section the power to care for the dependents of these men of ours who are coming back from the forces. In the Pensions and National Health Act of 1928 the last words of section 5 were, " and to the care of the dependents of such persons." [DOT] I can only believe that these words were left out of this section by an oversight. Certainly that power should be given to the new department. Allusion to the care of dependents does appear in several other sections of the bill, but not in this key section 5.
Strangely, too, there is no mention in section 5 of pensions-no power given to the department to deal with pensions. That was not in either of the other acts to which I have referred. I do not suppose it is material, because the department will have to deal with pensions, anyway, but I suggest that words giving the power to deal with pensions should be inserted in section 5. If that change is made, perhaps the minister would consider using, instead of the word " pension," the
Department of Veterans' Affairs

words " war disability compensation," or words to the like effect. The use of the word "pension" may convey to some people the notion that the recipient is getting something for nothing, whereas if the words "war disability compensation" were used, one is reminded of the workmen's compensation, and it gives an entirely different idea


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would that terminology apply as well to
dependent's pension-for instance, to a widow?


Howard Charles Green: Well, perhaps different words would have to be used in that case, but the minister understands the idea I am trying to convey.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: So much for suggestions with regard to the powers of this department. I think they can be made adequate only by an amendment of section 5 of the bill.
Then I suggest that in the bill provision should be made for the honorary committees which have already been appointed across Canada to assist in the rehabilitation of the men coming back from the war. I believe that these committees are doing good work. They are serving on an honorary basis, and I know that in my home city of Vancouver these men are trying very hard to help in the reestablishment of the soldiers who are coming back. But there is no mention of such committees in the bill, and I would point out that in the Veterans' Assistance Commission Act, which is chapter 47 of the statutes of 1936, provision was made for these honorary committees. The minister will find it in section 7 under the heading, "Honorary Local Committees". It provided that the veterans' assistance commission-
. . . with the approval of the minister, may appoint honorary local committees, composed of persons resident in any locality willing-
. (a) to assist the commission in obtaining information relating to veterans which may be required for classification of unemployed veterans.
This act, by the way, was passed when we were faced with the need of finding employment for many thousands of veterans of the last war.
(b)	to investigate and report to the commission upon measures and means in respect to the employment of veterans;
(c)	to assist the commission in enlisting the cooperation of employers' and employees' associations as well as of such other public and private agencies as may be in a position to provide employment for veterans;
(d)	to aid the commission in any other way in carrying out the provisions of this act.
[Mr. Green 1
We already have honorary committees established to aid in rehabilitation, and I suggest that they should be given statutory recognition.
Provision should also be made in the bill giving the minister and the new department authority to cooperate with other governmental bodies and agencies. Similar power was given to the veterans' assistance commission. The minister will find that in section 9 they were given the job of investigating and reporting to the minister upon-
. . . ways and means of cooperation between the commission and
(a)	any other commission or department of the government,
(b)	any provincial government or agency thereof,
(c)	any veterans' association,
(d)	any commercial, agricultural or industrial group or organization.
The act went on to say that it was the duty of the commission to cooperate with these various other bodies. I am confident that if some such provision is inserted in this bill it will make it all the easier for us to get results. The Department of Veterans' Affairs will certainly have to cooperate very closely with such other dominion departments as national defence, munitions and supply, and labour, and, I think, also with the provincial governments and the veterans' associations, and with commercial, agricultural and industrial groups across Canada.
These suggestions I submit for the purpose of meeting the first great weakness in this bill, and I hope that the minister will see fit to adopt at least some of them before the bill becomes law. The second weakness in the bill is this, that the new department is not limited to veterans' affairs. I think it should be limited to looking after matters that concern war veterans. Goodness knows, these matters are going to be numerous and difficult enough without giving this new department . any other job to do. When I refer to veterans, I include men of the merchant navy. I heartily agree with the statement made to-day by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) about the merchant navy being treated as a fourth arm of the service. They are so considered by His Majesty the King, and all of us feel that they are in the war just in the same way as the navy, the army and the air force.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Except that they cannot shoot back.


Howard Charles Green: Yes; that is correct. We would have lost the war without them. I am of the opinion also that such men as those in the auxiliary services and the Canadian

Department oj Veterans' Affairs
corps of fire-fighters should be given similar treatment; all those men who are really serving with the forces should be included in the bill. They should be _treated in the 6ame way as the men in the forces. I was very much struck by a letter received from one man in the auxiliary services actually serving with the troops in Italy. He came back from a tour of the line to find a notification in regard to his income tax. All the men in the forces overseas are free from income tax, but these other men in the merchant navy, the auxiliary services and the corps of fire-fighters are not. This is the letter this man wrote:
The information in regard to payment of income tax was conveyed to me in December, 1943, while serving on the battlefront. It was imparted to me at a most grotesque time, when I had just returned from a point where the fighting was desperate, where the dead were lying by the side of the road and in the streets of a certain town and everything was foul and there was a terrible stench everywhere. I came back and was told that because I was only a camp follower I had to pay income tax. It might be a good idea to ask whoever was responsible for the issue of the decree to come out with me and share my work for a month or two.
These men of the legion, the Y.M.C.A., the Knights of Columbus, the Salvation Army are with the Canadian troops in France to-night, and yet they have to pay income tax. That is not right. These men, and the other groups to whom I have referred, should be treated as the men of the forces are. But this bill goes farther. Hon. members will find in the explanatory note the following words:
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.
In section 5 we find the words "of any person" after the words I have quoted previously in my remarks. The similar section in the Department of Pensions and National Health Act referred to men who had served in the forces. This goes farther and refers to "any person". And by the tvay, the section might be considered broad enough to make the new department responsible for all vocational training of civilians, soldiers and anybody else. It could be construed in that way.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is it not the intention to protect the very services my hon. friend mentions?


Howard Charles Green: That may be, but if that is the intention they should be named in the
Pension Act and in this bill, so that there can be no uncertainty about what their rights are. Then the same words in effect are found in section 7, subsection 1, paragraph (b). This paragraph is entirely new. The section gives the minister power to make regulations; paragraph (b) reads as follows:
. . . respecting the care, treatment, or training to be furnished in any such hospital, workshop, home, school or other institution and providing for the care, treatment or training therein of such other persons as may be deemed advisable.
That could not be wider. I submit that the bill should be confined to veterans. The same thing is found in paragraph (g) of subsection 1 of section 7. This is the way it 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.
I clearly realize that the men and women working in our war factories have to be reestablished; that their need is great. But that should be done by another department, probably by the Department of Labour. I do not think it will work out to have the reestablishment of veterans and civilians put under this new Department of Veterans' Affairs.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is not the intention.


Howard Charles Green: The minister says that it is not the intention. I suggest that he change his bill so that the next minister, who may be in office within a few months, will not be led astray by the terms of the paragraph.


Gordon Graydon: He has to be a little more careful now.


Howard Charles Green: The third serious weakness in this bill is this paragraph (g) of subsection 1 of section 7, which I have read. It, too, is entirely new. It provides for pensions by regulation of the minister approved by the governor in council. That is a dangerous provision. Any right to pension should be statutory. It should not depend on any order in council or the whim of _ any minister. Furthermore, it may go so far as to enable the minister or the department to give a pension to favourites or to people who should not be entitled to them at all. I cannot understand why the government brings down a bill which contains this entirely new principle. I submit it is a very dangerous one. The Pension Act should clearly define who is entitled to a pension; it should not be left to any order in council. We have a good illus-
Department of Veterans' Affairs

tration of just what happens when there is this type of provision in the working out of section 11, subsection 3, of the Pension Act. That is the section which enables the pension commission to give a pension when a man cannot prove entitlement to it under the act because the insurance principle was taken out of the act, but where he is hard-up and has suffered a certain type of disability.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will my hon. friend read the first few lines of the paragraph, which are:
. . . for the payment of pensions out of moneys provided by parliament for the purpose to persons who . . .
In other words, it is sanctioned by parliament before the minister can act.


Howard Charles Green: Paragraph (g) is a new principle and should not be brought into the pension legislation of Canada, but I was referring to the-


Gordon Graydon: Parliament has to authorize the payment of all moneys. That is not what the hon. member is referring to.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: For specific purposes.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest that the minister should not close his mind to this-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Howard Charles Green: -but should give my suggestion careful consideration. If he did that,
I think he might find that he is wrong.


Gordon Graydon: I think he is weakening a bit now.


Howard Charles Green: I am not so sure. I was mentioning how this business of being indefinite as to who gets a pension works out under section 11, subsection 3 of the Pension Act. When the minister's estimates on the war appropriation bill were being considered he told us, as reported at page 3068 of Hansard, that up to the end of December, 1943, 977 pensions had been awarded under section 11, subsection 3. In practically all cases that applies to men who had served only in Canada. The total number of pensions awarded to men who had not served outside Canada was only 2,658, and that figure was up to February 29, 1944, some two months after the prior figures; all of which shows that a large proportion of the pensions awarded to men who have served only in Canada were not granted as of right, but granted under this clause which gave the commission discretion ; between one-third and one-half were granted under the discretionary

clause. I consider it an escape clause for the department of pensions from obligations which should be undertaken by them.
The fourth fundamental weakness in this bill is that it leaves the door open for appointments to the staff of the department on a patronage basis. That is found in section 7, subsection 1, paragraph (c).


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I announced yesterday that that was to be amended.


Howard Charles Green: It may be amended, but will it be amended to remove the possibility of these appointments being made on a patronage basis?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Absolutely.


Howard Charles Green: Then we shall see when we check the new amendment as it is brought down.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was announced yesterday.


Howard Charles Green: As the bill now reads, this provision is another blow at the merit system in the civil service of Canada, a blow in the case of a new and important department which will have many employees, which will face frightfully difficult problems, a department which we hope will be staffed by young Canadians, men of high ideals, men who are willing to sacrifice, their lives for the country.
In connection with this fourth weakness in the bill may I suggest to the minister, as several other members have suggested this afternoon, that young men of the present war should be appointed to responsible posts in the new department. I think they should be given some of the executive posts, and some of them should be made members of the Canadian pension commission. Perhaps we old soldiers are good enough to deal with the problems of the men of the last war, but I think something more will have to be provided to meet the problems of the men of the present war. I strongly recommend to the minister that he see to it that many of these young men are included in the staff of the new department. Provision has been made by the civil service commission for the calling for applications from men overseas for government appointments. I think they should be used particularly in the case of this department.
Those are the weaknesses that I see in the bill and the suggestions that I have to remedy them. In closing, I would point out to hon. members that the re-settling of our men from the forces is a very broad and difficult problem. The possibilities for good or ill to Canada in

Alcoholic Beverages
connection with the work of this department are almost boundless. I believe that one of our main responsibilities as a parliament is to see to it that these young men get a proper start upon their return to civil life. I believe, further, that the future of this nation will shortly be in the hands of these young men and women from our forces.


Mr. SHAW:: Mr. Speaker, there is not the slightest possibility that I shall be able to conclude my remarks this evening. That fact, together with the tremendous strain under which both the government and the official opposition must be labouring this evening, justifies me in asking- you to call it eleven o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Shaw the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre) the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Friday, June 16, 1944