1946-08-01

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Prime Minister): The house may wish to be informed that the second regular session of the conference of the food and agriculture organization will open on Monday the 2nd of September, 1946, in Copenhagen.
The Canadian delegation to the conference .vill be headed by the Minister of Agriculture, vho led the Canadian delegation at the meetings of the food and agriculture organization held at Quebec and Washington. In addition, the delegation will consist of the following:
Doctor G. S. H. Barton, Deputy Minister of Agriculture (alternate chairman of the delegation).
Mr. J. D. Kearney, the Canadian Minister to Norway and Denmark.
Mr. D. Roy Cameron, Dominion Forester.
Doctor E. S. Archibald, Director of Dominion Experimental Farms.
Doctor J. F. Booth, Department of Agriculture.
Doctor L. B. Pett, Department of National Health and Welfare.
Mr. J. B. Rutherford, Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
Doctor A. W. H. Needier, Department of Fisheries.
Mr. A. Gosselin, Department of Agriculture.
Mr. H. H. Hannam, Secretary, Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
Mr. Clive Planta, Secretary-Manager of the Fisheries Council of Canada.
Colonel J. G. Robertson, Canadian Agricultural Commissioner in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Douglas Roe, Commercial Secretary for Canada (timber specialist).
Mr. J. H. Tremblay, Commercial Secretary (Agriculture).
Doctor W. C. Hopper, Department of Agriculture, secretary to the delegation.

The special meeting on urgent food problems held in Washington last May recommended that the director general of the food and agriculture organization undertake certain studies and investigations and submit his findings and proposals to the next conference of the food and agriculture organization. It also recommended that any conclusions of the conference concerning the establishment of new organizations or procedures designed to meet long-term problems in the production, distribution and consumption of food be referred to the united nations. The conference is, accordingly, being held at an early enough date to enable its conclusions to be reported to the next session of the general assembly of the united nations.


Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement in connection with the new postage stamps to be issued on September 16.
Our present pictorial postage stamps, which were first issued in 1942 and 1943 to depict the war effort of the Canadian people, are to be replaced by new designs in keeping with the turn from wartime pursuits to ways of peace.
No change will be made for the present in the 1-cent, 2-cent, 3-eent, 4-eent and 5-cent postage stamps which bear portraits of His Majesty the King.
On Monday September 16 of this year a new series of pictorial postage stamps will be issued illustrating the basic industries and raw materials of Canada, which are of such tremendous importance to the future of our country and the world. The new series of postage stamps will be of the following denominations and subjects:
8-cents, brown-Eastern Canadian farm scene, Ontario.
10-cents, olive-green-Great Bear lake, showing scene of first pitchblende discoveries.
14-cents, dark brown-Hydro-electric power station on Saint Maurice river, Quebec.
20-cents, carbon-blue-Combined reaper and harvester, prairie provices.
50-cents, green-Lumbering operations in British Columbia.
$1, purple-New train-ferry, with fishing-boat, Prince Edward Island.
7-cents air mail, blue-Canada geese in flight near Sudbury, Ontario.
17-cents air mail and special delivery, violet blue-Transatlantic mail plane over Quebec City.
10-cents special delivery, green-The arms of Canada, with laurel and olive branches symbolic of victory and peace.

Questions



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. BENTLEY:: 1.	What is the total, in dollar value, of Canadian goods shipped to Spain since May 8, 1945?
2.	What amounts, in dollar value, of these goods were: (1) food, (a) raw; (b) processed; (2) textiles, (a) raw; (b) manufactured; (3) metals, (a) raw; (b) ingots; (c) manufactured ?
3.	What are the amounts, in dollar value,
and classes of goods imported into Canada from Spain since May 8, 1945:	(1) directly from
Spain; (2) which had their origin in Spain?


Mr. MacKINNON:: Note.-Figures quoted in 1 and 2 are for the period from May 1, 1,945, to June 30, 1946 (Not available from May 8, 1945).
1.	$672,571
2.	(1) (a) nil.
(1)	(b) nil.
(2)	(a) nil.
(2)	(b) nil.
(3)	(a) nil.
(3) (b) $585,545 (aluminum).
(3) (c) nil.
3.	Note.-Figures are for the period May 1, 1945, to May 31, 1946.
(1) Total imports-$5,696,193.
Principal commodities imported.-
Olives in brine	$1,258,127
Nuts	 2,435,595
Pickles	 11,457
Olive oil	 33,235
Spices	 39,857
Liquorice	 6,279
Brandy	 34,058
Wines	 647,099
Essential oils	 4,490
Crude drugs	 37,661
Vegetable flavourings	 14yl47
Fish	 27,540
Gut and manufactures	 6,961
Corks	 68,008
Cork slabs and boards ....	504,642
Cork manufactures	 4,269
Wood manufactures	 9,637
Mercury	 11,762
Salt	 3,250
Tartaric acid	 3601261
Cream of tartar	 42,218
Sportsmen's fishing tackle..	4,060
Packages	 15,038
Jewellery	 8,347
Precious stones	 69,307
' 2) Information not available.


*T.C.A.  AIR TRANSPORT &quot;NORTH STAR&quot;
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	What was the total cost to the T.CA. for the purchase of the new air transport "North Star"?
2. Was the total cost price paid to the Canadair Ltd.?
3.	If not, to what other firms, or individuals, were moneys paid?
4. What was the total cost of parts and equipment imported into Canada for the building of this air transport?
5.	Was the ship built by tender, contract price or by cost-plus price?


Mr. HOWE:: Perhaps I can answer this question verbally.
The answer to the first question is that Trans-Canada Air Lines has not purchased this aircraft. It. is being built in a government-owned plant for government account. After the average cost of the first twenty planes has been determined', the plane will be sold to Trans-Canada Air Lines accordingly.
As to the second question, the plant is a government operation under management of Canadair; the cost has not been determined and therefore not paid.
Question 3, answered by No. 2.
With regard to the fourth question, that can be investigated. It is a very small fraction of the cost of the plane, I may say.
The answer to the fifth question is that it is built in a government-owned plant for government account.


Mr. FRASER:: Mr. Speaker, the question really is not answered, because I have not yet been given the cost of the plane.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have not the cost myself, and it cannot be obtained until it can be averaged over the assembly line. There are other aircraft coming out from week to week and after we are able to average the total cost over, say, twenty aircraft we shall be able to give the house the average cost. The expenditures made to date are not all on one aircraft; they are on a number of them. I believe there are ten or twelve aircraft on the floor at the present time, and the components of a great number of others are included in the over-all cost. The answer can be given in due course, but not in the next few weeks.


PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE-BIG POWERS AND SMALL NATIONS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Who made a distinction between big powers and small nations, and when and for what particular consideration was such distinction made?
2.	'What are, (a) the big powers; (b) the small nations?
Questions

3.	Who leads the small nations at the Paris Peace conference, and in virtue of what authority?
4.	What is the present international status of Canada? Is she, (a) a big power; (b) a middle power, or (c) a small nation, and why?
5.	Was Canada's status changed from that of small nation into that of middle power? If so, when and why?
6.	What is the difference between, (a) a big power and a middle power, and (b) between a middle power and a small nation?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The expressions "big power", "middle power" and "small nation" are not designations recognized in international law. Article 2, paragraph 1, of the charter of the united nations sets forth that "the organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members". Article 23, paragraph 1, of the charter states that "the republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the security council". In article 27, paragraph 3, it is provided that decisions of the security council in other than procedural matters "shall be made by an affirmative vote of seven members, including the concurring votes of the permanent members". Apart from the naming of certain states as permanent members of the security council-a distinction also made in the covenant of the league of nations-and the requirement that for certain purposes under the charter the concurring votes of the named states are necessary, there is no legal distinction between the position of all the members of the united nations.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	How many (a) strikes; (b) lockouts, have occurred in Canada during the year 1946?
2.	In what plants did said strikes and lockouts occur?


Mr. MITCHELL:: Return tabled.



RADIO BROADCASTING


Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	How many radio stations in Canada are owned and operated by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
2.	Where is each located?
3.	How many Canadian radio stations are privately owned and operated?
2. Where is each located?


Mr. McILRAITH:: Return tabled.
fMr. Pouliot.]



ARMY REJECTION OR MEDICAL DISCHARGES AT CAMP BORDEN

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Have any criminal proceedings been taken or are any contemplated in connection with an alleged conspiracy arising out of the improper use of army rejection or medical discharges at Camp Borden since 1943?
2.	(a) Was the matter investigated by the R.C.M.P., and did they recommend prosecution; (b) were any instructions given by the Department of Labour to the R.C.M.P., with regard to the matter of prosecutions? If so, what were those instructions?



ARMED FORCES-TRACTORS-MANITOBA

Mr. JUTRAS:: How many tractors has, (a) the army; (b) the air force at each of their camps and stations in the province of Manitoba that are not being used?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I direct a question, to the Minister of Labour? Can the minister make a statement indicating what progress he has made, since he received the report of the Lett commission, in bringing together the principal parties to the typographical dispute?


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Justice Richards has agreed to endeavour to get the parties together.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Humphrey Mitchell: At present he is in Winnipeg. I should like to say that this is not the first time that an attempt has been made; but I am nevertheless hopeful that some good will come out of it this time.



PRICES AND TRADE BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance. According to a return brought down yesterday, the licence of the Banque Provinciale du Canada for the transaction of business in connection with ration coupons was to end on July 31, namely yesterday, and there was an application for reinstatement on the part of the president of that bank. What decision has been made by the wartime prices and trade board in this matter, and is the permit to be continued?

Pension Act


Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: I cannot give a definite answer to the hon. member as to whether this bank is being reinstated or not, but the door was left open to them; if they would comply with the wartime prices and trade board regulations they would be reinstated. I will give the hon. gentleman a definite answer later on.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, the discontinuance of the right terminated yesterday, and I am just asking whether the bank is continuing to transact business, having complied with the regulations of the wartime prices and trade board.


Mr. ABBOTT:: The parliamentary assistant to the minister said that he would get the information and give it to my hon. friend. I imagine that he intends to give it to him to-morrow.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: After all, this is only the third or fourth hour of the first day after the termination. I will get the information as soon as I possibly can.


John George Diefenbaker: It has gone on for five weeks.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, on a matter of privilege, a Canadian Press dispatch as reported in this morning's Journal states:
Mr. Ross praised the work of Canadian hospitals overseas and said they were responsible for the low rate of casualties in this war He hoped the veterans' hospitals in Canada would have the same type of nurses and doctors that served overseas . . .
Mr. Ross said parliament would have to take up the question of building homes for the older veterans who lived alone and had no one to help them.
I would deem it a great honour to receive credit at any time for the remarks made by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) on behalf of the veterans, but, with all due deference, these remarks should have been credited to the hon. member for Royal. I did not speak on the measure yesterday.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: We accept the explanation.


Mr. BROOKS:: I thank the hon. member for his remarks.



PENSION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, July 31, consideration in committee of bill No. 329, to amend the Pension Act-Mr. Mackenzie-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-"Department".
Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few remarks-


The CHAIRMAN:: The hon. member for Kootenay East.


Mr. MATTHEWS (Kootenay East):: When the committee rose last evening at six o'clock we had been considering section 1 of this pensions bill, and I was speaking of two special cases which to my mind called for adjustment. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs objected to these individual cases being brought on the floor of the house. These men have appealed to me for help. They are not permitted to come on the floor of the house and speak for themselves; they can only speak through their elected representatives. The fact remains that there are many of these special cases that need adjustment in order that justice may be done. I assume, Mr. Chairman, that all these cases have been before medical boards and pension boards and have been thrown out. That does not mean that justice has been done, by any means. Doctors can make mistakes, and they often do. Pension boards also can make mistakes. They have made mistakes in the past, and somtimes action has been taken and those decisions have been reversed. Sometimes I wonder what is behind this refusal to face the facts and to deal justly with these individual cases. Is it a matter of bringing about economy in the department? If it is, I would say that economy is being practised at the wrong end and upon the wrong people. We have a bill before the house now which seeks to raise the salaries of judges. We should forget all about raising the salaries of judges and fix our attention upon these individual cases.


William Ross Macdonald: We are not discussing the salaries of judges, which matter has been discussed in a previous debate during the present session.


James Herbert Matthews: I am merely making reference-


Mr. TUCKER:: Mr. Chairman-

Pension Act


James Herbert Matthews: Excuse me; I have the floor. The hon. gentleman interrupts too many times and-


Walter Adam Tucker: On a question of privilege, the hon. gentleman says-


James Herbert Matthews: I object to the hon. gentleman interrupting. Has he a question to ask?


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Sit down.


James Herbert Matthews: Sit
down yourself.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am sitting down.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I know what I am talking about, which is more than you do.


William Ross Macdonald: A question of privilege can always be brought up.


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. gentleman said that I objected to these matters being brought up on the floor of the house. My objection-


Mr. IRVINE:: That is not a question of privilege.


Walter Adam Tucker: What I said is being misquoted or has been misunderstood. I urged the hon. gentleman not to bring up these individual cases when we were considering this bill. I would be the last one to suggest that anything that comes within the jurisdiction of this parliament should not be aired on the floor of the house. However, I suggest that the place to do this is when the estimates of the department having to do with the pensions commission are before the committee. If we are to interrupt the consideration of this bill to hear one side of individual cases, in fairness to the department I must take the time to go into the reasons for the decisions and explain them to the satisfaction of the committee. I did urge the hon. member yesterday not to press these individual cases on the consideration of this bill, and I ask him now to defer bringing them up until the estimates of the pensions commission are before the committee.


James Herbert Matthews: If the ion. member had listened to me just for a moment or two longer he would have found that all of his speech was quite unnecessary.
I do not think for one moment that the difficulty lies with the Minister of Veterans Affairs, because I believe he has a heart almost as big as himself. I have always found him to be most fair in dealing with anything of this kind. However, if there is departmental red tape I maintain that some of that red tape ought to be cut so that these individual cases

may be dealt with in the way that the people in Canada would have them dealt with. I believe that the hearts of the people of Canada are sound as far as the treatment of veterans is concerned. I urge a rehearing of these cases.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This matter was taken up by the hon. member for Vancouver East in 1943. I have all the correspondence, and I shall be glad to give it to my hon. friend for his consideration and attention.


Jean-François Pouliot: As you know, when the house is in committee no member adjourns the debate because there is no debate; it is just discussion. I rose first, but as a matter of courtesy I let the hon. member have the floor so that he would not be deprived of the opportunity of continuing his speech. I could have kept the floor, but life is short and we should adopt a conciliatory mood in discussing this bill.
As I understand the purpose of the Pension Act, it is to give an opportunity to members of the armed forces who have suffered disability to obtain compensation for that disability in order that they may be placed in the same position as that in which they would have been had they not joined the army. It is simply a matter of equalizing things as much as possible. I ask the minister or his assistant or the former minister to correct me in what I am about to say if I make some statement that is wrong. I consider this matter so serious that we should take the utmost care in dealing with it. But first I should like to refer to a report of the Canadian Press which appears in the papers to-day. This is an excellent report, but I spoke quite fast yesterday and one statement has been misunderstood.
Murder case No. 5 which I gave yesterday to the parliamentary assistant to the minister refers to a boy who came from my county. I have in my mind another file which was transcribed in longhand by the parents of a boy whose number was B-621503 and who came from Toronto. He suffered cruel treatment at the hands of the army medical corps in the maritime provinces. This is another murder case. I believe that in each of these cases the parents are entitled to compensation. No matter what compensation they receive it would not compensate for the loss they have suffered.
I sent this to the Department of Veterans Affairs. After these files have been returned to me by the heads of the Department of Veterans Affairs I intend to send them to the Department of National Defence so that there may be sanctions imposed against those who are not doing their duty as medical men.

Pension Act
What is the use of complaining? When we complain of unjust treatment we are replied to by precisely those who are guilty, and naturally we are confounded. They lie like Ananias, but what they say is taken as gospel. All they do is try to save their own skins. Of course there are able men in the army. While I was fighting the cases of men who were suffering from disabilities I received a letter from a gentleman in Toronto who told me that his brother-in-law was one of the army doctors and that he was a reputable physician and surgeon. I sent him a copy of Hansard which contained my remarks, which were based not upon abstractions but upon facts, and asked him if he had anything to say please to tell me and I would be ready to correct anj-thing that was not according to the facts that I might have stated in the house. I never received a reply.
The dean of the faculty of medicine of Laval university in Quebec wrote to me and said that I had been unfair to some men in the army. I admit at once that some of those who were in the Quebec district were fair.


Walter Adam Tucker: On a point of order, I w-ould ask my very dear friend from Temiscouata if he would not permit this pension bill to go through, and take up this grievance, which has to do with something which happened to a man under the jurisdiction of the Department of National Defence, with that department. As to the matter of the mother of this man getting a pension, I am informed that at any time sihe is in necessitous circumstances or needs a pension she is eligible to get it. The matter is still under consideration from that point of view. I must repeat the plea which I made to the hon. member for Kootenay East, that this legislation be permitted to go forward on its merits and any grievance be brought up when the estimates of the respective departments are under discussion. I can only ask my hon. friend to do that, I have no right to insist on it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Surely. I will tell you, sir, that the kind feeling which the hon. member for Rosthern has for my humble self is most warmly reciprocated, and he knows it. But I am not dealing with a particular case, because I shall mention all the facts. Incidentally I mention one case because I want to establish some principles for the guidance of those who will have to interpret the act. The question is not to railroad this matter through but to see that the act is rightly interpreted by those in charge after it is passed by the House of Commons. If I made a sacrifice to come from my beautiful part of the country,
particularly at this time of the year, I mean to do something; I mean to perform a task; I mean to accomplish a duty, and this I shall do to the best of my ability for the sake of all the men who belong to the Canadian army or real Canadians who were in one of the allied armies-and I hope that this measure will not be a disguised form of mass immigration. It may be that because of the delay between the end of the war and the establishment of domicile in Canada all the troublemakers, the Arabs and the Jews of Palestine, will be permitted to come and settle in Canada and get the same treatment as a truly red-blooded Canadian who has been in the armed forces. To this I object very strongly. But not only that, sir; I want the men of the first great war who have not been dealt fairly with until now and the boys who have been in the army in the second great war, to receive fair treatment and better treatment than most of the boys have received up to now.
Sir, you know very well that it was taken for granted by many medical officers that the boys who complained of some unfitness or disability were complaining because they were slackers, because they were afraid to fight, because they were lazy fellows, because they did not want to drill, and so forth. Consequently they were not given the attention they deserved. It was the same thing when as a lad of ten or twelve I was a boarder at a college. We had a doctor, and every time somebody was suffering from some ailment, a common cold or anything of the kind, he was given the same drug, which was inoffensive. It was good for all, because the children in college were young; they were supposed to be well, and there was nothing wrong with them. When they cut their fingers they received the same treatment as they did when they had a cold.


Mr. MacNIGOL:: Was it castor oil?


Jean-François Pouliot: No, it was something which looked very much like HoO-plain water. The Pension Act must be interpreted in a different spirit from what it has been up to now by a large number of the officials of the department.
As I said yesterday, I am ready to give the benefit of the doubt to these gentlemen. I am ready to cooperate with them. To my knowledge Brigadier Melville has done very well in some cases, although he is somewhat handicapped by the large burden he has to carry as head of the pension commission. I say to Mr. Woods, the deputy minister, that I am ready to cooperate with him. I consider that his appointment is a progressive step over the maintenance of his predecessor in office.
Pension Act

The pensions question is a big question. If things have to be equalized they have to be equalized in all fairness and in all justice to all. Because Mr. So-and-so has applied for a pension it does not follow that he should get it while the other fellow who is just as worthy of a pension cannot get it. On the other hand, if Mr. So-and-so is not entitled to his pension he should not get it any more than the other fellow who does not deserve it and does not get it. The minister will agree with me in that. It is simple; it is obvious; it is elementary. What I regret is that we have to preach in the house things which are simple, elementary and basic just because of the atmosphere here. When it is impossible to discuss any question on its merits we have, to discuss it from a sentimental point of view. The minister, his assistant, and all my colleagues know full well that I am always ready to help and cooperate with them in promoting the welfare of the men who have been or are still in the army. I will not mention the details of this case, but I will tell you, sir, when a Victoria Cross winner from far distant British Columbia passes over the head of all the legion to send an S.O.S. to the member for Temiscouata, when one of the great heroes of the last war does that, and when the parents of a child who has been murdered by the medical corps, both father and mother, take the trouble to transcribe the file 'by hand and send it to the member for Temiscouata, I feel just as much honoured as if my breast were covered with all the medals of the commander in chief of the allied armies. If those people do that it is because they believe that there is a man who lives far away from them, whom they have never met, who is ready to fight their case against anyone. In this instance I hope that I shall not fight their case against anyone, that I will fight their case with everybody and finally obtain success, and I hope it will not take too long.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I say to the hon. member that his experience is the experience of practically every hon. member in the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know that.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We have all received letters.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know that, but I appreciate the fact that I have been singled out by these people. They have written to me, although they have never met me. I do not say that in a boastful spirit, but I say it because I have done my very best. Perhaps it is the only reward I shall get, but I appreciate it the more for that. I give credit'to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and to his parliamentary assistant, as I did yesterday. When-

ever I spoke to them they gave me the attention that the cases deserved. That was most appreciated; and it is precisely because I have confidence in them that I again appeal to them to see to it that all wrongs are redressed and that justice is done those who have suffered so much. Here is the file. I told the parliamentary assistant I would not mention the facts, and I have kept my word; but I have enough confidence in them to give them my private files. I have nothing to hide; it is my public duty. Other hon. members are in the same position; I am sure they also have to take up cases which have been sent to them by Canadians whom they have never met, and because that has been their experience I appeal to them to help me in my struggle for these poor men and women who suffered so much anxiety during the war, while their loved ones were in the fighting lines.
That having been said, I have a great sorrow in my heart because of the fact that the young men have been told most dangerous things. They were told that a million jobs were ready for them; that when they came back jobs would be waiting. It was not true. Probably it was said in good faith, and again I give the benefit of the doubt to those who said it; but it is precisely because that statement about a million jobs being available to the young men who were to come from the army after the war was not exact that the Pension Act should be interpreted very liberally with regard to them. What often happens? The boys are told that the disabilities from which they suffer existed before they joined the colours. If that is true, how is it that in most cases they were graded A, as perfectly fit? Later they were told, "Well, it happened before you joined the colours, and you are not entitled to anything." How many times did I have to write the minister just because of the stupidity of those who are the heralds, the champions, of red tape. He helped me to redress these wrongs, but it took a long time; and why should these boys have to suffer in the meantime? The mechanism of the pension department should be on ball-bearings that are well greased, so that action may be taken immediately. Why should a boy wait for months, or for a year or two years, before getting an answer which is in accordance with the facts and which satisfies his mind that he has received justice?
This is the more important at the present time because the boys are being induced to accept false theories; they are given a false picture of public business. It would be a matter of the utmost regret if the boys who fought in the forces for many years, or for any length of time; the boys who joined the

Pension Act
colours, soldiers, airmen, sailors or draftees, lost faith in and respect for our parliamentary institutions. To-day I do not rise only as a member of Liberal faith; I rise as a member * of parliament who wants these and all our institutions to be respected by the young men in order that they may have faith in them; in order that they may realize that when they appeal to parliament, when they appeal to any one of those who occupy high positions in the civil service, they are entitled to fair play and justice, and that they shall not appeal in vain. We have reached a time when the question is not that of maintaining popular confidence in any one of the parties or groups in this country, but of maintaining the faith of the public in our parliamentary institutions, and it is up to us to correct all that is wrong in the mechanism of those institutions. It is most important with regard to the Pension Act and with regard to all the acts concerning those who have been in the armed forces. It is important with regard to every piece of legislation. I remember that during the war I complained many times that we were passing legislation only for taxation; we were passing a lot of it, but principally for that purpose. We are still passing a lot of legislation with regard to taxation, but we also pass a great deal of legislation for other purposes. Yesterday the minister had the grace to indicate to me the amount of expenditure likely to arise out of this legislation. It is a very large amount, but I am not entirely satisfied with his answer, and in due course I will ask him to give the house the total prospective expenditure under each of the measures he has sponsored, so that we may know what is going to be done for the men and what it is going to cost.
There is something else. I was about to speak of this yesterday, but my time was too short. When another government was in power I suggested that all taxes should be earmarked so that a Canadian citizen would know what he pays his taxes for. I wonder if it is not possible to earmark some of the taxes that will go to pay the cost of what is being done for the returned men, so the people will know those taxes are being paid as a tribute to those who served their country well, or to the dependents of those who gave their lives for their country. I may be told that the exchequer is a kind of melting pot, that it is impossible to keep track of the taxation received; but I believe our taxes would be paid by the Canadian people with more satisfaction if they could be earmarked in some way.
In conclusion, sir, I hope the act will be interpreted liberally with regard to real Canadians; those who have been bom in this
country or those born outside this country who made Canada their home long enough before the war to show their sincerity. It is very important. Newcomers who have been in other allied armies should not have the same treatment as Canadians. If we make sacrifices for our own people, we are not ready to make sacrifices for the newcomers who come here to take advantage of the horn of plenty which is supposed to be for the benefit of our own people.
Just a few days ago I met an old gentleman -only relatively old, because his heart is young. He urged me to make an appeal about communism. When I replied to him I was speaking of youth and for youth. I said to him, "Sir, I know your grandson; he is a fine boy. The next time you see him, put to him a question. Ask him if imperialism is the kind of theory that appeals to him. He will surely tell you that this is the policy that has been so dear to the hearts of the former generation, but that those boys have not been impressed by it at all. They were coming here as Canadians at heart, ready to do something for this country, and to make it greater than ever. Ask him to choose between communism and patriotism."
Well, communism is not the first choice; patriotism is the first choice. But how is it that we have to reeducate the Canadian people about what was taken for granted by the generation which preceded us? All hon. members have been at school or at college. Were they ever taught patriotism? I was taught in the family. Of course those of the family are dearest to the hearts of the parents, dearer than friends would be. Friends are dearer than strangers. But those who live within the bounds of the home country should have bonds and ties in common because their interests are common. They should have the same ideals. The boys should understand that when something is done for them it is a preferential treatment that is not given only to sailors, soldiers, and airmen. It is a preferential treatment that is given to Canadian sailors, soldiers, and airmen. They must have first choice. The state must do all it possibly can, in a reasonable way, to help them out and to make them understand that their mission is not to cross the border and try to find a livelihood in the United States, where food is now scarce. They will have a better life in Canada than they would have in the United States, and that must be told to them. They must be told, because they will wear the burden of debt which we have increased to such an extent. They must have confidence in their country-in this country. And they will have it only as patriotism is
Pension Act

preached to them. Then, if they have the same principles and the same feelings as we were taught, they will think of Canada first and will never believe in the theory of communism, which is the negation of the rights of the individual.
When I left that gentleman he said, "Well, that is food for thought. I will ask my grandson about it." I knew what the boy's answer would be, because he was a fine youth, like all the young men who have been in the army. I have faith in him; I have faith in the boys who were in the army, just as I have faith in all the youth of this country. But they will need more courage than ever to surmount the difficulties we have put in their way. We must help them to the utmost, so that they will remain as they are to-day, good Canadian citizens, making life better for the future generation than perhaps we have made it for them.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I wonder if I could have permission to make a quiet, gentle intrusion in the debate for three or four
minutes.


Jean-François Pouliot: You are always gentle.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I greatly appreciate the kindly sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Temiscouata, both in regard to myself and in regard to my brilliant parliamentary assistant. I must say however, as one who now for thirty years has been living closely with this pension problem, and knows much more about it than the hon. member does, that I never heard such demagogic nonsense in the house in that time as that to which I have just listened. Canning once said:
A statesman of the world alone,
A friend of every country but his own.
There is no country in the world has done so much for her fighting soldiers as has this country of Canada. I resent and I repudiate as strongly as I can the assertions of the hon. member for Temiscouata. Look at your estimates. You are a taxpayer, and a soldier is a taxpayer too. There are S690 million this year in the main estimates, and S175 million in the supplementary estimates, making a total of $S65 million. The total cost of rehabilitation is estimated at SI,500 million, and that for a population of a little over 12 million. And yet we get this demagoguery in the House of Commons of Canada!
The heart of parliament is kind; the pulse of parliament beats true. I have sat on every committee since 1919. I have fought the battles of the returned soldier of Canada, and I am still fighting them-now with authority, previously without authority. And I resent and

repudiate silly, stupid animadversion such as we have listened to from the hon. member for Temiscouata.
This parliament will always be generous; this parliament will always be just to the great cause of those who have suffered so in the cause of freedom, the cause of civilization, the cause of Christianity. I say this silly animadversion should be absolutely discarded by members of parliament.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will ask the minister to mention a statement that he finds silly demagoguery. I know that he has reached the boiling point, but I want to know what he finds silly and demagogic. If 'he does not mention it, then I shall believe that he is the one. I would not like to be in the position of having to withdraw the words I have used in regard to him.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Agreed.


Jean-François Pouliot: But when I speak about the danger of communism in youth, I know what I speak of-and every member of the committee except the minister knows what I speak of. It is a danger. I have never denied that the country has done well for the soldiers in terms of money. But the government will not bring to life the boys who died because of the declaration of war by Canada, made by old men.
I will tell the minister what I read in the Monetary Times not long ago in answer to a question which had been put by several returned men regarding conscription. This article, which appeared in the issue for August, 1945, is by L.M.V. of Hamilton, and it states:
I have just returned from four years overseas, fighting for permanent peace. I do not think we should have compulsory military service for Canadians in peace time. And I don't think the opinions of those who are not eligible for same should count. I think we should make the San Francisco agreement and every subsequent agreement work . . . not for the next war, but for the permanent peace for which I returned but many of my friends did not.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Chairman, either I must now rise to a point of order in respect of the remarks of the hon. member for Temiscouata, or we must accept the proposition that every other member of this house can get up and discuss anything and the rules be thrown out of the window. I ask you to call my hon. friend to order, to ask him to keep to this bill and to observe, as every other member must, the rules of the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I will tell you why I quote this, and I have only one more sentence to read.

Pension Act
If the suggestion made by this returned man had been acted upon earlier, the Pension Act would not have been necessary, because we would not have had world war II or world war I. It is precisely because the amount involved in pensions is of such magnitude that we must take every means of preventing in the future another disaster such as world war II was. I do not want a world war III, as I said yesterday, and I am not going to be bullied by anyone here in this house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Neither are we.


Jean-François Pouliot: I should be very sorry to lose the good opinion and esteem I have for the minister and his parliamentary assistant, but this must be a free parliament in a free country, and if a member of parliament has not the right to offer to this committee the suggestions for preventing future wars which have been offered by one of our soldiers who fought for freedom, this is no longer a free parliament. It is precisely because I believe that the greatest treasure of this country is the lives of good Canadian citizens that I have been speaking as I have. Members are most generous in listening to me as they do, and I appreciate that. I hope that the minister himself will understand that it is not because of lack of cooperation that I stand up to-day in this house and speak as I do. I do it as part of my duty as a member, not only as the member for Temiscouata but as a member of the House of Commons of Canada. We have a duty to fulfil and I give credit to all my colleagues and to the minister for doing their best. But if the parliamentary assistant had not interrupted me I would have finished the quotation and my remarks long ago. It is precisely because he interrupted me that I have to explain to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the committee why it is of the utmost importance that I should be allowed to finish reading these few lines from a returned man who is not a member of the House of Commons but who nevertheless has a right to be heard and be listened to by all the members. I await your decision, Mr. Chairman.


William Ross Macdonald: I think the hon. member for Temiscouata should be allowed to finish reading the few lines he desires to read, and then may I ask all hon. members to confine their remarks to the Pension Act. Discussion should be directly relevant to the measure now before us. Wide scope has been given to-day and was given yesterday in this discussion, but I am sure I express the wish of the vast majority of the members of the committee when I request all members, when 63260-262
the hon. member for Temiscouata has finished his remarks, to make their speeches strictly relevant to the Pension Act.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you, sir. I will continue with the quotation:
I suggest every parliament in every country on earth enact legislation that only men over forty can be drafted for service in the armed forces. If we could make that stick, perhaps we could eliminate war from the face of the earth for ever.


Mr. CHURCH:: I do not wish to detain the committee for more than five or six minutes, because I am a civilian, though coming from a soldier city. I should like to observe first of all that we shall be here until Thanksgiving day if we keep on discussing bills the way we are doing, and it was for that reason, in order to expedite the business of the house, that I took no part in yesterday's proceedings, on these resolutions, particularly as we have in this party, as in all the parties in this house, soldier representatives who are particularly well qualified to speak on soldier legislation.
This is the most important bill that we have had before us for many years. First of all it defines "department" and it repeals and amends certain pension legislation passed in 1927 and 1928. Then it goes on in the second clause to redefine "hospital allowances", extending pay and allowances or compensation to a large number of people.
I wish to speak on two matters particularly. The first is the definition of "department". In these days the work of many departments is being transferred to other departments, and I was hoping that we would have a department particularly concerned with soldiers' welfare. I think one of the main needs of the soldier is for a home for his wife and family to live in. Before the war in the city of Toronto sixty-seven per cent of our people owned their homes, but during the war many of our Toronto veterans lost their homes. That is why I should like to see the matter of houses for soldiers transferred to the department which has to do with soldiers' welfare. As I said, nothing concerns the soldier more than a roof over his head for himself and wife and children, and the fact that our soldiers have not houses to live in is costing the government a great deal of money in allowances. We have a large number of soldiers in our city. Also many soldiers from all parts of Canada have come to Toronto and are going to stay there. No city has contributed more than Toronto in the way of soldiers' aid.
I wish to compliment the veterans affairs committee on the good work it has done for the soldier. Tho hon. member for Temiscouata has referred to a great many matters



Pension Act
this morning. He seems to have inherited the spirit and mantle of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He also wears the old school tie. There are few on the government benches who now do wear the same old school tie.
I visit 55 York Street, Toronto, once in a while and I am pleased with a great deal of the work that is done there. We have a large number of soldiers in this party, including two Victoria Cross men. The government party and all the other parties in the house have a large number of soldiers in their ranks, and I have been content this session to leave to them the discussion of matters particularly affecting the soldiers, because I have felt that they were doing a real job.
I want to compliment the members of the veterans affairs committee on the work they have done for the soldiers. I should also like to compliment the hon. member for Vancouver South and the hon. member for Nanaimo and all the other soldiers who have participated in the work of that committee.
I should like to see the department expanded along the lines I have suggested, so>
that it would really be a soldiers' welfare department. The soldier goes to the soldiers' welfare in Toronto at 55 York street; he gets his grant and gratuities and goes and) puts the money in the bank. Several banks, such as the Dominion at the corner of Yonge and. North Park, do a big soldier business. I have talked to some of the soldiers and soldiers' wives who go there, and I find that they pay in this money they have; they also borrow money; the wife has been frugal while her. husband was away, and they go down to the lawyer and deposit money for a house and the title to it. Now they cannot get into the home. I had hoped that the health and wek fare department would consider this feature, but it has not done so, and there is no other department doing it. I see in the Toronto papers almost every week letters from veterans and their families complaining about this feature of the work, and I wish the department had considered it. I referred to this on Tuesday last on the third reading of the housing bill.
The second matter is this. I appeared' before the veterans committee about it. As you know, this new bill deals with a number of antecedent matters:	the work of the military commission, Department of Civil Reestablishment, the Department of Pensions and' National Health, and- matters going back as far as the acts of 1927 and 1928. Now I wish to compliment the minister, and I was going to compliment the parliamentary assistant, because he comes from a district which is affected by a branch of this work which has

not been attended to; I refer to the Northwest field force of 1885. No veteran in the present parliament can afford to forget what the three prairie provinces owe to those who took part in military operations in that rebellion. I appeared before the committee on June 11 on behalf of the dependents of those volunteers, to try to clear the matter up. A year ago provision was made in the regulations, section 4, as follows:
In this part, unless the context requires, "veteran" means (a) any former member of the Northwest field force who served in a theatre of actual war in the northwest rebellion.
The proceedings are reported in minute No. 30 of the veterans affairs committee. We owe this regulation, I believe, very largely to the present Minister of Veterans Affairs. After a long series. of arguments in the house and before the committee the allowances were extended to the Northwest field force, but in effect it has given no help at all. A "means test" is applied to these people. A means test is the meanest test I have ever seen; it is well called a "means" test as it bears upon these poor people, widows and children who would get about $40 a month but are deprived of it because they receive some small revenue from an old age pension or some other source of income. I had hoped that this would be a real clean-up bill of soldier grievances. That is what it should be. I was hoping that we would conclude a long chapter of suffering and injustice in connection with this branch of veterans' legislation.
I wish to speak with appreciation of the work of the members of this group on the committee, and what they have done to extend the scope of the benefits, especially the horn, members for Vancouver South, Souris, Royal, N.B., and Vancouver-Burrard.
I should also like to express my appreciation of the fact that in this War we have had better doctors, surgeons and nurses. I know two or three of them who were at the university of Toronto when the war started; they served overseas and are now in Canada again, some of them in practice in our city. We have there some of the best surgeons in Canada. One, a former captain of the varsity rugby team, Doctor M. F. Williams, is a very fine young surgeon, now with one of America's greatest surgeons, Doctor Roscoe Graham. It is remarkable what progress preventive medicine, science, surgery, and medicine generally have made in this war.
As I have said, I was in hopes that this would be a clean-up bill so far as those are concerned who did' not get a pension, men who enlisted and actually were accepted for

Pension Act
service after medical tests before one, two, three, four, five boards, who did not find anything the matter with them on enlistment. I agree that subsequent disability should entitle them to pension, and I am sorry the principle has not been adopted. I had hopes of the parliamentary secretary, who was in the chair when I appeared before the committee in 'the interests of the veterans who served in the 1885 rebellion. Very few of these people got anything. There were a large number of them from Nova Scotia, the old Haligonians and numbers from Hamilton, Toronto and other cities in eastern Canada, and some from Winnipeg, the men of the old 90th Rifles. These men pioneered for the whole of western Canada, and were pioneers of the militia too. Some of them served in the South African war, and their children and grandchildren took part in the two great world wars. Realizing the good work which this department has done, and seeing the plight of these people in my walks around my city, I feel it is a great pity that now a clean-up is being made it does not include them under the first section.
That, is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman. I believe the committee as a whole deserves the thanks of the House of Commons for the zeal and diligence and study they have devoted to this question, which is the supreme question in its sacred significance with which we shall have to deal in this or any other parliament.


Mr. HLYNKA:: I should like to inquire of the parliamentary assistant, not about an individual case, though I desire to illustrate the point I have in mind by mentioning a particular case. I wish to find out what can be done for widows and children of soldiers who were released temporarily to go into mining and who, while engaged in that occupation, were killed in consequence of an explosion. The particular case which was drawn to my attention does not come from my constituency, but this man has written to me stating that he had two sons, and both enlisted, one in the air force and the other in the army. The boy in the air force was killed while serving overseas. The other son was stationed at Halifax for about eighteen months, was married, and had one son. This young soldier was released temporarily by the Department of National Defence to assist in mining when that industry needed help. While he was engaged in this work at Luscar, Alberta, there was an explosion in the mine and he was killed. The father writes and tells me that he not only lost two sons but he has to support the widow of one son and also her 83260-2621
child. Can anything be done to cover such unfortunate cases as the one to which I refer? It appears to me hardly fair for a father to lose two sons and then have to support the widow and her children as well.


Walter Adam Tucker: The answer is that if the man was ordered out as part of his military duty he is covered just the same as if he went on any other military duty. But if he got leave of absence without pay he is not covered for anything that happened to him, because the presumption is that he engaged as an ordinary civilian in the occupation and would have the protection which any other civilian has. Several thousand soldiers were let out on leave of absence without pay in order to engage in farm work and so on. They were doing work which had no more to do with the army than that of a great many civilians who never enlisted in the army at all and who were working alongside of them. If they asked for leave to work on the farm and got leave of absence without pay of course they are not covered. It would depend on the circumstances. If this man was ordered to go there as part of his duty he would be covered ; if he got leave of absence without pay presumably he would be covered in some cases at least by the proper civilian workmen's compensation act.


Anthony Hlynka: The information I have is that the Department of National Defence directed this young man to go and assist in the mining industry. I appreciate what the parliamentary assistant has said, and I agree that when a man goes back into agriculture you cannot undertake to take care of his dependents under the army regulations. This may be a borderline case, but it seems to me that when a man is ordered by the Department of National Defence to assist in some industry, just because his family does not get dependents' allowances and he does not get his pay he should not be disqualified. I hope that the parliamentary assistant will do all he can to see that proper consideration is given to cases of this kind.


Mr. BRYCE:: Does this bill provide benefits for a widow with an adopted son that are different from those in the previous act?


Walter Adam Tucker: There is no change in that regard. An adopted child has always been covered.


William Scottie Bryce: I had a case which I brought before the department and it was ruled out.


Walter Adam Tucker: Section 2 (c) defines "child" as a legitimate child of a member of the forces, whether such child is born before or
Pension Act

after the award of pension, and also includes his step-child, his adopted child, his foster child, or his illegitimate child.


William Scottie Bryce: I refer to a boy who was adopted when he was nine or ten years old by a veteran just after he came back from the last war.


Walter Adam Tucker: That child would be covered by that definition. I suggest the hon. member resubmit his case for consideration.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: The proof of government policy is in the way it works out, and there are instances in which this act is not working. I may be referring to a part of the act which is most difficult to administer, but just two days ago my attention was drawn to an instance in which suffering and perhaps harm is being done. This particular young man passed his test A-l. He was sent to England, where he took his inoculations. Following his first inoculation he did not feel very well, but he continued his training. He broke down under intensive training in Great Britain, and suffered from shock. He was sent back to Canada in 1944, and the parents were notified that he would be discharged. He did not arrive home, and the parents finally received word from the department that he was being sent to Ste. Anne de Bellevue for treatment for nervous trouble. In May, 1944, the boy came home, but he was accompanied by an escort. Apparently he was a mild psychopathic case, but since that time he has proved absolutely useless on the farm. He is unable to do any work or to assume any responsibility. Before he enlisted he was a fine, strapping young man who was able to do his work and assume any responsibility, but for two years he has been wholly incapacitated. He lost his father, and the mother and another brother are trying to carry on. In spite of the applications and efforts made by the legion and other people in the area, the only report they can get from the department is, "nervous disorders, preenlistment origin, not aggravated by war service, and not pensionable." How do the officials of the department determine that such a case was of preenlistment origin? This boy passed into the army as A-l, and there is nothing on his record. How do they determine that? Do they question him?


Walter Adam Tucker: I should be very curious to know whether they 'have exhausted all the rights under the Pension Act. There seems to be great misunderstanding about the way these things are dealt with. When the first application is made the pension commission goes over the documents and the ruling is made on the

basis of the documents. When that is done, in some cases people immediately consider that the decision is outrageous because they know all the circumstances. All that needs to be done then is to ask that the case be considered by the commission. Then the family doctor can be called or any other evidence. A hearing is set quite readily. It must be admitted that some people try to create the impression that they can get a pension for somebody when nobody else can. There is then a feeling created that you have to put up a big fight in order to get what is coming to you. I assure the committee that if there is any evidence in connection with any of these cases that does not appear in the documents, it can be submitted to the commission. We are giving in this bill more complete recognition to the independent standing of the pensions advocates branch, the veterans' bureau, so that they may feel freer than ever before to fight for the soldier and see that he gets everything he is entitled to before the commission. I should like to know if the case mentioned by the hon. member for Yorkton has reached a point where vive voce evidence has been taken. That would be most important in a case of the kind. Evidence of the family doctor, if they had one, could be given as to his condition before he went into the army. The medical history is examined into most carefully. Neighbours could be heard, or any evidence at all that would show his condition when he went into the army. Suppose he had some sort of nervous trouble and had served in a theatre of actual war where his trouble was aggravated. He would get entitlement for the disability, unless he was covered by one of the three exceptions: first, unless he wilfully concealed it, which would not be the case here; second, unless it was obvious, which would not be the case here, I take it from what the hon. member has said; and, third, unless it was recorded on medical examination prior to enlistment.
I take it from what the hon. member says that this boy entered the army in good health and therefore he would not come under any one of the three exceptions. Even if he had been somewhat emotionally unstable at that time, if that condition was aggravated during service he would be entitled to full pension for his disability. I can only assume that the case cited by the hon. member has not reached the final stage, and I suggest that he take the matter up with the pension commission.


George Hugh Castleden: I shall be _ glad to resulbmit the case. I did not submit it myself ; it was submitted by the legion. I advised them to do that, but the legion has not been able to get anywhere with it. I shall resubmit it and take it up with the department.

Pension Act
The parliamentary assistant has not answered my question. How would the department determine that that case was of preenlistment origin? Is it based merely on questioning of the soldier?


Walter Adam Tucker: On the actual documentation which is on the file. The first decision is based upon the medical examinations and documentation on the file. The commission rules on that in the first instance. If that is not satisfactory, the man so indicates, and the matter is gone into further. It may very well be that the matter has not got to the stage where evidence has been heard from his family doctor, friends, and so on.


Mr. GREEN:: Is it not a fact that often the decision is made here by a specialist who never sees the man?


Walter Adam Tucker: He advises the commission, but the commission makes the decision.


George Hugh Castleden: I had another case of a soldier who was wounded overseas.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. May I remind the hon. member for Yorkton that the committee agreed not to bring up special cases except to bring forth a general discussion.


George Hugh Castleden: That is what I am trying to do. I am not building these cases out of the air. I have actual evidence of occurrences. I am not going to put any case on the record, but I know of a soldier who was wounded; the ligaments of his leg were tom and he was granted a ten per cent pension. The boy's condition grew worse; he was in constant pain and therefore could do practically no work. At times he was laid up completely; all he could do was to help his father on the farm. The department were asked if they could do something about it, and they asked that he be sent in for another examination. He was sent in for another examination and he came back. After I wrote the minister about it the pension was increased to fifteen per cent, which gives him. about $10 a month. The boy still wanted to get evidence with regard to his actual disability.. As a result of the disability he was in a cramped up condition and seemed to be getting no relief at all. His capacity for work was cut down to nothing. He and his father went to the family doctor. After the examination the father said: "I should like to have a report from you as to the actual disability of my son." The doctor refused to give him a report. He said: "I won't give you a report;-I will send it in to the office in Saskatoon." What is a young man to do when a doctor refuses to give him a report?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A private doctor?


George Hugh Castleden: Yes.


Walter Adam Tucker: The only answer I can give is that he should go to another doctor who would cooperate with him.


George Hugh Castleden: He will be put to a great deal of expense to go to doctors here and there.


Walter Adam Tucker: After all, the doctor owed him an obligation if he examined him.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Ethically the doctor could not do it.


Walter Adam Tucker: There is nothing in the act to prevent a doctor from telling a soldier what is his condition. In addition to that he could have the doctor brought before the appeal branch of the commission to give evidence as to the examination.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Would not the doctor's report on his file be available to the soldier or to the legion?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: At any time?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: H the doctor to whom the hon. gentleman has referred was one who had any previous dealings with the department, would it encourage him to side in with the department instead of the soldier?


George Hugh Castleden: I think he had been used in the department as a consultant.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member's friend would not have much of a chance, then.


George Hugh Castleden: He is in a difficult situation because this is the medical man in the area. It seemed to me that in justice the men should have the opinion of medical men outside of those employed or used by the government.


Walter Adam Tucker: On that point, and just for the information of the committee, may I say that on the suggestion of the hon. member for Davenport that the medical men employed by the department are all against the men getting a fair deal-


John Ritchie MacNicol: What did the hon. member say?


Walter Adam Tucker: I understood the hon.
member to say that this gentleman would not have much of a chance if the doctor was in some way connected with the department. I suggest to the hon. member for Davenport that all the doctors working for the department are themselves returned soldiers. I
Pension Act

suggest that without exception the department has no knowledge that they are not sympathetic toward the returned soldiers in seeing that they get a square deal. This will be borne out by some figures which I should like to give to the committee. I give them partly because there is a feeling that these cases are not dealt with as expeditiously as some hon. members would like. The amount of work the pension commission has done in the last year has been stupendous. As of June 30. 1946, the disability awards in respect of world war II Were 44,199. That is disability awards alone. The dependent awards were 17.125, or total awards made by this commission in respect to world war II alone of 61.324. That means perusing the files, and all that sort of thing. It is a tremendous amount of work. Then when we brought the insurance principle into effect by order in council it meant reviewing thousands of files to give them the benefit of the act. Over 9,700 files had to be reviewed'. Over nine thousand decisions were rendered in respect of restoration of the insurance principle alone. The total annual liability in respect of world war II is as follows: Disability awards, $13,250,190; dependent awards, $12,158,565. The total pension annual liability now amounts to $25,408,755. That is for world war II. Here are the figures for world war I at the same date: Disability awards, 73.079. with a total annual liability of $26,429,474? dependent awards amounted to 16,894, and the annual liability amounts to $10,560,562.


Howard Charles Green: That is this year?


Walter Adam Tucker: That is up to June 30, 1046.


Howard Charles Green: The annual liability for which year?


Walter Adam Tucker: The total annual liability as of June 30. 1946 was $25,408,755 in respect of world war II and $36,990,036 in respect of world war I. The total annual liability in respect of pensions for the two wars is therefore $62,300,000. The total pensioners for the two wars may be obtained by adding 61,324 to 88,973. a figure somewhere around 150,000 pension awards. I give these figures to the committee so that they may take into account some delays which have inevitably taken place. Hon. members can appreciate the tremendous amount of work which must have been involved in making these awards.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I would not want any remark of mine to be regarded as a reflection on the medical profession. My remark was not based on any experience I have had with world war II. I had in mind three cases in
[Mr. Tucker.)
connection with world war I in which the soldiers themselves told me that when they went to a doctor for, an examination he gave them one report in each case, and later when they were sent by the officials of the hospital in Toronto to the same doctor, he gave them a different report.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have changed all that.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am glad to hear that. I should be sorry indeed if what I interjected in the hon. member's remarks should be construed as a reflection on the medical profession. My remark was based on the three experiences-a limited number perhaps-of soldiers who themselves had felt that their cases had been prejudiced through having to go to the doctor the second time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not now.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Personally I can say my own experience with the department has been very pleasant, and I have no complaint whatever with regard to the departmental officials. Later, when the right time comes, I am going to submit one or two cases to which the department has given a great deal of attention. I am very sympathetic toward the department, but I am also sympathetic toward these poor sufferers who, in their opinion in any event, are not being properly treated. Personally I should like to see the benefit of the doubt clause used much more than it has been used.


Mrs. STRUM:: I should like to ask the minister where the final decision rests. Is it with the board; and what recourse does the family of the victim have? I am thinking of a case which has been thrust upon me for the simple reason that the family cannot afford legal assistance, and the boy in question is completely mentally incompetent; he no longer answers when he is spoken to, and his mental condition is such that he is quite beyond the reach of reason. I am not having any satisfaction in dealing with his case. I have written the department a number of times and received very courteous answers. The local doctor is new, a young man who has come there within the last year or so. He is also very sympathetic, but he did not know this boy at the time of his enlistment. The boy has been out of the army for two or three years. He is a victim of sleeping sickness contracted while in the army. His disability is not the result of military service, yet he contracted this illness while in training, and just on the point of embarkation. I should

Pension Act
like to know where the boy goes from here, because he is mentally incompetent and has no means of support whatever.


Walter Adam Tucker: In the first place, if this disability was incurred during service it probably would be covered by the insurance principle which has been reintroduced in the act in respect of service in Canada, so he may find himself in a very different position now from that in which he would have found himself three months ago before this insurance principle was embodied in the law by order in council. In regard to looking after the claims of soldiers, in the first place the Canadian Legion is ready and willing to take up these cases. In addition, of course, there is the veterans' bureau, an organization of men trained in this work, most of whom do nothing else but present these cases and assist in their preparation. They will assist the boy and his relatives to get evidence, and I suggest that the hon. member direct this boy's relatives to the nearest district pensions advocate of the department. If she has any difficulty finding out where that advocate is located, any person in our department could give her the address. There she will find someone who is paid by the country to press the cases of boys like this.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: I think it has already gone through that procedure, but what happens when nothing is done? What do you do then?


Walter Adam Tucker: Well, my hon. friend is very pessimistic.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: I have been working on it since February.


Walter Adam Tucker: I suggest to my hon. friend that the law has been changed. I think the order in council went through late in June, and that change may make all the difference in the case she mentions. If she will give the case to the chairman of the pension commission I fancy she may cease to be quite so pessimistic about some of these matters.


Mr. LENNARD:: Personally I have about twenty-five cases pending at the present time, but I do not propose to parade them all here now. I shall fight them out with the heads of the various branches within the department. If we are going to carry on in this way, bringing up individual cases hour after hour, we are going to be here until Christmas.


William Ross Macdonald: I think it has been agreed in the committee that no individual cases shall be brought up except to establish a general principle, and I think the cases hon. members have mentioned have been brought up in order to see what the principle is.


George Hugh Castleden: I think that is very fair, but I do not want it to become a rule of this committee that individual cases are out.


William Ross Macdonald: I might inform the hon. member that it is not a rule, but the committee agreed on that procedure, as I understand it.


George Hugh Castleden: Well, you do not bind individual members in that way, or take away their rights to bring up cases. Let us fight it out on that principle. I do not want to bring up individual cases; my intention is to bring up cases to point out instances where the procedure may have failed, so let us try to get the thing done without recriminations and without getting nasty about it. I think a great deal of the difficulty is that in psychopathic cases among returned men the relatives of the men in question do not understand the avenues of procedure, and are at a complete loss to know what they should do. If they were informed as to the procedure which should be followed; if they were given a little more knowledge and a little more information with regard to the steps to be taken, and the location of the offices in the various provinces, I believe it would assist a great deal.
Section agred to.
On section 2-Hospital allowance.


Mr. ICIDD:: I should like to say a word in regard to these hospital allowances, and I am glad the minister is in his seat. I want to refer briefly to the hospital set-up, and to express the hope that the good feeling now existing between the Department of Veterans Affairs and the general hospitals throughout Canada may continue. I shall take the local point of view and talk about my own municipality of Kingston. There we had five hospitals: the General hospital, the Hotel Dieu hospital, the mental hospital, the D.V.A. hospital and the military hospital. When mental patients are taken in at the D.V.A. hospital, however, they are sent to the mental hospital. In Ontario we have thirteen mental hospitals, one of which is at Kingston. My point is that the government more or less depends on private or other governmental interests to maintain an institution whose doors are open three hundred and sixty-five days in the year; I refer to the mental hospital. I believe that in each of these thirteen hospitals in this province there is an average of over one thousand mentally ill patients. If D.V.A. find it necessary to use the facilities of that insti-
Pension Act

tution, they are always available; and I understand it has been used by the department ever since the last war. I regret to say that in our mental hospitals there are some boys who have been in those institutions for nearly twenty-five years, and who have received fine treatment all that time. I do not think better care is being given mental patients anywhere in Canada than in the thirteen institutions in Ontario.
Then may I say a word in reference to the general hospitals. The same applies there. In Kingston we have a hospital which will accommodate four hundred patients. For the last twenty-five years a large proportion of the staff of this hospital has 'been returned personnel, and the situation is the same with regard to the medical profession. The point I want to bring out is that recently the military hospital was closed and the staff and patients were moved to Barriefield. In the early days, back in 1940, 1944 and 1942, when it was pretty hard to get anything done. I think the department would have been better advised to extend the facilities of the general hospital and use that institution instead of opening its own hospital. It took us two or three years to get the department to realize that they had a service available at their very door. I am glad to say that within the next few days we expect to be opening a new wing, which will accommodate another 125 patients. When that new wing is opened it will probably accommodate a total of 500 patients. In what I have said I have dealt with the matter from the point, of view not only of Kingston, but also of Canada as a whole. In four or five years the public will have something, built by public money. To-day the general hospitals are chiefly private, those receiving endowments. When a person passes away he may leave something as a bequest to these institutions.
I emphasize as strongly as I can my hope that the good feeling which now prevails between the Department of Veterans Affairs and the general hospitals will continue. I believe under such conditions the general hospitals will be only too willing to cooperate.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to refer to the mental institutions about which the hon. member for Kingston has spoken. I believe I pointed out yesterday that I knew there was considerable overcrowding, and that it was unfortunate that we did not have accommodation for all soldier cases. In Neiw Brunswick, soldier cases have been sent to the provincial hospital. I know there has been widespread resentment on the part of some of the families of these men because of the practice

of sending them 'to provincial hospitals, instead of to some other public institutions. I spoke about this matter last year, and the minister told me that he believed other arrangements would be made. Because of having to remain in Ottawa so long I have lost touch with my province and have not had a chance to make a check. Is provision being made in New Brunswick for the mental soldier cases in that province? If so what are those provisions?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Gradual transfer is
being effected across the country from provincial institutions to our own hospitals. After the last war to a great extent the policy was to have the unfortunate mental cases placed in provincial institutions. Now the policy is one of transferring them gradually.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: To what hospitals will the men in the New Brunswick institutions be transferred?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be able to tell the hon. member later to-day.


Mr. McKAY:: Does the Department of Veterans Affairs operate any mental institutions, or are they simply psychopathic wards devoted to mental cases?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As my hon, friend knows, the two largest are at Ste. Anne's and Westminster, the latter being in London, Ontario.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On section 7-Duties of veterans' bureau.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: It was pointed out a few minutes ago that some people in outlying districts did not know to whom to turn to get information. Will the parliamentary assistant place on record a statement showing the number of pensions advocates and their locations, so that all the information will be available?


Walter Adam Tucker: When the first decision is made, full information is given as to where a person can go to get further assistance. The address of the nearest advocate is indicated.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Why not put a list on Hansard showing where these advocates are located, so that the general public will know? People do not want to have to write to Ottawa.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I agree with the hon. member. The publication "Back to Civil Life" has on the back of it the addresses of all pensions advocates. That publication has been sent to all branches of the Canadian Legion and other returned soldier organizations.

Pension Act


Walter Adam Tucker: The complete list is as follows:



DISTRICT PENSIONS ADVOCATES

[Stage Direction]
Charlottetown, P.E.I.
Mr. Norman W. Lowther, M.M.,
Messrs. Stewart & Lowther,
76 Great George Street,
Charlottetown, P.E.I.
Halifax, N.S.
Mr. B. E. Courtney,
Dept, of Veterans Affairs,
Camp Hill Hospital, Halifax, N.S.
Saint John, N.B.
Mr. G. A. Gamblin, M.C.,
Dept, of Veterans Affairs,
65 Prince William Street,
Saint John, N.B.
Quebec, P.Q.
Mr. A. Legendre,
Dept, of Veterans Affairs,
15 Boulevard des Capucins,
Quebec, P.Q.
Montreal, P.Q.
Mr. W. R. Henry, K.C.,
Mr. J. L. Pouliot, K.C.,
Dept, of Veterans Affairs,
©lcl Examining Warehouse,
379 Common Street (cor. McGill),
Montreal, P.Q.
Ottawa, Ont.
Mr. J. A. Maclsaac,
Dept, of Veterans Affairs,
Aylmer Building,
Ottawa, Ont.
Toronto, Ont.
Mr. M. A. Searle,
Pensions Advocate,
Dept, of Veterans Affairs,
55 York Street,
Toronto 1, Ontario.
Hamilton, Ont.
Mr. M. F. Gladman,
Dept, of Veterans Affairs,
6tli Floor, Lister Block,
42 James St. N.,
Hamilton, Ont.
London, Ont.
Mr. P. R. Potter,
Dept, of Veterans Affairs,
Westminster Hospital,
London, Ont.
Fort William, Ont.
Mr. R. Irving,
Legion Memorial Hall,
226 S. May Street,
Fort William, Ont.
Winnipeg, Man.
Mr. A. H. Yetman,
Dept, of Veterans Affairs,
803 Commercial Building,
Notre Dame Ave. E.,
Winnipeg, Man.
Regina, Sask.
Mr. C. A. Scott,
Dept, of Veterans Affairs,
New Regina Trading Company Building,
Scarth Street at 12th Ave.,
Regina, Sask.
Saskatoon, Sask.
Mr. Hugh Aird,
Dept, of Veterans Affairs,
Birks Building,
153 Third Avenue S.,
Saskatoon, Sask.
Calgary, Alta.
Mr. Arthur Wakelyn, M.M., M.S.M.,
Dept, of Veterans Affairs,
217-7th Avenue W.,
Calgary, Alta.
Edmonton, Alta.
Mr. A. E. Dean,
Dept, of Veterans Affairs,
Redwood Building,
14250 Jasper Avenue,
Edmonton, Alta.
Vancouver, B.C.
Mr. W. Drinnan,
Dept, of Veterans Affairs,
Shaughnessy Hospital,
Vancouver, B.C.
Victoria, B.C.
Mr. G. H. Sedger,
Dept, of Veterans Affairs,
Belmont Building,
Victoria, B.C.
Mr. WRIGHT:: Are the pensions advocates capable of coping efficiently with the inquiries they are receiving at the present time, or is there need for expansion of their staff?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I cannot speak for them, but I can speak as to my knowledge of their work. They are hard-working people, not only during the day, but sometimes far into the night. The peak of work will be reached in September, following which it will subside. I should like to pay tribute to the pensions advocates across Canada for the devoted service they have rendered.


Percy Ellis Wright: I agree with what the minister has said, but I was pointing out that perhaps to-day, and for the next few months, they should have some additional assistance.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If additional advocates are required, they will be obtained immediately.


George Hugh Castleden: How are they appointed and paid?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: By the civil service commission.


George Hugh Castleden: Are they employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs?


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes.


George Hugh Castleden: Sometimes a soldier feels that an advocate who is an employee of the government and paid by the government-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was a former advocate, and I can assure my hon. friend that

Pension Act

pensions advocates have absolute and complete independence. They are not bound in the slightest degree by any government restriction or policy.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 8 to 29 inclusive agreed to.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.
On section 30-Benefit of doubt.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, this clause is the one that amends the benefit of doubt section by adding two words "and presumptions." I should like to get some information as to the significance of the addition of these two words-and in referring to a particular case I hope you will understand, Mr. Chairman, that I am doing it for the purpose of getting information. I admit that I am interested in this case and desire to pursue it further, but my main purpose is to ask one specific question.
The case is No. 420676. I have before me a letter, under date of July 4, 1946, signed by Brigadier C. B. Topp, chief pensions advocate, in which he confirms the fact that this veteran gave gallant service during the first world war, was severely wounded in action, was awarded the Military Medal, and that he has been in receipt of a small pension for many years.
Some years after the first world war this veteran developed a heart condition. This was in addition to the condition already recognized as pensionable. The fact that he had received a gunshot wound in the chest led him to believe that his heart condition might be attributable to the wound he had received while on active service. His claim has been pursued on that basis. As a matter of fact, just about all the machinery there is has been exhausted, and now Brigadier Topp says this in his letter of July 4, 1946:
The district advocate, and we at head office of the veterans bureau, feel that a good case for entitlement was made out.
He is referring to the hearing before the appeal board. He goes on to say:
It must he remembered, however, that it is virtually impossible to establish as a fact in such cases that the disorder did or did not arise during service. I
I emphasize the words used by Brigadier Topp, that it is virtually impossible to decide that the disability did arise from service, and equally it is virtually impossible to decide that it did not arise from service. That seems

to be a pretty fair example of a borderline case in which the veteran himself and the veterans bureau and any of the rest of us who are interested in the case feel that the benefit of the doubt should be exercised.
What I should like to know is this. How can this veteran find out whether the benefit of the doubt clause has been broadened by this amendment so that his case might now be given further consideration? Brigadier Topp said in the concluding paragraph of his letter of July 4:
The only means of reopening the claim is by proof of error or production of substantial new evidence. We are exploring these approaches but I am obliged to state that I doubt whether anything more can be done.
It seems to me that in a case like this it is difficult to establish that there has been any error, or to bring forward any substantial new evidence. But I imagine that many a veteran in circumstances such as these will feel, once he hears that the benefit of the doubt clause has been broadened, that it ..may have been broadened sufficiently now to take care of his case. How, I ask, can this veteran and others in his circumstances find out whether the benefit of the doubt may now be exercised to his advantage?


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Chairman, not only
is our Pension Act based upon the best principles that prevails in other countries, in that a pension may be awarded for any disablement that arises out of or is due to service, but it provides for a pension for any disablement incurred during service. So far as I know ours is the only country in the world which goes that far. Having laid that principle down, that a pension might be awarded to any person because of a disability incurred during service, it must proved, of course, that it was actually incurred during service; because I do not think it was ever the intention of parliament that we should pay a pension in respect of a disability which the man had when he went into the service and which was not in any way increased during service.
The hon. gentleman says that the chief pensions advocate, who works on behalf of the men, as he should in every way he possibly and properly can, has cited this as a case in which it was very difficult to prove that the disability was incurred during service.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And equally difficult to prove that it was not incurred during service.


Walter Adam Tucker: That is apparently the
opinion of Mr. Topp.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right.

Pension Act


Walter Adam Tucker: The situation with which we are confronted is this. It has been laid down in our Pension Act by section 5 that:1
. . . The commission shall have full and unrestricted power and authority and exclusive jurisdiction to deal with and adjudicate upon all matters and questions relating to the award, increase, decrease, suspension or cancellation of any pension under this Act and to the recovery oi any overpayment . . .
And so on. It goes on:
(2) In any case in which the commission finds that a pension has been awarded by the commission or by the Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada as a result of an error and not as a result of fraud or misrepresentation or concealment of material facts on the part of the applicant, if such pension has been paid for not less than five years and its cancellation or reduction would, in the opinion of the commission, result in undue hardship to the pensioner, the commission, in its discretion, may ratify the payment already made and may continue payment in whole or in part.
The effect of that is this, and it cannot be emphasized too strongly. Parliament in its wisdom has set up the Canadian pension commission and has endowed it with full power and authority to make rulings in these cases. No other body has authority to interfere with its decisions in these matters. When it makes a decision, it is like a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. Its decision has even greater authority than a decision of the supreme court, because an appeal can be taken from a decision of the supreme court, but there can be no appeal from a decision of the pension commission except under this section which provides for reconsideration of the case by the commission itself if an error seems to have been made. It comes down to this; is it the thought of parliament that this system is working better than some other system by which are provided appeals for? At one time we did have a system of appeals, and it was found that it worked so much to the detriment of the veterans that with one accord veterans across Canada said, "We do not want this system any longer"; they wanted a system such as we have to-day. Some hon. members seem to think there should be a power in the minister to overrule the commission. Of course no responsible veterans' body wants it left to a minister to have the right to overrule the decision of the commission-an independent board of judges. So it comes back to this: are members of parliament confident that the present board of pension commissioners is enforcing the Pension Act and giving the benefit of the doubt as it should be given under the act which they are sworn to administer?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are doing it.
63260-263|


Walter Adam Tucker: I think it was established at hearings before our committee that while there might be some difference of opinion about close cases-there are bound to be such -the pension commission had the confidence of every single member of that committee in the matter of their making an intelligent and generous approach to the administration of this act. When my hon. friend says, "They made a decision; it was adverse to the person I am interested in, what do I do now?" the aeswer is that what can be done is all set out in the act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has misunderstood me.


Walter Adam Tucker: Let me say this, if my hon. friend will be patient for a moment: we are changing this section by adding the words "and presumptions." If there are any cases which are on the borderline the commission will, naturally, if it is brought to their attention, look at this change we are putting into the act; they will bear in mind the intention of parliament in adding it, and assume, I suppose, that we did not do it without some desire to strengthen their powers to lean in favour of the applicant. Some people may say that the words "and presumptions" do not strengthen the act at all; others think it will strengthen the hands of the commission in giving the benefit of the doubt to applicants. I suggest to my hon. friend that he bring the case he mentioned to the attention of the commission when this change becomes law. But, unless it is intended to change the very basis of this act, the Canadian pension commission, while it has the confidence of parliament, must be the body to decide these matters.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want to thank the parliamentary assistant for the information he gave me in the latter part of his remarks. But in all fairness I must point out that the first part of what he said should not have been directed at me at all.


Walter Adam Tucker: I assure the hon. member that it was not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want to make it clear that I accept the principle that the pension commission should be independent, and that parliament should not seek to override its authority. That is not our purpose in giving examples such as we have given in this chamber. But at the moment we are changing the basis, on which the Canadian pension commission operates. We are, I hope, broadening the significance of the benefit of doubt clause, and I think it is germane to ask what meaning there is in that change; hence my question
Pension Act

as to how a veteran such as the one I mentioned could go about taking advantage of that changed situation. Remember he has been told that he has exhausted all the machinery. I am glad to have now the word of the parliamentary assistant that, despite the fact that he appears to have exhausted all the machinery, he can now, himself, through the pensions advocate, or I can myself, bring his case before the Canadian pension commission and ask them to consider whether a case such as this, which is on the borderline, is not now covered by the power which parliament is giving to the commission to draw on a presumption in favour of the applicant.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is the intention of the amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The presumption in this case, since there was a clear doubt, should be in favour of the veteran. I will certainly see to it that it is again brought to the attention of the commission.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will the four thousand Polish soldiers who have been allowed to settle in this country be entitled to the benefits of this act?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I must tell my hon. friend at once that that question has not yet been definitely determined. As soon as it has, I shall be very glad to give the requisite information. In the allied veterans benefits bill, which will be considered by the house, certain provisions have been made which will be explained in detail when that bill is under consideration.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. gentleman. I hope, on the other hand, that those who were responsible for the bombing of the King David hotel in Jerusalem will not be allowed to come to this country to blow up the Chateau Laurier.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is a question entirely outside the jurisdiction of this department, but it is in the jurisdiction of His Majesty's government in Canada.


Walter Adam Tucker: Just to reassure my hon. friend, none of this legislation will affect those who were not domiciled in Canada at the time they went in the armed forces of Canada, its allies, and other members of the commonwealth.


Jean-François Pouliot: What is the definition of "domicile"? It is pretty hard. There is no definition of "domicile".


Howard Charles Green: I think it would be unfortunate if hon. members were to gain the

impression that this amendment to the benefit of the doubt section of the Pension Act means very much.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't take our last hope away from us.


Howard Charles Green: The way in which these two words "and presumptions" came to be added to this section was this. During the discussions in the veterans affairs committee some of us suggested that a presumption should be written into the act to the effect that a man's condition on his admission to the service was in fact his condition at that time, and that if there was any subsequent deterioration during service it would be the responsibility of the state to show that that deterioration was not caused by this service. A presumption of that type was actually passed by the committee unanimously. I read it out in the house yesterday: it was passed on May 31 and is contained in proceedings No. 25 of the special committee. But a week later the Minister of Veterans Affairs told the committee that he could not agree to having that presumption written into the act; that what he would suggest was that we put the two words "and presumptions" at the end of the old benefit of the doubt clause. Government supporters moved an amendment according to our motion to report the bill as it had been approved section by section. That is the reason we now find these words "and presumptions" in the present bill. Obviously they mean practically nothing, because the word "presumption" is not found anywhere else in the Pension Act. This amendment does not tie in with anything; it is just put in as a government suggestion to get away from putting in a proper presumption clause. So there is no point in anyone thinking that the veteran is getting much assistance by the addition of these words. Mind you, if the Minister of Veterans Affairs is kind enough and wise enough to accept the amendment which I offered yesterday, which would follow this benefit of the doubt section and would set out the presumption I had in mind, then the words in the benefit of the doubt section would mean something. They would then refer to the new presumptions section; my suggestion was that there should be a new section, 63-A, which would read:
In respect of an application for entitlement to pension arising out of world war II, there shall be a presumption that the condition of the member of the forces as recorded on his acceptance was in fact his condition at that time and that any subsequent deterioration during service was due to such service; subject to the provisos contained in paragraph (c) of subsection (I) of section 111 of this act.

Pension Act
These provisos are three in number: That the condition was obvious-as for instance if a man had a wooden leg and notwithstanding that was accepted; or that he had wilfully and deliberately concealed his condition; or that he had a condition which had been recorded on a medical examination prior to enlistment. Those are the three provisos to the proposed presumptions clause.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I appreciate the force of the amendment which the hon. member is proposing, but it would not cover the kind of case to which I refer, many examples of which, I am sure, he himself is familiar with, namely, the veteran of world war I whose condition, for which he is now seeking pension, is a post-discharge and not a preenlistment condition. Either we need something more than the hon. member is proposing in his amendment, or we need to be assured that these words "and presumptions" in this clause mean something.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I just say a few words? My good friend the member for Vancouver South and I have debated this issue for two or three years, and we are not in agreement. I honestly think that section 62 of our act gives more of the benefit of the doubt to the veteran than any of these new presumption clauses adopted on the suggestion of one of the British ministers about two years ago. I honestly think that with this amendment, and the generous and sympathetic interpretation of the Canadian pension commission, the veterans will be very well considered. The adoption of the British system would be a definite handicap.


Howard Charles Green: In what way?
Mr. 'MACKENZIE: I believe it is narrower than ours. I may be wrong, but-


Howard Charles Green: No one suggests that we should cut out the benefit of the doubt section.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But my hon. friend last year suggested'-


Howard Charles Green: I never suggested for a moment that the benefit of the doubt section be deleted.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I agree with that, but my hon. friend suggested that we adopt the language of the British system. We had a British officer before the committee the other day, and after listening to him there I say that they are far behind us in regard to the interpretation of the benefit of the doubt clause. We are miles ahead of them.


Howard Charles Green: I have his evidence here, which I will read.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend and I have the same cause at heart, and I think he is impeding the end in view by not accepting the present suggestion.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Reading this clause, I do not think it covers a case I know of where a man was taken into the service as A-l, medically examined and examined later at another depot. He was absolutely all right, A-l, right through for a year and a half, and later was discharged. This man now has sight only in one eye. The reason he has not had a pension is that, as the commission say, his trouble arose in infancy. Evidently the medical examiners when they examined him were in error. I had letters from the employers of this man as to his condition before he joined the service-I may say that he went in of his own free will-and they declare that he could not have done his work if he had had poor eyesight. At one time he was a weaver, weaving at night, and he could not have done that work with poor eyesight; yet the pension board say that according to their medical men his trouble was preenlistment. As I say, that man was taken in' A-l and is now discharged E-5, I believe. He is out on a limb without any chance of getting a pension. The commission say that he can engage a private eye specialist to check up on his case and pay for it himself; but that man, even with this clause, is no further ahead. With the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver South he would come in, and I maintain that he should, because he will go through the rest of his life with sight in one eye only, and in a few years' time he may not have any sight at all.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I say at once to my hon. friend that this government will never accept, so long as I am a member of it, the principle of fit for service, fit for pension. It is a principle which would be most detrimental to the people of Canada as a whole. We must be fair in these things, and we have been fair and generous. This government has been generous-no, I must not say the government, but this parliament has been generous-and we cannot accept that principle, in fairness to the taxpayers of the people of Canada. I will go on any platform in Canada and say so.


Mr. BENTLEY:: Yesterday, when I made a short statement on behalf of the C.C.F. group here, with reference to the Pension Act, I pointed out that there were some things in respect to which we were not in agreement in the committee and that we would watch the operation of this act, be guided by our experience, and make recommendations at the next
Pension Act

session. This is one of the things I had in mind when I made that statement. Like the member for Vancouver South, I remember quite well the discussions that took place in the committee on this particular question. There was a good deal of debate, and I remember the minister taking the same definite position, he took a moment ago-and as a minister and, a member of the government, it is his right to do so. His contention is that by adding the words "and presumptions" in section 63 of the act, as appears in section 30, it will give all the necessary benefits that the committee wanted in their discussion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is right.


Thomas John Bentley: I do not agree with him, but this is one of the things we will watch. We will watch carefully to see how the cases stated by the member for Winnipeg North Centre and others are affected, and, if this does not operate in their favour we will make our position definite when we find that it is so. I wish to make that position clear without further debate.


Walter Adam Tucker: May I say a few words for the purpose of the record?-because I am afraid that, by reason of one or two specific cases that have been mentioned, a wrong impression may be created as to the manner in which the commission is handling the work. As at December 31. 1945, 7,810 members of the forces who had served in a theatre of actual war had been discharged and the commissioners ruled their conditions as preenlistment, not aggravated by service and consequently not pensionable. However, it should be brought to the attention of this committee that in 81 per cent of all disability claims by those discharged after service in a theatre of actual war, a favourable decision has been rendered.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: When was that 81 per cent announced?


Walter Adam Tucker: That was at December 31, 1945.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I understood it was 76 per cent.


Walter Adam Tucker: It was 81 per cent at December 31, 1945.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I believe the evidence in the committee was 76 per cent.


Walter Adam Tucker: That may be a different date. In regard to those discharged after service rendered in Canada, the commission ruled the condition preenlistment not aggravated by service in respect of 54,207. As to the extent of service, I think the comfMr. Bentley.]
mittee should have some information. A substantial number or those who went overseas were returned after a short period of service and discharged for varying reasons: obesity, refractory errors, old age, and other conditions which obviously have no relation whatever to their service.
With regard to those whose service was wholly rendered in Canada-and I should like the committee to get these figures- 12,145 were discharged with less than three months' service, 18,790 with less than six months' service, and 23,340 with less than one year's service, a total of 58,572 who were discharged as medically unfit with service of less than one year.


Howard Charles Green: These are not the same group as are in the 54,207?


Walter Adam Tucker: No, I am not saying that, but I am saying that 58,572 were discharged with less than one year's service in Canada. We have said to all these people that if any disability arose during that service they get a pension in respect of it. That is just how far we have gone in our pension legislation. When it is considered that of those who saw service in a theatre of actual war. which means service anywhere outside of Canada, 81 per cent who have applied for pension as of December 31, 1945, have been conceded entitlement, the committee will have an indication of how generously the commission has approached this problem. I say that with no idea of giving credit to the government. The commission is operating under the statute, and I say that in fairness only to them. That is the purpose of it, and in justice to them I think every member of the committee would want me to say it.


Howard Charles Green: It must be remembered always that these men were accepted as fit for service. Of this number 7,810 went overseas. They were all accepted for service as fit men. They were trained in Canada and taken overseas. They broke down and were brought back to Canada, discharged as unfit and yet cannot qualify for a pension. These are the actual figures. The same thing applies to the 54,207 who saw service only in Canada. The minister has implied that we are asking for a change in the Pension Act to provide that if a person is fit for service he shall be fit for pension. Nothing is farther from our thoughts.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I did not say that.


Howard Charles Green: I am glad to know that the minister did not mean to go that far. Nothing is farther from our thoughts. All we are asking is that there shall be a presumption

Pension Act
in favour of the man that if he is accepted as fit for service and his health breaks down while he is in the service, it was caused by service. It is merely a presumption which can be rebutted by the state. We believe that that will help at least some of these 80,000 cases, where men have lost their health in the forces of Canada and get no compensation for that deterioration.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is what is being done.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has said that the English system is not as good. Actually I hold in my hand the evidence given by the permanent secretary to the British ministry of pensions, Mr. Parker. He gave evidence on May 9, which can be found in No. 14 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee on veterans affairs. Mr. Parker pointed out first of all that in Great Britain they have the benefit of the doubt section, which is our section 62, and which, by the way, is now numbered 63. The British section reads:
In no case shall there be an onus on any claimant under this our warrant to prove the * fulfilment of the conditions set out in paragraph (1) of this article, and the benefit of any reasonable doubt shall be given to the claimant.
In effect it is the same as our benefit of the doubt section. Mr. Parker explained that provision as follows:
On the second clause of that article dealing with the onus of proof, the position is that that article makes it clear that the onus is on the ministry to negative the claim; and to do that it requires evidence amounting, as the high court expressed it fairly recently, to a real preponderance of probability. That, I gather, is a rather legal form of phrase, but I think probably most of us understand what is in fact in mind.
Then Mr. Parker went on to read the presumption clause, and it is a clause of this type that should be written into the Canadian Pension Act. The particular clause reads as follows:
Where an injury or disease which has led to a member's discharge or death during war service was not noted in a medical report made on that member on the commencement of his war service, a certificate under paragraph (1) of this article shall be given-
That is a certificate of entitlement.
-unless the evidence shows that the conditions set out in that paragraph are not fulfilled.
He explained that in this way. He said:
If a man is accepted for service in a certain medical category, there is a presumption that at the time of his acceptance he was fit for the kind of service demanded of a man in that category, and that in the event of his discharge subsequently on medical grounds due to deterioration in his health there is a presumption that the deterioration was due to service.
Then he went on to show how the high court had interpreted that provision, and said:
They said that the presumption is not a compelling presumption but a provisional one, and that in order to defeat the claim the evidence had to show a real preponderance of probability

That is the state's evidence.
-that the condition was not aggravated by war service. Put in other words, the presumption can be rebutted provided there is good and sufficient evidence to do it.
He was asked what was the reason for the British ministry of pensions adopting this presumption provision, and his answer was as follows:
There was a good deal of discussion in the in the House of Commons in 1943 on the provision in regard to war pensions. At the time the government went into the whole matter and they felt that to some extent the criticism was based on misunderstandings and to some extent the criticism had raised points which were worthy of consideration and modification. As a result of a very full review of the whole subject the government decided that in future the basis of entitlement should be expressed in the way in -which I have read it to you. I think in further explanation of that all I can really say is that the government felt that expressing things as they did represented a fair deal for the man and a fair balance.
If a presumption of this kind were written into our law it might make the job of the Canadian pension commission more difficult, but here is a wrong to be righted. Here are men who have given their health for the country and are getting no compensation. That condition cannot be allowed to continue. If this presumption is written into the law, then it will be the responsibility of the commission to bring forward some proof that that man's loss of health was not due to his service. The navy, the army and the air force accepted these men, examined them most carefully, and in some instances kept them for years; they then got rid of them as unfit. There should be some presumption to protect a man who is in that position.


Walter Adam Tucker: I shall read from the British changes in war pensions, presented by the ministry of pensions to parliament by command of His Majesty. Section 4 reads:
The existing warrant requires that disablement shall be either directly attributable to or materially aggravated by service.
That is the basis in the British warrant. They have to prove that the disablement was directly attributable to or materially aggravated. by service.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A basic difference.


Walter Adam Tucker: We do not require any such thing. We say that all they have to prove is that it arose during service. Naturally they
Pension Act

should have something which carries a man a little farther when the only way in which he can get a pension is to be able to prove that his disability was attributable to service. We do not require any such rule at all. With us it may quite clearly not be due to service, but still the man gets a pension if the disability arises during service. I say, therefore, we do not need this presumption, because under our system the man gets the pension if the disability arose during service. Then my hon. friend goes on to suggest that in some way this presumption is stronger than the one we have. I should like to read from this publication of the British ministry of pensions. They say:
His Majesty's government accepts the view that the fact that a man is accepted for service in the present war in a certain medical category may be taken as presumptive evidence that (a) at the time of acceptance he was fit for the kind of service demanded of a man in that medical category;
Of course our pension commission naturally would presume that also.


Howard Charles Green: We have no such provision.


Walter Adam Tucker: No, but they are interpreting the law; and they say if a man was taken into the service to dlrive a truck, they will assume he was able to do that or he would not have been brought in for that purpose. But they will hear other evidence. They go on to say:
(b) in the event of his being subsequently discharged on medical grounds any deterioration in his health which has taken place is due to his service. While the minister of pensions will pay regard to any other evidence

Mark that. There is just a presumption that he was in a certain condition when he went into the service, and that any deterioration is due to his service; but they will pay attention to other evidence, weigh the thing and decide whether or not it is due to service. I leave it to any member of this committee whether he would change our system, under which a man does not have to prove that his disability was due to service at all, but simply that it occurred during service, for the British system, where they have a presumption that it was due to service but the medical people can come along and prove it was not, and then if it was incurred during service the man does not get a pension, as he does in 'Canada. Our rule is just as strong, and I think it is being interpreted by the Canadian pension commission just as generously as the rule in Britain is being interpreted by the ministry of pensions there.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: More so.


Walter Adam Tucker: In deference to the Canadian pension commission I hesitated to say more so, but I submit we can rely upon them to interpret it just as generously. This is the rule, and it is based upon the fact that it need not be proven that the disability was attributable or due to service. This has application to the question whether the disability occurred during service. We let them all in, whether or not it is due to service, if it arose during service. Then there is this further clause, which reads:
Notwithstanding anything in this act, on any application for pension the applicant shall be entitled to the benefit of the doubt, which shall mean that it shall not be necessary for him to adduce conclusive proof of his right to the pension applied for, but the body adjudicating on the claim shall be entitled to draw and shall draw from all the circumstances of the case-
Which I have just mentioned.
-the evidence adduced and medical opinions, all reasonable inferences in favour of the applicant.
I defy any person to look at these two sections and say the British provision is anything like as generous as our provision; and I say it is not fair to our pension law to make that suggestion.
Furthermore I understood the hon. member for Vancouver South to say that young men have given their health in the service of their country and are not getting pensions. That is a sweeping indictment of the pension commission. If a man lost his health through service to the country, under this act he is supposed to get a pension. When the hon. member says these young men who lost their health have been deprived of pensions, let me say that when the hon. member was attending our committee he never suggested that the pension committee was not doing its duty under the law. In other words he is making a sweeping indictment which is not borne out by any facts he brought before the committee.
I do not want to go into all the evidence heard by the committee. My hon. friend is suggesting that a decision was arrived at by the committee at one time, and later, after hearing further evidence, the committee arrived at another decision; and the decisions he has been reading to this house are not those which were reported by the committee, which after all are the decisions of the committee. He has been reading decisions which were reached from time to time during the proceedings before the committee. I know why the hon. member is doing this, and it is known to other hon. members of this house. On that committee were many very busy members of the government, parliamentary assistants, chairmen of other committees and

Pension Act
so on. They were not able to attend the sittings of our committee continuously, but they had a right to their opinions on these matters, and they had a right to vote on them. When my hon. friend tries to suggest that the opinion of the committee was something different from what was reported, he is trying to deprive those people of the right to have their recorded opinions recognized. If we are going to get anywhere, Mr. Chairman, surely we must go according to the recorded opinion of the committee, as finally reported to this house. Any attempt to say that what we reported to this house was not the opinion of the committee I submit is making a nullity of what we tried to do. After all, if we are to sit there and discuss these matters and reach certain decisions, and then have hon. members get up and say:	"Oh, but on
another occasion something different was done; on another occasion some other thing was decided", what in the world is the use of making reports to parliament? If we are to have all these things read from the proceedings of the committee, before we came to a final report, it opens up the possibility of considering all our discussions, and I think the committee will agree that we cannot hope to retrace all the steps that were taken in that committee. So I urge my hon. friend not to represent to the house that the committee decided certain things, without adding that later on they decided to report to the house the relevant section in exactly the form in which the final report was made. This is the report of the committee on veterans affairs, as made to this house.


Howard Charles Green: The government members.


Walter Adam Tucker: My hon. friend has no right to say that.


Howard Charles Green: It was the government members of the committee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Even the government members have a right to speak in the committee.


Walter Adam Tucker: Does my hon. friend suggest that government members have no right to express an opinion in committee? It was the opinion of government members that this provision was just as good as anything suggested by my hon. friend. In that we were borne out by the disinterested advice of the Canadian pension commission, which said that this suggested amendment would not enable them to do a better job for the soldier; and I think this house is entitled to pay some attention to that advice. It was on this, I think, that the government members may have acted, and I believe there was nothing very wrong in their accepting the advice of
people of the standing of the Canadian pension commission.


Howard Charles Green: The parliamentary assistant has gone pretty far. He has almost suggested that I was trying to mislead the house, though I do not suppose he meant that. I know he has a way of showing more heat than light sometimes.


Walter Adam Tucker: We all have our faults, and I do not pretend to be without them.


Howard Charles Green: We found that out on different occasions in the committee. Here, however, he is overlooking one fact, that in connection with this particular recommendation, when the committee passed the proposed presumption clause it was unanimous. It was not a question of a majority and a minority; they were unanimous.


Walter Adam Tucker: Where is that stated in the proceedings?


Howard Charles Green: When the government
decided they did not want that-


Walter Adam Tucker: Will the hon. member say where that is stated in the proceedings?


Howard Charles Green: At page 752; and other hon. members will substantiate what I have said.


Walter Adam Tucker: Does it say it was
unanimous?


Howard Charles Green: It does not say so, but that was the fact. Now when the parliamentary assistant suggests that it was changed, by government members, mind you, who had not been there at the time the section was considered, he is stretching the point rather far.


Walter Adam Tucker: Is that not true?


Howard Charles Green: Then he himself expressed an opinion about this presumption. I would refer to page 752 of the proceedings of the committee, where I find the following:
Mr. Tucker:	I may say that as long as it
does not lead to misleading people, as Mr. Quelch has agreed with me in saying that it might, I do not think this will do any particular harm. So far as I can see, there is no harm in carrying it, as long as it is quite clear that it will not mislead anybody. Of course, if it is carried, naturally the pension commission people will study it and see if the section that is referred to is comprehensive enough to really cover it. In other words, they will have a chance to look into it.
He has said that the government is opposing this stand to-day on the advice of the pension commission. On this question the advice should go from the house to the pension commission, rather than the other way round. Here is the fact, that 60,000 men in our forces
Pension Act

have been discharged as unfit, though they were taken in as fit. The parliamentary assistant has made no explanation of how their position is to be improved. He is not suggesting for a minute that these men can get a pension or any compensation now. They cannot, under the law as it stands to-day.


Walter Adam Tucker: Is the hon. member arguing that where a disabling condition was neither due to service nor incurred through service, and when a man has come out in just as good condition as when he went in, he should still get pension?


Howard Charles Green: That is not the case at all. Nobody is trying to argue that.


Walter Adam Tucker: That is the finding of the commission.


Howard Charles Green: We argue that where a man comes out in unfit condition but went in in fit condition there should be a presumption that such deterioration in his condition was caused by his service. It is true that the state can overcome that presumption by bringing in other evidence. Nobody is asking to make it open and shut, or that a man must get a pension if he is discharged. All we are asking is that there should be a presumption in his favour, that the state, having taken him in as being in fit condition, then having used him for whatever length of time he was in the forces, and having discharged him as unfit, must show that that loss of health was not due to his service. As the parliamentary assistant himself said in the committee proceedings, he could see no harm in that presumption.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is being done.


Howard Charles Green: I cannot understand why the minister and his parliamentary assistant are so firm in their refusal to have a presumption of this type written into the law.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have it now.


Howard Charles Green: They keep saying, "We have it now"; but the proof that we do not have it now lies in the fact that 60,000 men can get no compensation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Proof we have it is that we have the most generous system in the whole world.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, that is old talk.


Walter Adam Tucker: To place the facts on the record, the commission said there were 64,207 not granted entitlement after service in Canada only because the preenlistment condition was not aggravated by service. In other words those 54,207 did not get pensions because they

suffered from a preenlistment condition which was not aggravated through service. Those men were in just as good shape when they came out as when they went in.


Howard Charles Green: That is ridiculous.


Walter Adam Tucker: That was the decision of the commission in those cases.


Howard Charles Green: It was not, at all.


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes, it was. It was based upon that-the preenlistment condition was not aggravated.


Howard Charles Green: That is like the case brought up by the hon. member for Yorkton.


Walter Adam Tucker: That is their decision. If the hon. member says that decision is wrong, then all he is saying is that the pension commission is not enforcing the law.


Howard Charles Green: I am saying the law is not right.


Walter Adam Tucker: The law says that you give a pension if a man is suffering from disability due to service or incurred during service. The pension commission have to enforce that law, and they have found that when a man came out in just as good shape as when he went in they have no right to give him a pension. That applied to the 54,207 men.


Howard Charles Green: How on earth does the parliamentary assistant make the statement that these 54,207 who applied for pension because of disabilities are just as fit when they come out as when they went in?


Walter Adam Tucker: That is the finding of the commission; that is why they did not get pensions.


Howard Charles Green: Why were they let in?


Walter Adam Tucker: Oh, that is another matter. That is the "fit for service, fit for pension" principle, which my hon. friend said he would not favour. Then he asks how they got in, and says that if they got in they are therefore entitled to pension.


Howard Charles Green: I did not say that at all.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is the logical conclusion from your argument.


Walter Adam Tucker: That is what is meant by your argument, there is no doubt about it. These decisions were arrived at with this benefit of the doubt right in the act. And if you say that thousands of the 54,207 who were ruled not entitled to pension because they had a preenlistment condition which was not

Pension Act
aggravated, are suffering from service, you are impeaching in a sweeping way the work of the commission.


Howard Charles Green: We say the law is not right.


Walter Adam Tucker: That was not borne out by the evidence before the committee.


Mr. QUELCH:: I have no intention of debating this question over again. However I would lay emphasis on one point, and that is that it was the opinion of the committee, as represented by members who sat through the committee hearings consistently from beginning to end, who listened to the evidence of the pension commission, the legion and other bodies, that paragraph (c) of section 11 (1) had not operated satisfactorily, and that the benefit of the doubt provision was not working satisfactorily. It was as a consequence of evidence heard, and through experience, that certain amendments to the act were moved. The presumption provision was inserted, and the words "wilfully concealed" were taken out of paragraph (c). Then when the government decided they were not satisfied with those amendments they brought in the rest of their members in order to outvote us. The point is that those members brought in by the government had not listened to the evidence of the commissioners or of the legion. They were merely voting the way they were asked to vote by the government. Therefore the hon. member for Vancouver South was sound in his statement that the real desire of the committee was to pass the amendments as put in the first place.


Mr. MUTCH:: This is one place where
every man should speak for himself. I shall try not to do more than that. I doubt if any member of the committee attended more meetings than I did. I am glad the committee of the whole has had this opportunity to debate the subject, because some of us went through 1,600 pages of it-discussion very similar to what we have had to-day.
When this suggestion was first made by the hon. member for Vancouver South, who, when he keeps his temper, is always plausible, I wras one who at the time could see no difficulty in it. As he was careful to point out last night, I was the person who at a later meeting moved that the paragraph be changed to its present form. I have no apology to make for the fact that I made that motion in committee, reversing my former position. In my experience I have found that on numerous occasions I have had to change my mind, and perhaps even then sometimes I have been wrong. However after mature
consideration most of us can bring better judgment to a question. So far as I am concerned, I have heard the evidence, and as a result of further information and representations made by members of the pension commission-particularly the chairman-I became convinced, as I am still convinced-just as I am prepared to give the hon. member for Vancouver South credit for being convinced of his position-that I should change my mind on it. To suggest that I simply changed my vote because other members were brought in who had not been there before is unfair. The committee, in the fifty-two meetings it held, had perfect knowledge in advance of any suggested amendment from those who were not government members of the committee. There were always benches filled from end to end-and quite properly-and when an amendment was produced by the opposition, once it was either accepted or defeated the chairs were then emptied1 until the next amendment came along. There was no monopoly of absenteeism on the part of the government party in the committee.
This whole debate sounds as if we were sitting in a session two years from now, instead of to-day. I am not a professional veteran, and I carry no torch for the minister or his parliamentary assistant, who are able to look after themselves. But I was one who listened and agreed, listened more and then disagreed; and I am still in the position I was when I suggested that this clause be put in its present form.


Mr. PROBE:: I listened carefully to the meticulous and often repeated statements of the parliamentary assistant as to the way in which this provision is working out.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs stated a few moments ago, that it was definitely not a part of Liberal policy to treat veterans on the basis of "fit for service fit for pension". Leaving aside cases often in dispute with respect to the way in which the injury or disablement occurred during service, about which I think most of us have received many letters, may I refer to the preenlistment situation.
This government did during the course of the war take the stand that we were going to have a volunteer army, and it was a matter of considerable pride overseas and elsewhere that ours was not a conscript army. Of course- I know that our boys were not shanghaied into enlisting in the old pirate sense or anything of the kind, but it is debatable whether the enlistments were on a one-hundred per cent purely volunteer basis.
Pension Act


William Ross Macdonald: May I remind the hon. member that we are discussing clause 30, dealing with the benefit of the doubt. I would ask him to confine his remarks to that section.


John Oliver Probe: That is the very point on which I wish to elaborate, Mr. Chairman. The government has an onus in the matter of giving the benefit of the doubt which goes back to the time when the veteran was a civilian and was first accepted into the forces. In order to make a good record of recruits ments-and I was a recruiting officer too, as many other members were-I think it is beyond all doubt that the examination of-volunteers as they came into the forces was not as thorough as the examination that is made when the men are applying for pension. I think all will agree on that. When a man came into the service the medical inspection was straight routine. The questions put to the men were often mumbled and the answers noted in such a way that the recruit would be given a clean bill of health provided that nothing organically wrong was obvious. Whether you were a medical man or not you could have inspected and passed many of these recruits. So undoubtedly in our anxiety to appear a one hundred per cent volunteer force, we accepted recruits who perhaps had physical disabilities which, while not obvious and of a kind which in civilian life might have lain dormant for years, came to the surface after a few weeks' hard drilling.
Just the other day many members of the house must have seen parading around- our buildings a man of the type to which I refer, bearing a placard. He was accepted for enlistment in London, Ontario, -according to the documents on his person, on January 17, 1941, and was discharged on April 9 of the same year, after only a few months' service. One might say that that man should never have -been accepted for Canada's volunteer army. But what are the facts? His documents show that he reenlisted on May 18, 1941 and was discharged fourteen months afterwards, on July 23, 1942. He was struck off strength as unable to meet the -required physical requirements. He was a volunteer. He did not leave Canada. He was, in -my non-medical opinion, of the neuro-tic type. I do not want to say that I am a medical expert, but I have no doubt that this man can not meet -the physical requirements, at the present time at least. Someone advised- him, or perhaps he got the idea himself, that he should get a pension. He applied for one -and was turned down by the commission. Possibly his case was one of enlistment under false colours; I am not -prepared to say. I have written to get the documents. All I know about his condi-
tion is what appeared on the documents on his person. I feel that the government has an Obligation to this man because in its anxiety to make a good volunteer record it accepted him -as being in category A-l and fit for service. After enlistment he deteriorated rapidly, as many of them did, and in three or four months he was discharged. Here was a man who was accepted so that our record of volunteer enlistments might be maintained-at least that is the purpose I see back of this enlisting and reenlisting. Therefore the government must assume an obligation for the physical deterioration- of such men, and it is the duty of this House of Commons to make a recommendation to the -pension commission that they take that into consideration-.
I might cite the case of a man in my battery who to my personal knowledge was injured. Fo-r -a year and a half I fought his case, along with other members of the house, before he got a 30 per cent pension for his disability. The machinery is not quite as well oiled and smoothly running as the hon. member for Rosthern would- lead us to believe, and there are other hon. members who know th-at. For that reason I am not in favour of the wording of this section.
Section agreed -to.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman-, before we deal with section 31 I move:
That the bill be amended by adding as section 30A thereof the following:
The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following section:
63A. In respect of an application for entitlement to pension, arising out of world war II there shall be a presumption that the condition of the member of the forces as recorded on his acceptance was in fact his condition at that time and that any subsequent deterioration during service was due to such service; subject to the provisos contained in paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of section 11 of this act.
I have already made my position perfectly clear, and I will say nothing further at this time in support of this amendment.


Walter Adam Tucker: If this amendment means anything at all, and I understand the hon. gentleman contends that it does, it means a possible increase in the charge on the public purse, not necessarily and inevitably, but conceivably; therefore, Mr. Chairman, I submit that it is out of order because it has not received the approval of His Excellency.


Howard Charles Green: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I suppose one could argue the other way, that if it does not mean anything in the opinion of the parliamentary assistant, it is perfectly in order. However, this amend-

Pension Act
ment would insert just the same type of section as the benefit of the doubt section, which is not a section involving the expenditure of public funds, but is in the nature of a direction to the pension commission that in considering applications they shall bear in mind this presumption. That is as far as the amendment goes. It is not a matter involving the expenditure of funds at all, and I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is perfectly in order.


Victor Quelch: On the point of order, I should like to emphasize the fact that both the minister and the parliamentary assistant have insisted that this will not bring about any change, any improvement, and if that is true it cannot mean any increase of expenditure. On the other hand, a number of us feel that if it does nothing else it will at least give a certain amount of moral support to the pension commission to exercise a wider latitude in handling these cases.


Mr. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: I did not have the privilege of sitting in at any meetings of the parliamentary committee on veterans affairs, and for my own information I should like to have a clarification of what the minister has said. I brought to the attention of the veterans affairs committee a year ago the situation of a veteran of the two great wars, a case which, I understand, had been fought by the Canadian Legion to get a pension for this particular man. The man went into the last war in category A and came out in category E, and not until recently have we been able, with the help of another hon. member, to get any sort of pension for this veteran. Unless some changes have been made in the act whereby disability incurred during service, such as reduces a man from A to E category, entitles him to a pension, I for one am entirely against this legislation.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Chairman, just to put it as brieflly as possible, the Pension Act provides that if a disability is due to service it is pensionable; if it arises during service it is pensionable; if there is an aggravation of a condition which a man had when he went into the service, and he has had service in a theatre of actual war, and the disability was not obvious, wilfully concealed, or recorded on medical examination prior to enlistment, he not only gets pension for the disability in respect of the aggravation but he gets it in respect of the entire disability. Of course that does not apply in respect of service in Canada only. If he did not serve in a theatre of actual war he gets the pension in respect of the disability, or the aggravation of the disability, as the case may be, to the extent that there is an aggravation. That is putting it, I think, as simply as I can.
Now, in interpreting whether the disability arose during service or was due to service, we have the section which is in dispute to-day. The way it was worded before was:
Notwithstanding anything in this act, on any application for pension the applicant shall be entitled to the benefit of the doubt, which shall mean that it shall not be necessary for him to adduce conclusive proof of his right to the pension applied for, but the body adjudicating on the claim shall be entitled to draw and shall draw from all the circumstances of the case, the evidence adduced and medical opinions, all reasonable inferences in favour of the applicant.
That made the language as explicit, pep-baps, as the English language could make it, that if there was any doubt whether this disability was incurred during service or was due to service, or the aggravation was incurred during service or was due to service, the applicant was to get the benefit of the doubt. I really do not see how it could have been made much plainer; but in deference to the committee and in accordance with what the hon. member for Vancouver South-


Howard Charles Green: That is not what we asked for.


Walter Adam Tucker: -in order to make it doubly plain we added the words "and presumptions":
all reasonable inferences and presumptions in favour of the applicant.
If an enlisted man was to drive a truck there would be a presumption that he was able to drive a truck.


Howard Charles Green: Why did you not put if in the bill, then?


Walter Adam Tucker: It is in there already. The only thing I can draw from the hon. member's suggestion is this: we say to-day that according to the best opinion of the Canadian pension board, every man who suffered a disability which was due to service or incurred during service or was aggravated during service is getting a pension in respect of the disability. Some hon. members may say, "I know of a case where I do not think that has happened".


James Herbert Matthews: There is one right here.


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes, the hon. member for Kootenay East has a case which he feels is very strong. I happen to be a lawyer; I have been on one side or the other in various cases, and I have had decisions of the appeal court of our province, and I am just as strongly convinced to-day that they were wrong as I was at the time I fought the case. But the decision of that appeal court had to be accepted by me as correct.
Pension Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member is not casting any reflection, is he?


Walter Adam Tucker: If you ask the commission to adjudicate on a close case you are going to have differences of opinion. That is inevitable; you cannot avoid it. And in order to be sure that the pension commission knew the will of parliament that they should give every benefit of the doubt to the man we put in "and presumptions" in addition to "inferences". As I said before, this is a change in the law, and I would expect that in these doubtful cases the Canadian pension commission would feel that parliament was emphasizing this point, and would review these cases in the light of the change in the act to see if their decisions were in line with that change.
My hon. friend is saying that he thinks some people are not getting a pension who should have it under the act as it stands to-day. If that is so, if he is moving an amendment which will grant a pension to somebody who did not incur disability during service, or where-


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the parliamentary assistant is now trying to make a second argument on the point of order; he is completely out of order himself, and I suggest that you give your ruling.


Walter Adam Tucker: I was just going to conclude the argument.


Howard Charles Green: He is just trying to make a second argument on the point of order.


Walter Adam Tucker: Well, I do not wish to press it.


William Ross Macdonald: I think the hon. member for Rosthern has answered the question of the hon. member for Assiniboia, and he should not renew or add to his argument on the point of order.
I will give my ruling on the point of order. The question has been raised whether or not the amendment would involve an expenditure of money. I have listened to the arguments since the committee assembled this afternoon; and it has been represented that 60,000 members of the armed forces have been discharged as unfit, although taken in as fit. It has further been represented to the committee that 54,207 have been discharged whose present condition was not aggravated through service.


Howard Charles Green: Those are part of the 60,000.


William Ross Macdonald: Obviously the purpose of the amendment is to bring in a large ciass of former members of the armed forces, some

of whom would under the amendment be entitled to pension, and that would involve an expenditure of money. I think that is very clear, and I have no other course to pursue than to declare the motion out of order, since it would involve an expenditure of money and for that reason can be moved only by a minister of the crown, with the approval of His Excellency the Governor General.


Howard Charles Green: I thank you for the ruling, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment would at least have been effective.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With regard to section 30, may I ask the parliamentary assistant to clear up what I thought was a bit of confusion he created a moment ago. Earlier this afternoon he and the minister both said that the purpose of the addition of the words "and presumptions" was to make a change and to broaden the meaning of the section; but a moment ago he introduced another idea, namely, that the purpose is simply to make doubly clear the meaning already there. It can hardly be both, and I should like to have it categorically stated now that the purpose of these words is to broaden the meaning of the section.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Our understanding of the present section 62, now 63, is that, inter-pretalively, it is the most generous section in regard to the benefit of the doubt, but the committee felt that this addition should be made, and possibly it might broaden the section. But it will never widen the sympathetic and generous interpretation of the Canadian pension commission, because they are going as far as they can now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is, however, the clear intention that the addition of these two words is to make possible the review of some cases formerly denied.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Edward George McCullough: Will the minister undertake to say that the addition of the words "and presumptions" in 63 gives us an assurance that veterans' cases in the future will not be delayed for three or four years, as has been my experience in the past? It should be clarified to that extent. Further, would the evidence of a civilian doctor be taken regarding the medical status of a veteran applying for pension?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I can give my hon. friend the assurance that there will be no

War Veterans Allowance
delay in these cases. Let him look over the record for the past six months, and he will find that it has been unequalled anywhere.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall section 30 carry?


An hon. MEMBER:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 31 and 32 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved the second reading of bill No. 331, respecting allowances for war veterans and dependents.
Mr. C. C. I. MERRITT (Vancouver-Burrard):: There are a few words which I wish to say respecting the War Veterans Allowance Act. This is an act under which allowances are paid to veterans of the first great war, of the preceding wars, and now of course of this war, who have reached the age of sixty, or, in the case of a female, the age of fifty-five, or, third, who in the opinion of the war veterans allowance board are permanently unemployable because of physical or mental disability or who are incapable of or unlikely to become capable of maintaining themselves because of economic handicaps combined with mental or physical inability.
The act has been in force since 1930 and has done a great deal of good for veterans of the first war who have reached an advanced age or who because of war service have become incapable of earning their living.
The present bill not only makes some slight changes in the procedure under the former act but incorporates in its provisions the dual service pension order which was enacted by order in council during the war and which enables the allowance to be granted to certain veterans, who served in both wars, I and II, and who thus have given a considerable period of their life to the armed forces of their country.
On the motion for second reading I shall refer briefly to the outstanding omission from the bill, the omission from the provisions, both of the original part and of the dual service part, of veterans whom we all know as imperials, that is, Canadians who served in the armed forces of His Majesty other than Canadian armed forces in the first great war. Many of these soldiers came to Canada immediately following the war, settled in Canada and became Canadians. The migration
continued until about 1930, when it was considerably dried up because of the depression. But there are in Canada a very large number of imperial veterans who are Canadian citizens and who are deprived of the benefit of the act simply because they did not happen to be living in Canada at the time they enlisted in the armed forces in 1914 or in any of the subsequent years. According to an estimate of the board, the actual number who would be affected were they brought under the act would be 4,639.
I simply wish to point out one or two things in this regard, and I do not wish to labour the question, because the cause of the imperial veterans has been fought and brought before this government for many years. Many of these imperial veterans have been Canadians now for twenty-six years-Canadians in every sense, for a whole generation,-and most of them for more than fifteen years. They have been taxpayers for that length of time. Some of them were soldiers of the first war, and many of them soldiers of both wars. They are the fathers of Canadian servicemen who served in Canada's armed forces, the navy, the army, and the air force in the second war. They have been Canadian producers for a generation. They have been contributing to Canada's wealth, strength and prosperity for all that time. Recently, they have become Canadians by law under the Canadian Citizenship Act. Every hon. member welcomed that act and thought that it represented a new advance. Only a few short weeks since the passage with great eclat of that act we find that Canadians, all of them for sixteen years and many of them for twenty-six years, are not to be considered Canadians when it comes to benefits under veterans' legislation. They are not considered Canadians although in the case of the dual service pension they have actually served in Canada's armed forces in the second great war. All of these men served in a common cause in an actual theatre of war in the forces of His Majesty, and yet in Canada they are deprived of the benefit of these allowances, although other Canadians who served in the Canadian forces of His Majesty are given these benefits, and rightly so, because their services have been as great and because of their present need.
The reasons given by the minister for refusing to admit the imperial veterans when the matter was raised in the committee and was voted upon were two. He said that our veterans' legislation was based upon a great principle; that people coming within its scope must have been domiciled and resident in Canada before they entered the armed forces.
War Veterans Allowance

The second reason, was that our first duty lay to Canadians. By that I take it he meant people who were Canadians before they started to serve.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is right.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Surely, Mr. Speaker, the question of the domicile or the residence of a man when he enters the forces of His Majesty cannot be the great principle which must be the background of entitlement to benefit. The domicile or residence of a British subject, of a soldier of His Majesty, is an incidental thing. If we want a principle upon which to base such legislation surely the important thing is not the fact of twenty-six or thirty years ago, but the present fact that they are now Canadians and that they served His Majesty in the common cause about which we all talk so much in this enlightened year of 1946.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will my hon. friend permit an interruption? Is there not an essential right inherent in Canadians who were domiciled here before they served His Majesty?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Of course there is an inherent right in such Canadians, but does that exclude the inherent right of Canadians who served His Majesty before they were domiciled in Canada but have now been Canadians for twenty-six years?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I interrupt again?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Yes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does not my hon. friend think that the essential right of Canadians as Canadians should be observed before the rights of those who come to our country afterwards are observed?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: My answer to the minister would be that the essential rights of Canadians are observed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, they are not. Take the War Veterans Allowance Act. Canadians who served in England are absolutely ignored.


Howard Charles Green: They were not under fire; that is why.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I was waiting for the minister to bring that up, because just before I moved a motion in the committee to include the imperials within the scope of this legislation I moved that the Canadians who served in England but who did not serve in an actual theatre of war should be also included. In stating that the government could not accept that amendment, the minister, as I understood him, gave as the basis for his refusal, first 
that many of the people to whom I referred were draftees in the last war, and second, the question of expense. Is not that correct?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not think so.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: [DOT] These two points were brought out and argued.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Therefore in arguing the case for the imperial veterans at least I am free from any charge of inconsistency.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I hate to interrupt my hon. friend, but if I had my way all Canadians who served in Canada and in England in the last war should be entitled to war veterans' allowance. Once you establish that principle, which is a measure of social security, the imperials would be looked after at once.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I did not want to speak as long as I have spoken. All I can say is that I do not see eye to eye with the minister in any way on this point. If you want a high principle upon which to found benefits for Canadians who have served His Majesty, then you have it in the service which was given to His Majesty in a common cause. You could not have a higher principle than that.
Let me show the house how this domicile and residence principle as the only principle upon which to found this legislation leads the government into strange inconsistencies. I hold in my hand bill 328, respecting veterans of the forces allied with Canada. This bill goes on the principle that if you are domiciled and resident here, no matter what your citizenship may be, no matter what your business in the country may be, you can get Canadian benefits. I find that an alien domiciled, resident and earning his living in Canada before the war can get benefits in so far as they exceed benefits of his own country, not if he served in the forces of His Majesty, but if he served in the forces of any one of the allied nations in the second war.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Only if he was domiciled in Canada before he served.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Yes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is the important principle.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: That is what I said. I am showing how this great principle which the minister adheres to leads him into strange errors. A soldier of His Majesty and a Canadian citizen for twenty-six years cannot get the war veterans' allowance because he was not domiciled and resident in Canada when he

War Veterans Allowance
enlisted. But an American who joined the forces of his own country, not when we went to war but when the United States went to war; who never served His Majesty but who now returns to Canada; who has not taken and does not intend to take out Canadian citizenship papers, can get the benefits of our legislation while the imperial soldier cannot.
I might go farther in connection with this matter of aliens who benefit under our laws and refer to the principle I have enunciated, that there was service to His Majesty by Canadians in a common cause. Here, however, we have no service to His Majesty, no Canadian citizenship, and it was not even realized by these people who will be benefited that there was a common cause at all until after their own country joined the fight against Germany. Until that time there was not even a recognition of any common cause by these people. I am not arguing the question of bringing these aliens within the provisions of the law; that was all gone over in the committee. From those proceedings, however, it is quite clear that when the government introduced bill No. 328 they were aware of the point I am now raising and they deliberately put it aside, admitting these non-Canadians, while not admitting Canadians who, to my way of thinking, are very much more entitled to the benefit of veterans legislation.
I want to conclude by pointing out how much stronger, if possible, the case I am making is for the admission of imperials to the benefits of the dual service pensions order which is now brought into this act. At the present time a Canadian who was domiciled in Canada and who served in His Majesty's Canadian forces in both world wars comes within the provisions of that order. In addition, a person who was domiciled in Canada and who served during world war I as an imperial, and who became a member of His Majesty's Canadian forces during world war II comes within the provisions of the dual service pensions order. So that we have excluded from the provisions of that order those imperials who had not migrated to Canada before the end of the last war, but who may have been here for twenty-six years, are now Canadians, and who, for the past five or six years, have served in Canada's armed forces. Surely they would have been brought within the provisions of the dual service order if it had not been apparent to the minister that to bring them into that class would necessitate bringing them into the first class as well, and as a result he has excluded them from both.
I shall say no more; I did not want to speak this long, because this case has been argued many times previously. There may
have been some justification before the last war for not bringing in these people, some of whom would not have been in Canada for more than nine or ten years before 1939. In the committee I moved that all those imperials who had been resident in Canada on and since September 1, 1930, should be brought within the provisions of this important legislation, but my motion was negatived. That is a suggestion I want to make to the minister even at this late date. I say to him, with ali the emphasis at my command, that if he does not bring in these Canadian citizens- these men who have given such great service to His Majesty-it will be a shame which will long blot the history of veterans legislation in this country.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I want to say just one word to my hon. friend. Naturally he is listened to in this house with great admiration and great esteem in reference to veterans affairs. I have had occasion to reflect upon this question for many years; I must insist upon the position 1 have recommended to the administration from time to time, that until all our own Canadians are looked after, those who served in Canada and those who served in England and elsewhere, in regard to veterans allowances, we cannot and should not consider the claims of those who came to this country afterwards, no matter how gallantly and how splendidly they served His Majesty; and I am speaking as one who was born in the old land. The first duty of Canadians is to look after the interests of Canadians.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: If the minister will permit me a question, are these men not now Canadians in every sense of the word?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, but the essential principle governing all these bills was domicile in Canada before the first great war.


Howard Charles Green: The essential requirement for war veterans allowance is service under fire.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Service in a theatre of war, plus certain emendations in regard to those entitled to small pensions.
Mr. BROOKS': And England was not a theatre of war in the first great war.


Walter Adam Tucker: That is correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to speak briefly in reference to one phase of this bill, and I imagine the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) is well aware of the phase to which I shall direct my remarks. As he knows, one of the first struggles in which I
War Veterans Allowance

joined when. I came to this parliament was on behalf of the widows of veterans of the first great war. I am glad to see that our good friend the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) has come into the chamber. Everyone will recall the part he played in this struggle, and no doubt he will have something to say to-day as well. One of the requests made for the past three years by those speaking on behalf of veterans' widows was that the special allowance which has been voted from year to year, and the provisions that have been made by order in council, should be given permanent effect by statute. That has been done in the bill now before the house, and I refer particularly to part II. For that action those concerned will be deeply grateful, but I feel that I must express their disappointment that this is all that has been done. These women, whose representatives are well known to many hon. members, were earnestly hoping that as a result of their appearance before the special committee on veterans affairs, and as a result of the consideration given this matter by that committee, there would be other changes and that some of their other requests would be implemented.
The matter, of course, which is of greatest concern to them has to do with the amount of the allowance, which is still fixed at $365 a year for a widow without child or children, and $730 for a widow with children. I realize that when one expresses disappointment that the amount is not larger, that involves a reference to the amount paid to veterans themselves under another section of the bill. My hope was that both amounts might have been increased. For the moment I speak only with reference to the widows, because I desire particularly to draw attention to their situation.
Speaking particularly of the older women who are widows of veterans of the last war, I insist that it is not good enough to ask them to live on a maximum of $30.41 a month. I know all the arguments offered one way and another, including that which states that one cannot ask that a great deal be done for these women until sufficient has been done for other classes. I have never been impressed by that argument. It seems to me it only strengthens the case for implementing at an early date other measures of social security that are long overdue.
The simple fact is that by this legislation we are asking these widows of men who served in the last war to be satisfied with $30.41 a month. The matter was placed before the committee by the women themselves, and the minister is well aware of their request for

an amount of $40 a month. If it were in order I would move such an amendment, but I realize that in doing so I would not be in order. I hope, however, that the government will not regard this bill as the last word on the subject, but that we might soon have an increase in this amount from $365 to at least $480 a year.
These women have made the further request that in the drawing of this measure they be included for hospitalization, and have expressed their disappointment that such a provision has not been made.
Another angle of the matter which affects many of these women is closely related to the observations of the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard (Mr. Merritlt) concerning the section dealing with a theatre of actual war. As the minister knows, the husbands of many of these widows, although volunteers in the last war, saw service only in England. Upon the death of the husband, without a pension or any other means it is just as difficult for a widow in 'this class to get along as it would be for those widows whose husbands saw service on the continent of Europe. Here again I express disappointment and urge upon the government that further consideration be given the matter, with the thought that even this year, certainly not later than next, the basis for these payments might be enlarged.
The discussion to which we have just listened respecting imperial veterans has its counterpart in widows in Canada of imperial veterans xvho have been able to leave ne other provision for those widows. Their plight, too, deserves consideration.
There are other matters about which I could speak, such as the application of the means test, but they are more in the nature of details, and I shall not discuss them until we reach sections 7 and 8 of the bill in committee. At this moment, however, when we are discussing the principle of the bill I would express pleasure that we have now moved from -the order in council stage to the stage of definite 'egislation on behalf of these women, but would express keen disappointment that that is the only change proposed by the bill before us.
This group of women is not a large one. They feel, and I share their view, that the fact they are not large makes it difficult for them to receive consideration. Their battle began several years before I came to the house, although I knew of their efforts. The sort of thing they had to do to obtain recognition was pitiful. At long last, three years ago, they were given recognition through an order in council permitting an allowance

War Veterans Allowance
beginning at $20 a month. I am thinking now particularly of the widows of veterans who served in the last war, but the day will come when these provisions will apply to the widows of those who served in the second war. These groups of widows are small, but their battle is not yet over and I say their rights should have more complete recognition than they have received thus far.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Speaker, I believe the War Veterans Allowance Act is a good piece of legislation. It has been well administered in the past and, having some knowledge of the confines of the act, I believe the interpretation has been liberal.
We are now making certain amendments to the old act which should make it possible to deal with veterans more adequately in the future than we have done in the past. Had we removed the means test from the Old Age Pensions Act, I have no doubt it would have been possible to have removed it from this one. However, that was not done.
I believe the allowance for a veteran's income is liberal. He is allowed to have an interest in a home up to $4,000, cash in the bank up to $1,500 and an income of $250 plus $125 casual earnings, without any deduction. One criticism I would make is that the government might very well have included the $250 of income with the $125 of casual earnings so that the veteran could have received $375 of income, without any deduction being made. This would involve only a small amount of money, and would save a great deal of confusion in dealing with those two different types of income.
There is no doubt that in the past this act has been a godsend to many veterans, and I have no doubt it will continue to be so in the future, and will help those who are in bad financial circumstances.
Perhaps I might say a word or two respecting imperials. I should like to see war veterans allowances given not only to imperials but to the nationals of all those countries which fought with us in the last war. On the other hand, I believe the matter must be dealt with on a reciprocal basis until, as the minister has said, such time as we can get the war veterans allowances for all Canadians who served both in England and in Canada.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Speaker, it is not often a member on the opposite side of the house considers it his duty to say a kindly word to a minister. I am happy on this occasion to do so. In the seventeen years I have been a member, and have known the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie), I have always found him
to be a fighter for the rights of veterans. Perhaps he has not always got what he wanted; perhaps he has not always given what the opposition asked, but I believe his heart was always in the right place. One such illustration is found in the case mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
I might say, in passing, that in attending committee meetings at various hours of the day we have been worked almost off our feet. My delay in coming to the house this afternoon was occasioned by my attendance before the committee on Indian affairs where, I believe, I am doing good work.
From the very beginning the Minister of Veterans Affairs has favoured giving consideration to the widows of those veterans who were wounded, returned home and made recovery, but who did not receive pensions sufficient to enable the government, on their passing, to grant pensions to their widows. The minister took hold of the matter right away. I found him from the very beginning strong for giving relief by way of pension to the widows of soldiers who died without sufficient pension to warrant their widows receiving pension. While I have not read the bill, I heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre say that they are to receive $1 a day, or $365 a year. I am not going to say that that is too much or too little, but I am going to thank the minister on my own personal behalf for his work in that regard, for I, too, from the very beginning have strongly advocated that the widows of these soldiers be taken care of. I am glad to know that, while the minister has done that in the last year or two by regulation or order in council, it is now made statutory. That is a fine step in the right direction.
I heard the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) speak of the veterans of the Northwest rebellion, and I am glad to see that they are included in this bill. I do not know at the moment just what they are to receive, but the fact that they are mentioned in the bill is an evidence that the minister is carrying out his promise to make statutory what heretofore was done more or less by regulation. Again I want to thank him for that. When a veteran of the Northwest rebellion makes application for pension I think considerable latitude should be allowed by those who are to determine whether he is to receive a pension or not. They are all old now. because 1885 was sixty-one years ago and they cannot have long to live. Whatever pension they are to be entitled to will be of material help to them and will be greatly welcomed by them. It will be some recogni-
War Veterans Allowance

tion of the part they played in that scrap in the northwest which never should have taken place. It was the result of hotheads-


Walter Adam Tucker: And inaction at Ottawa.


John Ritchie MacNicol: -particularly the Indian leaders. I hope that some day the minister will bring in a measure to compensate some of these poor Indians of the Northwest rebellion who never received anything but wounds and being shot at. What they went through was through no fault of their own, and I hope it will be possible to do something for them too.
Something has been said about the South African veterans. Here again I hope that those who have to do with awarding pension to the South African veterans will be allowed considerable latitude. I had a case up recently of one of these veterans-I shall not mention the name-but he was turned down. They are now all old men. They must have been pretty young men when they enlisted, because the South African campaign took place in the late nineties and the authorities took only the very finest and youngest for that campaign. I myself was turned down. I wanted to go but I was not tall enough. The company in which I wanted to enlist would take only six-footers and I was not six feet tall. It turned out. to be a distinguished company and I should have liked to be in it. They were all young men. If they are asking for pensions to-day they must need them, and they deserve them. I want to compliment the minister upon including them.
I should also like to support what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said in favour of hospitalization for the previously non-pensioned widows of deceased pensioners whose pension was not sufficient to entitle them to adequate compensation. They, too, must be getting pretty well on in years. They are the widows of the soldiers of the first great war, and considering what they went through many must require hospitalization. I have wondered if the department could not supply free medicine to them, as was done in Ontario a year or two ago for the old age pensioners. I suggest to the minister that further consideration be given, if possible, to the poor widows of the insufficiently pensioned veterans of the first great war. I am strongly in support of this bill.


Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay the house for more than a moment; but I am brought closely in touch with a large number of the imperial soldiers, and I should like to say just one word, a word of pleading more than a word of claim or right, for those men who
FMr. MacNicol.]
served with the imperial forces in the first great war, and then came out to Canada and enlisted with the Canadian forces during this last war. They served mostly in Canada in the veterans guard in the last war on such duties as guarding vulnerable points. These men all getting up in years and are finding it extremely hard, after having served in two wars, to become reestablished' in civilian life at the age of fifty or more. I hope that generosity will be shown to these men. The dual pension, at one time known as the bumt-out pension, was designed, I believe, in recognition of the fact that men who had served in a war aged! prematurely, and men who have served in two wars age prematurely. No matter where these men were serving, in Canada or in a theatre of war, when they are reaching middle age they have suffered more than the young man who actually went over and saw all his service perhaps in England or elsewhere. So that I should like to make a special plea for the imperial veteran who served with the imperial forces in the first great war, then came to Canada and has lived in Canada for twenty-five years or more, and who served in Canada during this war and is now finding it difficult to become reestablished in civilian life. He is denied certain benefits. If he could receive benefits under this act I believe that in the long run it would not cost this country much more money, because he will have to be looked after since he is handicapped in fitting into the civil life of Canada now.
I should like to underline the remarks which were made in connection with the non-pensionable widows. These people had hoped that they would see an increase in their pension perhaps up to forty dollars a month. They also find it difficult to make both ends meet on the pension which the government now allows them.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Sections 1 to 28 agreed to.
On section 29-Coming into force.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Which clause pertains to South African veterans?


Walter Adam Tucker: The clause which pertains to South African veterans is in section 2, paragraph (i), subparagraph (ii).


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It preserves the rights as we established them before.


John Ritchie MacNicol: There is no elaboration of that?

Veterans' Land Act


Walter Adam Tucker: Well, it says, any person who served in the South African war.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is no change in the effect of the statute from the order in council.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It makes them eligible, I take it, for the benefits.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, as evidence of the speed with which this house is moving, I was called out of the house for about five minutes and you have gone a long way in that time.


James Arthur Ross: If you stayed away we would get through a lot of work.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is about time we did some work here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I, under section 29, which has to do with the coming into force of this legislation, ask the minister or the parliamentary assistant whether he will comment, at least briefly, on some of these requests of the widows which the government has not granted in this legislation?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I can tell my hon.
friend that I am keenly aware in the last three or four years of his assistance and devoted interest in this question, along with the hon. member for Davenport, and that the question will be reviewed from time to time and given sympathetic consideration. I cannot make any definite or positive declaration at the present moment.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to point out to the minister that practically all the members of the veterans committee wanted to give them sympathetic consideration.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes; I overlooked that.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It is hardly fair to single out certain members.	.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask whether the provision made a year or two ago, whereby the expenses of some of these women, in coming to Ottawa to confer with the war veterans allowance committee about these matters, will be retained?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I would say, no; that would be a very bad practice to establish. They were paid expenses the year before last; and upon the motion of, I believe, the hon. member for Vancouver South in committee this year, their expenses were paid. But if this parliament is going to establish a practice of paying the expenses of one veterans' organization, women or men, the thing would be endless; and I think it should be left to the generosity of the committee at the time.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Was not an allowance made in the estimates to this organization a few years ago?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The year before last.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: And it has not been repeated?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It has not been repeated. This year they were paid their expenses on the motion, I think, of the hon. member for Vancouver South, by the committee as a committee of parliament. But honestly I think it is a practice which should not be continued.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Has any change been made in the allowance schedules for these nonpensionable widows?


Walter Adam Tucker: No, there has been no
change.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: You will have them again next year, then?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is right.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved the second reading of bill No. 336, to amend the Veterans Land Act, 1942.
James Arthur Ross: I should like to offer a few observations on this phase of the new Veterans Charter, bill No. 336.
The Veterans Land Act, as most hon. members realize, came into being in 1942 with the object of settling veterans, who were qualified, on farms. It was divided into two sections, one for the full-time farmer and one for the part-time farmer, or what is now recognized as the occupier of a small holding, which means a house on a half-acre of land. I thought at the time that was a splendid idea, and it is, but we have run into some difficulties on account of the administration. To be fair to the administrative officers, their task has been pretty difficult, with the present housing crisis, in administering the small holdings and in starting a great number of applicants upon land at the present time. Moreover, things have changed greatly in value since 1942; and with a ceiling of $6,000 to settle a veteran on an area of land and provide a house, barn, granaries, live stock and equipment, it is almost impossible to realize this project in any good district to-day. On the other hand,
Veterans' Land Act

the same ceiling applies in the case of a house and a half acre of land. Everybody knows that building values have skyrocketed. It is impossible now to build the type of house which was intended for a sum of not more than $6,000. I notice in the paper that in Victoria such a house is now costing $7,636, without carrying charges estimated at $1,100 odd, spread over twenty-five years, and in that particular case the veteran, his wife and family agreed that they could not undertake that obligation. Things are going to be difficult in that respect for this administration and for parliament in the near future.
As to the matter of full-time settlement on the land, I want to raise one objection. I wish to be fair to the director. Under order in council P.C. 10472, certain adjustments were made in 1942, I believe, in relation to the old soldier settlers, and since then many have obtained clear title to the land. It may be said in fairness to the director that he has taken all the safeguards possible to protect the new veterans in the purchase of farms to-day, but in some cases the decision of his office works rather unfairly to the new veteran. Let me give one example which will illustrate a good many cases. I have in mind a young veteran who wished to purchase an area of land adjoining his father's farm in one of the best agricultural districts in Manitoba. He qualified as a good settler, made a cash payment, was given his receipts and was told to go ahead with his spring operations. But the administrative officers felt that, because the property was originally owned by a soldier settler of the first great war and this adjustment had been made under the order in council to which I have referred, the purchase could not be effected for this young settler. That is the grievance I have.
I sympathize with the practical difficulties with which the director has to cope, but I still think this is unfair to the new veteran, when one considers that this farm is one of the best obtainable, adjoining land owned by this young man's relatives, where he could borrow necessary equipment and so on. I suggest that everything possible should be done to assist young veterans to make a success of their settlement on the land at the present time, and I hope the administration will relax their regulations a bit in this regard.
Probably no member of the veterans committee has pointed out more consistently than I have done the necessity for taking safeguards to see that there is successful settlement of veterans on the land, but I suggest that in this particular case there has been too much red tape. I repeat, I sympathize with the director and his administrative 
officers; but where land is so desirable, notwithstanding the fact that adjustments were made with the old settler, it is only fair that everything possible should 'be done to see that a new veteran is settled under the circumstances I have mentioned. This case that I have brought forward is typical of a good many others, and I hope that something can be done to meet this criticism.
There is another criticism I made, not only in our committee but elsewhere, and that has to do with the question of war assets. I am aware that I cannot go very far in the discussion of that question under this bill, but I have been keen in advocating that priorities be granted veteran settlers. I would urge upon the government the importance of this, even though I may be somewhat out of order in doing so at the moment. I sincerely trust that something will be done to assist these settlers in obtaining priorities. After the discussion we had yesterday morning in this house, there is further evidence that much of that equipment could be made available first of all to the veterans who are settling in Canada.
So far I have been rather critical-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not very bad.


James Arthur Ross: 
Percy Ellis Wright: I have just a few words to say and I hope I shall not get into quite as noisy an argument as I did yesterday with the parliamentary assistant and the minister. I can assure them it is not my intention to do so.
I believe that the present bill is a great improvement on the old Soldier Settlement Act which we had after the last war, and there is no reason why it should not be. At that time we were starting something new in this country and we had no experience either of the administration of such an act or in the building up of the necessary organization. It was to be expected, therefore, that we should make some mistakes.
In drafting this bill in 1942, I believe, the government and the committee took into consideration many of those mistakes and tried to draft a bill which would at least, as far as possible, remedy some of the defects. But in doing that we find that probably we created certain other difficulties and made certain other mistakes. Perhaps one of the greatest mistakes in the old Soldier Settlement Act was the fact that it was started in a period of inflation and that there was no write-off in the debt, so that the soldier started with a debt which it was impossible for him to pay under the circumstances which developed later.
In this new bill we decided, in the first place, to see that the soldier had a fair equity in his land. Later, we found, through the increase in the price of land, that, in order to obtain land, we had to reduce that equity,
Veterans' Land Act
and in my opinion we probably reduced the equity just a little too much at the present time.
In 1941 I made certain suggestions-other hon. members did the same-to the effect that the government should have taken over certain types of land and held them for the veterans at the close of the war-certain lands such as C.P.R., C.N.R., Hudson's Bay and mortgage company lands. That land would have been available to the soldier at a reasonable price, the price which obtained at that time. That was not done and, as a result, much of the land to-day is being sold to our veterans, under the Veterans Land Act, at a considerable increase over the 1941 price.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does my hon. friend recall that when he was on the committee in 1942 the advice of all practical farmers was to go very slow with the acquisition of land?


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes, with the acquisition of improved land. But at the time I did suggest that a lot of this unimproved land should have been secured, if possible, at prices which obtained at that time, or reserved at these prices for later development by the soldier when he returned. This has resulted in the administration having great difficulty in obtaining land for settlement at prices which they believe to be reasonable. That is one of the greatest difficulties for the returned man who has to buy good land in a reasonably sure crop district at prices which the board can afford to pay. The administration are setting prices at approximately the 1941 or 1942 prices of farm land in Canada. If the soldier wishes to obtain that land he must put up the difference between the price that is being asked to-day and the 1941 or 1942 prices. That is going on. in a great many places. The result is that only those returned men who have relatives who can advance or give them money to pay the difference are the ones who are able to obtain land at the present time. It is restricting the numbers who can be settled under the act. I am one of those who were in favour of seeing, that high prices were not paid for land on which these soldiers were to be settled; nevertheless I think conditions have changed in Canada. Our whole price structure is on a higher level. Just the other day the government announced that we were to have a stabilized price for wheat over at least the next four years. That price does justify some increase in the value of land in western Canada. The board would be well advised not to stick too strictly to their present policy of paying not more than the 1941 or 1942 prices. In good crop districts the
Veterans' Land Act

value of this land has advanced to a certain extent and the board should take that into consideration.
There is no doubt that the restricting feature of this bill is the availability of good agricultural land in Canada. There is nothing very much that this government can do about the matter. There is only so much land here. A certain amount of it is under provincial control.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would my hon. friend not commend what we have done by way of agreements with provincial governments with regard to provincial land?


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes; I am coming to that. Most of our natural resources are under the control of the provincial governments. I believe that the dominion government is making a real effort to come to some agreement with the provinces with respect to land. Nearly all the provinces are prepared to cooperate. Some have already signed agreements.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Four.


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes; and I believe others will sign in the near future. There is one point with respect to these agreements which I should like to bring out. Under the old Soldier Settlement Act we found that a great number of our returned men were sent into districts where they were thirty or forty miles from the railroad. They were settled on new land which in many places was hard to clear. While they were settled in groups, yet we found that within two or three years many of them became discouraged and pulled out, which left those who remained, in scattered settlements where it was impossible to give them the amenities of life, the roads, schools and other things which are necessary and which we should have in Canada to-day. Most of the provincial governments are trying to overcome that. Some of them have devised different schemes of doing so. They are opening up one large tract in Al'be-rta. They have contracted with a United States firm to clear so many thousand acres of land which will be made available to soldiers. I expect that other provinces will have other agreements. I know it is the intention in Saskatchewan to try to avoid) some of the errors of the past.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I must say that
Alberta has been the most cooperative of all the provinces.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am glad to hear that. I knew it would be one of the western provinces which would be in that class. Probably the reason why the minister did not include

Saskatchewan is that he and they do not agree on the methods by which veterans should be settled on provincial land. We believe in that province that, in trying to avoid the pitfalls of the past, we should see that these settlers are placed in groups where we can give them the roads, schools, medical attention and other services to which we believe they are entitled1. That province believes that the principle of cooperative farms should be tried- out there. I am sorry that the government have not seen fit, when they were amending the act, to include an amendment which would have permitted funds granted by the dominion government to be used for cooperative purposes, not only in the buying of land but in the buying of fishing equipment and equipment for any other work which the various settlers wish to undertake in a cooperative way. There should have been an amendment which would have permitted that.
In Saskatchewan we feel that that would have been the best method, or one of the methods which should have been used in placing settlers 'there. Probably we shall be able to work out some satisfactory agreement even under the regulations in the act as it stands at present. Under sympathetic cooperation it is still not impossible to do something along these lines, and I hope that the government will give sympathetic consideration to proposals there. I can assure them that it is the desire, of the government of Saskatchewan to cooperate in every respect, and, along with the dominion government, to assume responsibility with regard to any losses which might occur when settlers are placed in this way. I would1 suggest that the government continue to give sympathetic consideration to the suggestions which are coming from that province.
I should also like to comment on the amendment which we now have before us. I believe that it is a good amendment. There is no doubt in my mind that it will assist greatly in settlement in the better districts in western Canada. There are areas where, at present prices, it is difficult to obtain an economic unit of land.
iMr. ROSS (Souris): The hon. member is referring to leases.


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes. It is hard to obtain an economic unit under 'the old act where they have to buy. Under the new amendment they will be able to lease an economic unit and obtain assistance in securing equipment to work it. Later, when they have built up a little capital of their own, they will be able to get further assistance in the purchase either of the rented farm or of a new unit on which

Veterans Land Act
they can carry on. So that I commend the government on the amendment 'being made in this act.
The matter of small holdings has been discussed. I believe that when the bill was introduced originally, in 1942, it was expected that the small holdings would be more or less agricultural undertakings; that certain operations would be carried on there in connection with the production of perhaps, honey, the raising of poultry, the planting of fruit trees, and so on. On account of housing situation, however, this part of the act is becoming more and more a housing scheme to-day. I do not agree with that. I admit that under present circumstances this may be necessary, but I have always felt that housing should be dealt with by another department and the small holdings scheme carried out according to the original intention. It was designed to give at least a partial living to people who might be able to obtain other part-time employment, in factories or elsewhere, not only in the larger cities but in the smaller towns as well, and I think would have served a good purpose in this regard. It still can be made use of in that way, but up to the present it has been concentrated principally around the larger cities and used as a housing scheme.
I hope and believe it is the intention of the government to get away from this system as soon as possible and spread the small holdings in the vicinity of the smaller towns. I feel there is a place for this scheme in all parts of the western provinces. There is no doubt in my mind but that very few towns of more than one thousand population in western Canada could very well afford to have from five to ten of these small holdings in the vicinity; and I hope that as soon as present shortages of building materials are overcome the scheme will be extended and these small holdings established adjacent to the smaller centres in western Canada, at least, because I know, from observation covering many years, there has been a natural growth of these small holdings around our towns, operated by people who obtain parttime employment in the towns and carry on these small operations. So I hope that within the next few years the government will make that part of the act work much better than it is working at the present time.
There are other matters with which I shall deal when the particular sections are reached, but once more I want to urge that the government give sympathetic consideration to amending the act to provide for the cooperative use of the money available under it. The government will have to assume the responsibility for not including that provision in the 63260-264
bill. They will have to assume the responsibility if in certain provinces they do not find it possible to settle as many returned men as they would like, because of this restriction which arises from the fact that no provision is made for the cooperative use of this money.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Speaker, I am thoroughly in accord with the amendments proposed in the bill, which I think will help bring about the settlement of more men on the land. I say that chiefly because the price of land has gone up in the last few years, and, as a result, many boys are being forced to rent farms. This measure provides for loans and grants to them.
I supported the Veterans' Land Act when it was introduced in 1942, but at that time I pointed to a number of difficulties under which the veterans would labour. Unfortunately those difficulties have increased as a result of increases in the price of land and equipment, together with the great difficulty of obtaining equipment at this time. I pointed out then that it would be quite difficult for a boy with limited resources to go into fulltime farming under this act unless he could get the help of his parents. Of course, where a boy's parents live in the vicinity they have machinery which will be available to the boy, but not many are in that happy position. Today officials under the Veterans' Land Act are turning down many boys purely on the ground that their financial resources are not sufficient to make it possible for them to start off with any chance of success. Many of those turned down are boys who have lived on farms all their lives, and with good records in the army. They are being turned down purely because their financial resources are not sufficient to ensure them a good chance of success. I am not criticizing the officials for this. When we discussed the Veterans' Land Act in this house we were critical of the officials of the old soldier settlement board for settling boys who did not have a real chance to make a go of it. As a result, the officials are being careful to see that the boys settled now will be likely to succeed.
Having that in mind, when we were dealing with these amendments in the committee I suggested that it should be possible for veterans to pool their grants for the purpose of buying equipment. The director stated that he had a proposal under which veterans settling on provincial lands would be able to pool their grants, but I think we should go farther than that and make it possible for a number of veterans settling on privately owned land to pool their grants for this purpose. Then a subcommittee was appointed to consider the advisability of making the Veterans Land Act

Veterans Land Act

apply to cooperative farms, and that subcommittee brought in a report urging the government to investigate the question and see whether it would not be possible in future to make the Veterans Land Act apply to some form of cooperative institution. If both these things are done I believe they will help take care of many boys who otherwise will be deprived of the benefits of this act, and who may just have to take jobs. So that I urge the government to follow up these matters and see that provision is made for the pooling of grants to boys who want to settle on privately owned land, and also for the making of grants to those who want to enter upon some type of cooperative farming.


Mr. C. E. STEPHENSON (Durham):: I wonder if we could have some statement from the minister as to how farms for veterans are purchased. I understand that there are regional officers and a supervisor for each office; but who actually purchases the land; and is an analysis made of the soil to determine whether or not the property is suitable for farming purposes? I ask this question because I have had several complaints along this line, one in particular concerning a farm which was purchased for a veteran, in connection with which it was stated that a junior farmer had worked the land for about four years and finally had to give it up owing to the poor quality of the soil. In spite of that fact it was purchased, at quite a price, to be sold to veterans under the Veterans' Land Act. I was wondering how this land was purchased, and if an analysis were made of the soil to indicate its suitability for farming. That can be answered later on by the minister.
Then it seems to take considerable time to have these transactions put through. A veteran may decide to purchase a farm for post-war occupation, and will begin proceedings for that purpose. But six or eight months will have elapsed before the papers are finally completed, and he finds he must wait all that time to get on the land.
Then there is the matter of small holdings. Several small holdings have been opened up across the country, but for some reason or another there does not seem to have been any great effort put forth to have them completed. Is it because the prices are so high the veterans do not want to purchase them? The figures indicate that 3,000 of these small holdings have been started, but only about 400 have been completed1 to the present time. In my own district they seem to be held up for some reason or another. Is it because the

veteran feels he cannot afford to purchase at the prices asked? I should like to have the minister answer these questions.


Walter Adam Tucker: When we go into committee.


Thomas John Bentley: Mr. Speaker, I thought the minister was going to reply, but since it appears that he is not at this time, I shall just add a few words to what the hon. members for Melfort (Mr. Wright) and Acadia (Mr. Quelch) have said.
I was on the subcommittee which discussed the possibility of cooperative farms being established under the Veterans' Land Act. It was evident in that committee, as it has been made evident by other discussions in the house, that many members of the committee had not the foggiest notion of what a cooperative is. I was surprised to hear them express fear that the venture would not succeed. I could understand people who never had occasion to face danger or risk expressing fear that something would or would not happen. But it was surprising to me to hear veterans of both wars express fear, particularly in view of the fact that everything had been promised by the veterans themselves, to remove that cause of fear.
In the first place, the illustration of Matador, which was used, indicated that the government of Saskatchewan was prepared to give financial support to the point where operations under the Veterans' Land Act would not lose money. They were not prepared to allow a veteran to settle in this way on crown lands unless the veteran expressed the desire to do so. Consequently, there was no possibility, so far as human foresight could be exercised, of any slip-up.
No one wants to make a mistake, no matter what it is. But even though it was explained to the committee that these men were given every opportunity to see all the pitfalls as well as the advantages, and were given the necessary assistance and support, the committee did not see fit to recommend that this be undertaken.
Because of that I am convinced there will be a good many veterans from Saskatchewan who would have liked to re-settle in that province, but who are not going to be able to get the land, even with the useful improvement set out in section 2 of the bill. I dhould like hon. members to understand the importance of giving that opportunity to these boys. It does not mean that every veteran will accept the opportunity; but it does mean

Veterans Land Act
that a section-perhaps a small section-of Saskatchewan veterans will want to do so, and, if they do, they should not be prevented by some regulation which someone is afraid to change.
We talk about venture capital and private enterprise, and there is more talk about those things from other sections of the house than from this one. But there is no more private enterprise in the world than that found in a cooperative. No one goes into it unless he is privately convinced that he wishes to do so. It is purely and strictly a private procedure, just as private as any enterprise can be in this world.
These men were promised certain grants under the Veterans' Land Act, because of their service. To prevent their getting them is not fair. Not only are there crown lands to settle, but in our wheat growing areas we have large mechanized farms, the owners of some of which are willing to sell. But the $6,000 allowed under section 9-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member; but at this stage of proceedings, namely the debate ora second reading, hon. members are not supposed to discuss the details of a bill. Only the principle of a bill can be discussed at this point. If the hon. member has representations to make, I suggest that he wait until the house resolves itself into committee.


Thomas John Bentley: I observe your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I expect that you are correct. You usually are. I shall not go into greater detail, more than to say that, while in some respects I agree with the principle of the bill, one weakness is that it does not permit cooperative farming under the Veterans' Land Act. I may have more to say later on.


Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak only briefly, if I may, on the principle of these half-acre and one-acre lots. In the township of Scarboro to-day there are fifty of these properties vacant, and they have been vacant for some months. In the county of Ontario the number has reached 100. They should be occupied. There is something radically wrong with the principle underlying investment by the government in these developments which, in turn, have not been taken up by veterans.
I put this on the record so that the officers of the department may secure occupants for these buildings in the township of Scarboro and the county of Ontario, even if the government has to take a loss on them. If its judgment was wrong in providing for half-acre 63260-264J
and one-acre properties, under this $6,000 plan, then take your licking and have the properties occupied. We need the houses.
Motion agreed' to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Appointment and salary of director.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I have here the act itself, chapter 33 of 1942, and by virtue of that act which is to be amended by the bill before us only those can enjoy the benefits of the act who enlisted and went overseas, even though for just a Cook's tour, and those who have served in Canada for a period of twelve months. If any soldier for any reason whatsoever has not been sent overseas or has not served twelve months in Canada he cannot take advantage of the act. I find that that construction is wrong because the purpose of the act is twofold. It is designed to help the veteran who has had some farming experience and has a natural disposition to establish himself on a farm, but it has also the higher purpose of serving the country at large by establishing more good men on the land. Those reasons can be taken together or considered separately. If you take them together I do not see why, we should give better treatment to the man who has signed a paper for overseas service than we give to the soldier who has not signed such a paper but has abided by the law. Even if that man has not abided by the law he is entitled to enjoy all the benefits of the act for the superior reason that farmers are essential to this country, not amateur farmers but real farmers who can do well by working on the farm. In a moment I shall move an amendment to that effect.
The famine which some members of parliament predicted at the time we were fighting for the farmer is now showing itself. It is not only on the horizon; but even now in this country which has been so generously endowed by the Almighty, we are finding that the land does not produce enough to satisfy the requirements of the Canadian people. Therefore it is not simply a question of rewarding the veteran who was sent overseas; it is a question of public necessity. How many
Veterans Land Act

times have I seen boys with a good agricultural background come into my office desiring to establish themselves on the land, on a farm of their own, perhaps because the old homestead that belonged to their father was not large enough to establish all his sons. They said.: We have been in the army and we should be able to take advantage of the legislation that was passed in 1942, four years ago. But nothing could be done for them. At the present time there are many boys, mostly farmers and lumbermen, who could help out this country by cultivating land which is not now being cultivated, or by opening up new land, but those boys find it impossible to help out their country in that way because of the shame that has been attached to them because people have been credulous enough to believe what was said about these boys by those high in authority.
I wonder if the time will ever come when all the members of this parliament will give the farmers of this country the credit that is due to them, and honour them, not with decorations on their breast, because the farmers do not care about ribbons and medals. But they are ready to serve their country.
When we were asking that farmers be exempted from military service it was not because they were a lot of cowards. It was because they had a duty to fulfil to this country, a duty whose importance was minimized down to zero by some people.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. May I remind the hon. member that we are discussing the Veterans' Land Act, and not the question of deferments that were granted during the last war. I would ask the hon. member to relate his remarks to the bill now under consideration.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, as an old soldier you know very well that there is a bombardment before an attack.


William Ross Macdonald: May I remind the hon. member that a bombardment to be effective must be directed on the target.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, sir, but the attack will be very mild, and it will be in the form of an amendment which I shall move when I am through with my few remarks.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, what is before us is not only this bill but the act of 1942 which it amends; we have to consider the two together as forming a whole, and what is of the utmost importance is to know precisely which of our veterans will be in a position to take advantage of the legislation that is now before the committee. That is my point. As the bill now stands, the only ones who will be in a position to take advantage of the legis-

lation will be those who enlisted and served for any length of time overseas and those who, having enlisted have served for twelye months in the forces in Canada or in some auxiliary service. It may be that all draftees who have been abiding by the law will be deprived of the benefits of this legislation. I am strongly opposed to that kind of legislation. This bill will be no improvement unless those who have had experience in farming and are real farmers have an opportunity to take advantage of the act and cultivate the soil. That is my point.
In order to enlighten the committee on the real purpose of this amendment and the motive behind it, I must recall the errors of the past, when people who were steeped in prejudice gave no chance at all to those who were entitled to the dignity of man. I have the highest regard for the farmers. It was taught to me in my family. I live in a semi-rural district. In my family I have been told since I was a little boy that the farmer is the feeder of the country, the man without whom we could' not eat at all, we would die of hunger. Therefore the case I argue now is not only the case of the veteran; it is the case chiefly of the veteran who is a farmer and who was put in the army in spite of the fact that his duty, his national duty, was to stay on the farm at the time. I regret that able young men who were on the farms were compelled to go into the army, and their case was not considered fairly at the time. It was not considered with justice and fairness, because the farmer was regarded merely as a slacker. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, and I will maintain all the time I have an opportunity to speak, that the farmer who did not enlist during the war, the farmer who claimed exemption because his duty was to be at home, was not a slacker. I regret to say, from my personal knowledge, that a farmer who has reached the age of fifty is not in a position to do all the hard work on the soil. He must rely on the assistance of his young and robust sons to do ploughing, to clean ditches and perform other hard work. The old man suffers, perhaps, from reheuma-tism, at his age he can do only light work on the farm. I wonder whether the circumstances are similar in the west, where agriculture is mostly mechanized. What I have said is true of my district as well as of Ontario and the maritimes, and perhaps also of British Columbia. The farmer needs his young sons. In how many cases have I met young lads who were ready to enlist but who did not do so because of a sense of duty to their family and their country. Moreover, sir,-


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would like those who say "order" to be heard by all the farmers of the country whose cause I defend to-day.


William Ross Macdonald: Some hon. member has called "order", but, as I understand the remarks of the hon. member for Temiscouata, he is contending that those who served on the farms during the war should be included in the bill. If that is his intention he is in order at the present time.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, sir. But to clear the sky and remove the difficulty, I will take the preamble of the bill, and the committee will notice that those who drafted it knew nothing of the conditions on the farms in this country. I shall certainly be in order to read the preamble, because the preamble precedes clause 1, and besides that it is an illustration of the real purpose of the act. Let us see what it is:
Whereas many men now serving in the active forces of Canada have recorded their desire to settle on land or engage in farming when hostilities cease . . .
"Many men"! It is not true. It is not true because the boys who have left the country to go to the army have been uprooted. Very often when they live in the cities afterwards they do not want to return to the country because the work on the farm is very hard, painstaking. When they live in town and have facilities which ought to be available in the country, these boys are reluctant to go back to the the old homestead; they want to lead an easier life. That is my experience, after dealing with quite a large number of farmers. Therefore, when we find a few who are ready to go back to the farm they must be awarded the greatest advantages possible, precisely because of their intention to return to the painstaking and arduous work which is the lot of the farmer in this country, work which starts at dawn and finishes a long time after dusk. It is not true that many men are ready to go back to the farm after serving in the army. I am sorry to say that this is one of the bills of which the least advantage will be taken, for the very reason I have given, and it is precisely because I want the bill to be just as serviceable as possible to those who want to farm that I speak as I do now.
To continue with the preamble:
. . . and it is desirable that suitably qualified veterans be encouraged to seek rehabilitation in the agricultural industry.
Suitably qualified veterans! Who are the most suitably qualified veterans? It is those who had their training on the land. You cannot make a farmer by inviting a white-collar man to go to the farm and start doing business there. He will be a complete failure.
Veterans Land Act
You must go to men of experience. Farming is an art, and very few men can excel in an art without having some experience of it. "Fabricando fit faber." It is by working that one improves his art, his skill, and this is as true of farmers as of anyone else. And the most suitable of all are precisely those who are kept in clink now, more than a year after the war is over, just to satisfy the antiCanadian and anti-national animus of the brass hats who would lose their jobs if the clinks were closed. I congratulate the hon. member for Portneuf on the strong language he used the other day. He made an able speech; it was time to say it; it should be repeated by all of us, just as though we were singing the national anthem, and it would be the national anthem for the farmer.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The hon. member is not now discussing a matter relating to the Veterans' Land Act.


Jean-François Pouliot: Therefore, sir, I move that:
Sub-paragraph (d) of section 2 be repealed and replaced by "any man in the army, air force, militia or navy of Canada."


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The committee is now considering section 1, and amendments to sections should be made as we reach the section. The section before the committee is "appointment and salary of director."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: Excuse me; the first section which is referred to in the bill before us is section 3. Therefore section 2 precedes this section 3, and for that reason I am making the amendment. It will take me a minute to write it, and I will send it to you to submit to the will of the committee.


William Ross Macdonald: I understand, then, that the hon. member is amending section 2.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wish to amend section 2 of the act, the first act of 1942.


Mr. FLEMING:: Section 2 is not affected by the amendment.


Jean-François Pouliot: Are we bound by the amendments which are proposed by the minister to the bill?


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member, as I understand his remarks, desires to add a new clause to this bill


Jean-François Pouliot: No, sir. I want to change the bill of 1946, the bill that is before us-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What clause?


Jean-François Pouliot: I am speaking of bill No. 336, which is before us. The purpose of it is to make some changes in chapter 33 of 1942,
Veterans Land Act

and my amendment will be included in bill No. 336 which is now before us, but it will refer to the act of 1942. My contention, sir,-


William Ross Macdonald: If the hon. member proposes to present an amendment to this bill the amendment must be in writing. I have tried to ascertain which clause of the bill he desires to amend and I have not been able to do so. Therefore there is no amendment before the committee at the present time.


Jean-François Pouliot: What I mean is that the committee is not bound by the bill that is now before us in amending the act of 1942. My amendment will not be to the bill of 1946; it will be in the bill of 1946 to amend the act of 1942; and since the first amendment in the bill that is now before us is in regard to section 3 of the act of 1942, and since the amendment that I am going to sponsor relates to the second section of the act of 1942, now is the time to submit it to you, sir, on the first section of the bill. I hope you will take it into consideration as soon as my amendment is presented in writing.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member has explained that he desires to amend the present section 2 of the act-


Jean-François Pouliot: By repealing paragraph (b).


William Ross Macdonald: Then it will be necessary for him to put his motion in writing-


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes.


William Ross Macdonald: -and in my opinion it would be a new clause to this bill, amending section 2 of the present act.


Jean-François Pouliot: Exactly.


William Ross Macdonald: If the hon. member will put his motion in writing I will consider whether or not it is in order.


Mr. FAIR:: Before section 1 passes, I wish again to commend the committee on veterans affairs for the very good work done, but at the same time I wish to remind them of one or two things they have not done which they should have done. I am considering once again the recommendation I made on several occasions, that the committee should see that a clause is written into the veteran's contract, under the Veterans' Land Act, that present prices for farm produce, including grain, live stock and other products, be guaranteed until the loan has been repaid by the veteran. I do this because the veteran is compelled to sign a contract on the basis of to-day's prices for land, live stock and equipment; and because he is compelled to sign that contract I feel that the government, in
[Mr. Pouliot.l
fairness to the veteran, should be compelled to sign a contract also that prices now prevailing, and on which the prices of land, live stock and equipment are based, should be guaranteed until the loan has been paid by the veteran.
I make this recommendation again to-night because I think something should be written into the bill by the government. I would move an amendment to that effect, but I know I would not be in order in doing so. If that is done, however, it will prevent a repetition of the treatment that has been handed out to the veterans of world war I, who have been neglected by the special committee on veterans affairs.
On many occasions I have brought up the case of these old veterans. On October 1 last we had a discussion on a resolution in my name in which twenty-two or twenty-three members took part and about twenty were in favour of the proposal. The disposal of that resolution was to send it on to the special committee on veterans affairs, and that committee asked a delegation of the soldier settlers association to come to Ottawa once again and present their brief. On the day on which the brief was presented there was not sufficient time for a discussion of it and another day was set aside later on for the purpose. After the motion to grant elear titles was presented, an amendment was introduced- which let a number of government members out of a corner-to the effect that nothing be done in connection with clear title, but that further time be granted in which the veterans could make application for an extension of time and a reduction of their debts. In my opinion, that is not good enough and-


Walter Adam Tucker: On a point of order, I do not mind the hon. member debating this question, but he has already discussed it in connection with the soldier settlement bill which has gone through the house this session. Surely, therefore, he has no right to debate it again on an entirely different bill. Some attempt, I submit, should be made to observe the rules of procedure.


William Ross Macdonald: I must remind the hon. member for Battle River that there is another act dealing with soldier settlers of the first great war, the Soldier Settlement Act, which was considered in this house and in this committee a few weeks ago. It is an entirely different matter and should not be discussed under the Veterans' Land Act.


Robert Fair: Mr. Chairman, I am going to suggest to-night that the Department of Public Works see to it that the tacks are all

Veterans Land Act
removed from the chair occupied by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), because he does not seem to be able to sit still.


Walter Adam Tucker: Very funny.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, it isn't even amusing.


William Ross Macdonald: May I ask the hon. member for Battle River to be good enough to discuss the Veterans Land Act of 1942 and the amendment, bill No. 336, which is now before the committee.


Walter Adam Tucker: If your case is bad you abuse the other side.


Robert Fair: Surely we are not to be denied the right to -bring in matters of this kind in support of our argument.


William Ross Macdonald: It is entirely out of order to discuss at this time another question which has already been disposed of this session by the house and by this committee. I think the hon. member is familiar with the rules.


Robert Fair: I fully appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the view you take, but I am using the treatment of the old veterans as an illustration to show what will happen to the new veterans unless some protective clause is included in the act. Surely that is plain to a lawyer like the hon. member for Rosthern. He must remember that in a few days he is going to Saskatchewan-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Ross Macdonald: That has nothing whatever to do with the Veterans' Land Act, and again I appeal to the hon. member to confine his remarks to the subject before the committee and not to discuss the Soldier Settlement Act.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would you deal with my amendment, sir?


Robert Fair: I am awfully sorry; I wish to discuss this matter for one minute. I should have been through long ago if I had been allowed to carry on- by hon. gentlemen wdio cannot sit comfortably in their chairs. It is just too bad that this section had not been written into the present aot. It is n-o-t because it has not been brought to the attention of the minister.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Order.


Robert Fair: Perhaps the minister is also getting uncomfortable in his chair. This is one thing that should be done for the protection of these new veterans who are to 'be settled under the Veterans Land Act. I am simply pointing out that that protection has been
needed by the old veterans of world war I. I have pointed out the suffering which they have been compelled- to go through because the protective measures were not taken. If we are not allowed to carry on this discussion, then we must thank the Minister of Veterans Affairs and his parliamentary assistant who are both objecting to the discussion. They will have to be responsible for the potential failure of the veterans who are to be settled under the new act.


William Ross Macdonald: The motion of the hon. member for Temiscouata has now been received by me. I shall read it to the committee. Mr. Pouliot moves -that:
Paragraph (d) of section 2 be repealed and the following substituted therefor: "veteran" means a person who at any time during world war II has been in the militia, the air force or naval services of the Canadian forces, whether serving voluntarily or in virtue of the National Resources Mobilization Act.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Have we passed section I?


William Ross Macdonald: If the hon. member for Tem-iscouata's motion is in order .it would necessitate a new section being written into the bill which would become section 1, because iit amends section 2 of the act. Section 1 of the bill amends section 3 of the act.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The amendment proposed by the hon. gentleman, as I understand it, changes the definition of a veteran -to include persons who had less than -one year's service and w-ho are not now qualified under the provisions of the -act. Therefore it would impose additional taxes upon the revenues of the country and is out of order.


William Ross Macdonald: I have reread and studied- the amendment of the bon. member. It seems obvious thait it would extend the benefits of this act to a large group of men who served during world war II in the way in which he suggests.
-Mr. POULIOT: I d-o not wish to interrupt you, sir, because I have t-he greatest respect for the Chair and for you personally. The minister has complained that this will mean an increased expenditure because I change the definition of the bill. Whoever heard of such a thing? I do not propose any additional expenditures; I want to change the definition of a veteran-; I want the right one.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Order.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the hon. gentleman would listen to me it would be -to his advantage. But, sir, I speak to you with the
Veterans Land Act

greatest respect. I will tell you that I put aside all formality, but I abided 'by one, namely, to put the amendment in writing. My amendment is perfectly regular.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I ask the minister please to keep quiet. My experience at the bar has been as long as his, if not a little longer.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. May I ask the hon. member for Temiscouata to confine his remarks directly to the point of order and make them as brief as possible.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is what I want to do, sir. Of course, law is supposed to be common sense and if a definition is wrong it should be improved. My idea is not to increase the expenditures of this country. By the way, I am not proposing this bill; it is the hon. gentleman who proposes it. I am asking for a change.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I must rise to a point of order. A point of order must be confined definitely to the point of order raised. I say to you, sir, that 100,000 men who had less than twelve months' service are affected under the proposed amendment of the hon. gentleman. I ask you, sir, whether or not it is in order. We are not discussing the merits or demerits of the amendment, but whether or not it is in order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall confine myself strictly to the point of order. Since I have no other means of communication I shall have to say a few words to do so.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I have heard the hon. member for Temiscouata. He maintains that the amendment would not involve additional expenditures. I do not think there is any doubt that it would involve additional expenditures. The effect of it would bring about additional expenditures, because it would bring in a great number of people who are not affected by the bill at the present time. Motions which involve the expenditure of money must first have the approval of His Excellency the Governor General, and be moved by a minister of the crown. I therefore rule that the amendment of the hon. member for Temiscouata is out of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I appeal to the chair from your ruling, and I shall put it in writing in virtue of the rules. When a question of order is decided by a chairman of the committee of the whole the member concerned has the right to appeal to the chair.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The amendment is out of order. The hon. member says that he appeals, but he must be supported by

four other hon. members before I can put the appeal.
Mr. Speaker took the chair and submitted the question to the house in the following terms:
The chairman of the committee of the whole ruled that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Temiscouata is out of order because the effect would be to increase the number of persons entitled to benefit by the bill, and would therefore impose added charges on the people. Such motions can be made only by a minister with the consent of the crown. The motion therefore was ruled out of order.
Whereupon Mr. Pouliot appealed from the ruling of the chairman.


Mr. FULTON:: Mr. Chairman, while we are discussing clause 1 and as has been the custom on clause 1 of the bills, I should like to bring to the attention of the minister the recommendation of the veterans affairs committee which is contained in its final report to the house, to be found on page 548 of Votes and Proceedings of Friday, July 26:
Your committee has also reported the following recommendations to the house:
2. That the government give consideration to the introduction of a bill to amend the Veterans Land Act, 1942, to provide that the total cost of all homes over six thousand dollars presently constructed or in actual process of construction under the small holdings scheme be subsidized twenty-three and one-third per cent.
I appreciate that I cannot move that recommendation as an amendment to the present bill because it would involve the expenditure of public funds, but I would point out that this was a recommendation passed by the majority of the committee. It was based on difficulties which the veterans were experiencing in getting homes under the small holdings scheme and paying for homes which had been allotted to them under that scheme. Would the minister tell the committee whether the government has had this recommendation under consideration, and, if so, whether it proposes to introduce an amendment to the act in accordance with the terms of that recommendation?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The recommendation of the committee was most carefully considered, but the government is not prepared to go any farther than already indicated.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If that is the government's position, and since we are debarred as private members from introducing amendments involving the expenditure of public funds, I realize that there is nothing we can do at this time to have such an amendment introduced. But I would like to outline briefly 63260-265
some of the considerations which induced the committee to make that recommendation in the hope that, by placing them on record and bringing them before the committee and to the attention of the government, we may possibly induce the government to give further consideration to this proposal and to take some action on it.
The committee will recall that the question was raised earlier this session as to the procedure being followed in giving veterans title to homes being built under the small holding scheme under the Veterans' Land Act. There were actual cases in which veterans who had been allotted houses and had made their arrangements to take possession and had given up other tenancies were told, when they came to take possession the homes allotted to them that, owing to the fact that the cost was more than S6.000, they would have to undertake to pay all the excess over $6,000 before they would be granted possession. That matter first came to my attention as a result of two cases which existed in Sherbrooke and which were personally investigated and can be verified. It is known that the same situation prevails throughout other parts of the country where building projects of thirty or forty houses in a group have been proceeded with under the small holdings scheme on a cost-plus basis, and I think the government passed a vote of a million dollars to equalize costs across the dominion.
When the director of the Veterans' Land Act was before the committee he admitted that in most cases the houses cost more than $6,000. So this recommendation was drafted and put to the committee suggesting that inasmuch as the government is prepared to subsidize the cost of a home up to $6,000 to the extent of 23J per cent of its value, they should make the same subsidy available with respect also to that portion of the cost over $6,000. The objection raised to that was that the veteran who was getting a $7,000 home would be able to get it for the same price as the veteran who was getting a $6,000 home. But the objection does not apply because, if you make the same proportion of subsidy available, it means that the same proportion of the total cost would be underwritten by the government. Many veterans have already made their plans and are prepared to take up these homes, and if an amendment is not passed embodying the recommendation of the committee they will either be unable to take up the homes or be unable probably to meet the payments imposed on them to get possession.
I submit that the increase in cost which has resulted in the homes costing more than was expected by the veteran is not the
Senn
Shaw
Sinclair (Vancouver North)
Skey Stanfield Stokes Strum, Mrs. Tremblay

Veterans Land. Act

veteran's fault. It is perhaps not quite fair to put all the blame at the door of the government, certainly not at the door of the Veterans' Land Act administration. It is merely one aspect of constantly rising costs, particularly building costs throughout the country. But the government having held out to the veterans the undertaking that they would be able to get these homes at $6,000, it seems to me only fair that the government should make that undertaking good by assuming a fair proportion of the cost of the homes in excess of $6,000.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If my hon. friend will permit an interruption, when I replied to him a moment ago what I meant to convey was that the government did not intend at this session to introduce any amendments along the lines suggested by my hon. friend, but does undertake to give most careful consideration during the recess to the recommendations of the committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am gratified to hear that statement of the minister.
The final point I would make, to bring this thing home to the minister, is that I had a letter to-day which I have not had time to bring to his attention. It is from Montreal and indicates the widespread nature of the difficulties which veterans are encountering, and it was to the effect that this particular veteran had intended to take up a house under the small holdings scheme, but he could not find a contractor anywhere to carry out his plan, cutting it down to the bone as he did, at less than $8,500. The statement he made, which I think reflects the attitude of veterans to this question, is that if the government does not take some steps to meet this difficulty it should in fairness announce publicly that the Veterans' Land Act will be dropped, or at least that the small holdings scheme under the act will be dropped, because so many veterans are encountering such great disappointment that they are coming to the point where they say, "Well, if they are not going to give us the benefit of the act as we understood we could have it they might as well drop the whole thing."
I thank the minister for the assurance he has just given us, but I would urge, certainly on behalf of those of us in the committee who supported this recommendation, if possible not to wait to consider it until the end of the session, but to introduce the thing at the earliest possible moment.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am sure the committee would like to have some figures with regard to the small holdings section, because my hon. friend suggested that, unless his suggestion
[Mr. Fulton.1
were carried out, the whole act might as well be dropped. To date 4,689-nearly 4,700- small holdings have been established, and
5.493	full-time farms.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How many applications for small holdings have there been?


Walter Adam Tucker: These are actual approvals.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But how many applications?


Walter Adam Tucker: Applications for qualifications granted have been 19,501.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And 4,700 completed?


Walter Adam Tucker: That is, applications for qualifications which have been granted in respect of small holdings. For full-time farms 16,841 qualifications have been granted and
5.493	have been actually approved and roughly settled; and of the 19,501 applications for qualifications under the small holdings scheme, as I have said 4,689 have been actually approved and settled.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Just to clear up that point, I had reference only to the small holdings scheme, and I think these figures bear out my point: 19,000 applications and only 4,700 have gone to fruition now, eighteen months after V-E day and nearly a year after V-J day. I think this figure of a 15,000 backlog speaks for itself in support of the recommendation of the committee.


Walter Adam Tucker: To complete the figures, I should state that it has been brought to my attention that, in regard to full-time farming, another 1,894 are pending; that is, are ready to go through; and in regard to small holdings there are another 1,649 pending, bringing the total up to about 6,200. So that, although all those have not been settled that have qualified, over 6,000 have actually been looked after-which I think is worth while.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Worth while, but it leaves
13,000.	Has the parliamentary assistant any figures as to the number of those settled in whose cases the total cost exceeded $6,000?


Walter Adam Tucker: I am sorry I have not those exact figures, but they can be got and given. In regard to the position of a man who takes land under the Veterans' Land Act, if the cost of the property is $6,000 the down payment, of course, is $600; the contract is S4,000 at 3J per cent, and that works out at a monthly payment of $20, plus taxes, for a $6,000 proposition. Of course, if the amount runs over $6,000 the amount will increase, but if it reaches $6,500 the total payment is only $25 a month plus taxes, so that is so much better than any other veteran' gets under the housing act, and if we were to do even more for

Veterans Land Act
those who are under the small holdings part of the Veterans' Land Act I am sure it would cause criticism.


John Oliver Probe: I feel that I must make at this moment a few observations on the small holdings section of the Veterans' Land Act, and particularly, of course, relating it to the district from which I come and the constituency I represent. According to the figures which the parliamentary assistant gave us a moment ago with respect to the number of veterans who have been established either on small holdings or in full-time farming, we have to date a rough percentage of from 1J to 2 per cent of the persons who were in the armed forces of Canada who are now settled under one or other of these two full-time farming or small holdings sections of the Veterans' Land Act. To my mind the act in principle is the most laudable way in which the Canadian people can assist to rehabilitate those veterans requiring rehabilitation in the form of full-time agriculture, fishing, or homes.
I should like at this stage to pay a compliment to the Minister of Veterans Affairs with respect to what very small assistance has been given in small holdings in my own city. It is not a left-handed compliment; I want to compliment him sincerely, and then I am going to point out certain deficiencies as well in the programme. We have in my city about twenty-five homes completed under the small holdings section of the Veterans' Land Act, with some fifteen more in prospect. I visited those homes last winter, and I have not the same remarks to make with respect to the contractors who worked on the small holdings housing in Regina that were made in connection with Bennett & White of Calgary by some of the Alberta members.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Bennett & White are building the homes in British Columbia, and their costs are excessive there too.


John Oliver Probe: I believe our costs in Regina were reasonable compared with those of small holdings across Canada generally. The construction was excellent. The officials of the land act were courteous enough to allow me to inspect carefully the dwellings which had already been completed, and I had an opportunity to speak to the veterans who were already living in those homes. Without exception the construction, to my lay eye, was good, and the remarks of the veterans were complimentary to the department. But the sad part in connection with all this is that fewer than forty Regina veterans have had an opportunity to be settled under such an excellent plan.
63260-265i
The Minister of Veterans Affairs has repeatedly stated that he is not interested in housing as such. I maintain that the minister and every other hon. member and every citizen of this country should take an interest in housing as such, and particularly with reference to veterans, because it was the veterans' families who were unable to shuttle into houses as they became vacant during the period of the war. Now that they are trying to reestablish their families, as far as the veterans are concerned the war is not yet over. The minister should reconsider the building programme which has been undertaken under the small holdings legislation of the land act, and he should extend the terms under which veterans can take small properties. Holdings should not necessarily be large lots of half an acre, or one acre or larger in extent. Some provision should be made for those persons who are unable to take advantage of the suburban feature of the small holdings settlement.
I do not wish to speak at great length, but I submit that it is our duty as members of the House of 'Commons to provide buildings for more than a favoured few who will be able to take the homes that have been built by the Department of Veterans Affairs. When we consider that less than two per cent of the veterans of Canada are at present enjoying the generous benefits of this act; when we consider that the rest of them have not had an opportunity to set up housekeeping on their own behalf in homes at the reasonable prices that obtained before the war; when we think of the gratuities which they have received, which, in terms of money may sound excellent but in terms of rent at $50, $60, $70 or $80 a month for very much limited accommodation is another matter, then I maintain that we have not done our duty adequately as citizens of Canada. Under these circumstances, when we speak of gratitude to those who served us in time of need, it is simply so much eyewash. WTe must extend the conditions, making them more flexible, so that the veterans need not be grouped in colonies on the outskirts of any city or village or town if it is possible to provide them with alternative homes. The minister must reexamine the wishes of the Canadian people in regard to providing homes for these veterans. We must make it our business to see that they are provided with shelter. We must help them to reestablish their families, which in many cases are breaking up because of lack of accommodation, and we can do this in the same way that we equipped the soldiers with tanks, the airmen with aircraft and the seamen with corvettes and submarines. We did it in
Veterans Land Act

time of wav and in time of peace we owe it to our buddies who wore the uniform to do likewise.


Walter Adam Tucker: One thing I would say before section 1 carries. It will be noted that this section has reference to the actual set-up of the department, and the amendment proposed will confer administrative authority on the minister, which is really in line with what the committee thought was the proper application of the principle of responsible government. It is needless for me to say that thi3 amendment does not constitute a reflection on the director personally. He is regarded by our committee-and I am sure the minister will agree with me in this regard-as a man of ability, integrity and devotion to duty, for whom the government and the select committee have the highest respect. This is simply designed to affirm the vital principle of responsible government, the responsibility of the executive to parliament.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I say a word to endorse what the hon. member has said. I know of no public servant in the dominion who has rendered more devoted, sustained and able service to the country than the director.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: I think the attention of the minister and of the committee should be brought to the situation of many of our boys in the urban centres. This act makes provision for boys who go out of town one or two or more miles and take up a farm or small holdings. There are boys, however, who have come back to splendid jobs. They have returned from overseas, in many instances with their wives and perhaps one or two children. Some of them have no wish to go outside the city a few miles. They left their families in the city and they would like to have their homes in the city also. Sometimes their parents have given them a piece of land, or they may be able to purchase a lot, and they should be enabled to build right in the city. They have not been able to find homes for themselves. Many of them have had to live in single rooms; many have been living with their parents. This act should be extended so as to include some provision for these young men. If they can find homes in the urban centres they will be near schools, churches and other services of that kind, but if they have to go outside the city you will have to build schools and churches for them. These boys do not want that. If the Minister of Reconstruction were here I would emphasize the importance of this suggestion. These boys should be able to apply for the grant and take the grant and go and build homes for themselves. The Minister of Reconstruction says it cannot be done-I do not

say the .present minister is of that view-but I claim that it can be done. Like the hon. member for Regina City, I am speaking for young men in an urban area, the Kingston area. Many of these men are to-day employed as skilled mechanics, and all they want is to be allowed to take the grant and get a lot and build. The veteran works eight hours a day, but he has another sixteen hours in the day and he and some of his family and relatives can dig the basement and put up the frame of the house. If the Minister of Reconstruction would grant him a special concession he could go to a housing unit and obtain a keg of nails, a few window sills, two-by-four scantlings, bathtub, electrical fixtures and so on, and in my opinion he would put up a house quite economically. I urge this on behalf of those veterans who are in the urban centres.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With very much of what mv hon. friend has said I agree, but there is one basic principle in the Veterans' Land Act which must be considered. It was fundamentally designed for the settlement of farms, and afterwards there developed the small holdings feature which became by far the most popular feature of the act.


John Oliver Probe: Rightly so.
Mr. M1ACKBNZIE: I am sorry I was not privileged to listen to the hon. member for Regina City-.that was my loss-for the reason that I had another appointment. May I say, however, that if you admit the principle of urban housing under the Veterans' Land Act, then, in my judgment, though I may be wrong, you destroy the fundamental feature of that act, which is farm settlement. In the second place, you offer to those who come under the terms of the Veterans' Land Act advantages which the ordinary veteran under the other housing schemes does not possess or enjoy. You might, if a veteran, have all the advantages of this conditional subsidy, say one hundred yards outside a city limit, and a veteran inside the city limits under the ordinary terms of the various other housing schemes, which is discrimination as between veterans who have rendered equally distinguished service to the country. That is the problem. My personal opinion is that you should keep the Veterans' Land Act for farm settlement 'as much as possible.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: There are things in the Veterans' Land Act to which I personally take exception. I went into it fully in the veterans committee, and I do not propose at this time to reiterate the arguments that I used there. But I am concerned about the series of regulations which have grown up as a result of the

Veterans Land Act
bringing together of the various housing schemes in Canada which include the small holdings under the Veterans' Land Act and the other housing schemes administered by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. I take some exception to the expressed opinion that the small holdings part of the Veterans' Land Act was primarily conceived as rural settlement on small holdings. I do not deny the fact that when the act was conceived in 1942 that was the basic idea; but I suggest that, as a result of conditions which were no one's fault and over which there was perhaps no possible control, the practice in the first two years has been to make it practically an adjunct to urban housing of veterans. That situation has arisen. The minister and others have said in the committe and here that, if recent methods continue there will be discrimination between veterans, the one within the city limits and the one oni the outside. I am aware that tlhere may be, but I suggest to the committee that that discrimination already exists, and I fear it will exist in greater degree if we depart sharply from the practice of offering the advantages of suburban homes to urban workers. If we stop that practice which has existed we shall have discrimination, which, to my mind, is equally bad as the discrimination within cities which the minister fears.
In the committee the director first informed us that the cooperation with reconstruction did not involve any amendment of the act or changes in the regulations. But already by agreement it has come about that the practice of extending small holding advantages to veterans who work in the cities has been curtailed by limiting the construction of houses in groups of more than six. With that I take no serious issue, because I am one of those who have always believed that it was not good practice from the point of view of rehabilitation to construct what I and others have sometimes called "veterans villages".
I conceive the proper measure of the rehabilitation of a veteran to be to permit him to come back to communal life in his community with as little to remind him of his military experience as possible and to set him apart from his neighbour as little as may be humanly possible. To me that is complete rehabilitation. I would remind the committee, the minister and all who have had anything to do with this matter, that the veterans department itself, in its literature, the government and most of us as candidates and members during the last two years have held out this idea to the veteran-I am speaking now of the veterans from the cities-that while it was not practicable or desirable for him to
go out into the country and become a full-fledged farmer-in many instances he is not capable of doing that, and in practically no instance does he want to do it-we had something for him. It was this: if he had a modest, steady income and if he was prepared to go outside the corporate limits of the city where he was employed and could meet the other qualifications he would be assisted to establish himself in a home on a better standard than he could maintain as a city dweller, at a lower cost, through lower taxation and various other considerations. We reduced the acreage to half an acre in some of these places. It is all right to say that we did that because there was a desperate need, we had to get the houses close together, and had to get contractors who would deal with these housing blocks, and so forth. All these things are true. I think the reduction to half an acre was a recognition that we had made a commitment to these city veterans. We were not able to go, and I do not think we should go, inside the corporate limits of a city of any size, and have veterans houses compete on the same street with war-time houses which are being built for veterans. I do not think we should do that.
Many of these city veterans delayed making their applications for veterans housing on the advice of members of the house and of the committee, and of people like myself. I have done it. I have said, "You have some time to decide; do not jump at it now. Wait until the pressure is off." That man may now find himself in a position, as a result of these agreements, where he cannot get into the scheme, and therefore, in these circumstances, he may not be able to get a house at all.
I have been told-and I accept it-that by this agreement the Department of Reconstruction and Supply are prepared to consider suitable applications of individuals and even of groups of six, even though the property selected falls within an adjacent municipality with a population in excess of 5.000; that is, if there is suitable land available. I am not very happy about that regulation because' I have had some experience and I know the intent behind it. I know what has been done. There are areas in the city from which I come where the municipalities of five, six or seven thousand immediately adjacent to the city limits still have vast open areas. If you insisted on a man going outside that municipality he would be twelve or fifteen miles out. I suggest that this is a situation which requires to be closely watched by the minister and by the administration. I realize it is not a direct reflection on this act, or on the
Veterans Land Act

administrator, except in so far as it is a matter of agreement with the Minister of Munitions and Supply and his officers.
If the result of this legislation is to make it difficult or impossible for a veteran who works in the city, and who normally lived in the city and who has the other qualifications for a home under the Small Holdings Act, to obtain that home, then I say the agreement will constitute a breach of faith with the veteran. I base that suggestion on the literature of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I base it on the information which has been given by the counsellors to veterans returning from overseas to every district of Canada. I base it on information and advice which I as a member and an employee of the Department of National Defence myself gave when I was in the service. I am concerned that this shall not be the case. I am not urging that we should compete within the city limits with wartime housing or any other housing scheme. Under the Veterans' Land Act I understand it is not practicable to house all the veterans of Canada on small holdings on the fringes of cities. I know that perfectly well, but I am concerned that it shall not happen that a veteran, if he works in a city and is going to get a small holding will only get it in the slums or in the bush, where his house will not be conspicuously better than some other chap has had, because that other veteran insisted on getting an urban house and took a wartime housing one.
What I have been saying is not a criticism; it is a warning, an indication of a danger, of something I think perhaps may indicate a trend. It is a frank warning that if what I fear develops, in my opinion it will be a breach of faith, and as such I shall raise as much ructions as I am capable of raising here and hereafter.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: The matter of small holdings has now been brought into this discussion. A short time ago I was talking to the minister about this matter and asked when it could be discussed to the best advantage; and at that time he thought perhaps it should be discussed on his estimates. I am just wondering if the minister has his material at hand now. I saw him leave the chamber a few minutes ago; was he able to get his material?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I suggest to my hon. friend that if we have a difference of opinion about the situation in Calgary, we might defer it until my estimates come up?


Charles Edward Johnston: I shall be only too pleased to do so. I have my material here, but I would not for the world take advantage of the minister. I want him to be able to produce all his evidence, and then show him where he is wrong.


Thomas John Bentley: Before we went into committee of the whole late this afternoon, I was making a few remarks in regard to the failure of the veterans committee to recommend that the Veterans' Land Act be amended to permit the formation of cooperative farms. I got pretty well along with my argument before Mr. Speaker caught up to me and said I was out of order, so I had to stop, and I should now like to conclude my remarks. All other hon. members who have risen to-night have started off by saying it is not their purpose to take up the time of the committee. I am going to be honest and admit that I am going to take a few minutes of the time of the committee, regrettable though that may seem.
I was pointing out the attempts which have been made in my province to assist veterans to form cooperative farms on crown land. Before I was called to order, I had pointed out also that in our province we have a number of large farms the owners of which are now prepared to sell; but the $6,000 allowed under the Veterans' Land Act would not permit a veteran to buy one of these farm units, because they are too big and too expensive. If one of them was bought and broken up it would not make economic farm units, but as a whole it is an economic unit that can be farmed in a big way. If veterans were allowed to pool their loans and grants to form a cooperative farm, those who wished to do so, there would be a possibility of these veterans becoming rehabilitated. We have seen amendments moved here and ruled out of order because they had some effect on the financial arrangements, and we are told that is a prerogative of the minister with permission of the crown. I am going to move an amendment that does not involve the expenditure of a single nickel. I hope I have worded it in suchv a way that neither you, Mr. Chairman, nor the minister nor his parliamentary assistant can find in it any suggestion of recommending a nickel of increased expenditure on behalf of the veterans. This is the motion, which is seconded by the hon. member for Melfort:
That the Veterans' Land Act be amended to permit qualified veterans to form or join with cooperative farms, without prejudice to their grants and loans.
I do not believe that involves any increased expenditure, and therefore should be in order.

Veterans Land Act


Walter Adam Tucker: Just while the chairman is looking over the amendment proposed by the hon. member, I was under the impression that he concurred in the report of this subcommittee which dealt with this matter, which report was also concurred in by the main committee. I was just wondering if that were the case, because if he did concur in it I find it strange that he should move this amendment. Did he concur in the report of that subcommittee?


Thomas John Bentley: The hon. member for Rosthern is quite right. Whenever I am hungry andl somebody offers me a cup of tea and a sandwich, I take it, though I may want a steak. As soon as I have had the cup of tea and sandwich, however, I immediately try to get the steak; and that is what I am now doing. I concurred in all I could get the subcommittee to agree on, and1 now I want more; I want a full meal for these veterans. I see nothing inconsistent about that, because I am still hungry.


Walter Adam Tucker: I should like to read to the committee the recommendation which was concurred in by the hon. member, as to the course of action recommended to this house; and I find it strange now that he should depart from that to which he agreed. After all, if we are not to abide by our agreements in these things I am afraid it is going to be difficult to get along. Here is what the hon. member recommended as to our course of action:
The committee, while sympathetic to any suggestion which may contribute to the successful rehabilitation of veterans, was unable to find a solution to the administrative problems inherent in Mr. Sturdie's proposal, and concurred in the sub-committee's recommendation that the facilities offered under existing legislation for land settlement on a cooperative basis be further explored, and that the departmental officers continue negotiations with the province in an endeavour to formulate some mutually satisfactory scheme.
In other words, my hon. friend1 admitted that, while he was sympathetic to the suggestion he is now making, he wias unable to find a solution of the administrative problems involved. Surely, if he admitted at the time this report was made that he could not find a solution of the administrative problems involved in what he is now recommending, he would not ask this committee to adopt a motion which he admits cannot be administratively handled at the present time, until further study is given.


Thomas John Bentley: Oh, yes; I would and I do. I was there when that meeting took place and I concurred in the report. The subcommittee could not find a solution of these
administrative problems; I could not convince them that the solution was there, so that I agreed to go as far as the subcommittee was prepared to go. I am now asking this committee of the whole to go this much farther. The parliamentary assistant and myself can continue to reiterate our positions from now until eleven o'clock, if he wishes. I have stated my position and he has stated his. That is where the matter stands. I agreed' then, but I want more.


Walter Adam Tucker: Well, my hon. friend sort of challenged me to find any fault with his amendment. I do find fault with it, on the ground that an amendment to a bill must amend a certain section of the bill, and must not express a vague principle. On that ground I suggest it is quite out of order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I remind the hon. member for Swift Current what is said in the last few fines of the report of the subcommittee, in which he concurred:
. . . that the facilities offered under existing legislation for land settlement on a cooperatitve basis be further explored, and that the departmental officers continue negotiations with the province in an endeavour to formulate some mutually satisfactory scheme.
Is that not better than what he is now suggesting?


Thomas John Bentley: No.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, yes, it is.


Thomas John Bentley: Failing to get what I am asking now, I will still accept that; I will still accept sandwiches if I cannot get beefsteak.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: Do you want a ruling on this?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; I think it is withdrawn.


Thomas John Bentley: No, Mr. Chairman, it is not withdrawn. I have moved the amendment, and it is up to you to accept it or rule it out of order.


William Henry Golding: I think the hon. member will have to redraft it if he wishes it to be in order, or bring in another amendment entirely. I rule the amendment out of order. Shall section 1 carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: While this controversy has been going on, I have been doing some figuring on the information supplied by the parliamentary assistant. Using the round figures he gave, of 19,000 applications and 4,700 actually approved and constructed, I find that this means that 75 per cent of the applicants have not yet been settled. If I take the
Veterans Land Act

additional l',600 applications which he said had been approved, but in which construction had not been commenced, that leaves 66 per cent of the applicants in connection with whom no start has been made to have them settled. I point out these figures again as indicating the strongest possible reasons why the minister should pursue this matter with all diligence in order to find some solution.
I should like to say something further, so as to dear up any possible misconception which might result from what the parliamentary assistant has said. He pointed out that veterans under the small holdings scheme were getting more generous treatment than veterans under any other housing scheme could get. The point that is relevant there is that the type of small holding I had reference to was not any small holding project under the act. The type I referred to were those eases where the government was in charge of the building. It made the contracts in most cases on a cost-plus basis, nevertheless it 'had control over costs; and for various reasons, perhaps beyond the government's control, costs increased.. But it was a government housing scheme. Therefore the veteran is in no way responsible for that increase in cost. It might be said that he gets more benefit under it, but I am simply saying that the government scheme cost is more than the government first indicated it would be, and that is the basis of the submission that they should now do something about the matter.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Although I do not intend to labour the question of small holdings, I should like to say a few words. When the small holdings element was introduced to the bill we never expected it would be as large as it is. My idea of it at first was that it would be for pensioners, in order to give them a little extra land, and something extra to do. It has now become a housing project.
My suggestion, however, was in connection with the administration of the act. I believe there is a bottleneck in many of the districts in connection with the searching of titles and the preparation of different documents. My information is that in certain sections there are one or two lawyers who are trying to do all the work, instead of spreading it over, and giving it to a greater number of lawyers in the smaller districts. I suggest to the minister that the matter be investigated carefully, because I know in the city of Saint John in my own province there are one or two lawyers who are trying to do most of the work for that province. The result is that there are many delays, and transfers of property which perhaps should take two or three days are now taking four or five or six weeks.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall look into the suggestion of the hon. member.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: Before six o'clock I asked the minister several questions, the first of which had to do with land analysis of farms bought for veterans. Is there any analysis made, under the Veterans' Land Act. I have in mind one instance where a farm was supposed to have been purchased to be sold to veterans, and it was indicated to me that a very good junior farmer had been on the land for four or five years but had to give it up because the soil was not suitable for farming purposes. Yet that land had been bought under the Veterans' Land Act. Is any check made?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall take the hon. member's observations into consideration, and if I am fortunate enough to receive the details I shall have the matter looked into at once.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: Another point was that it takes a long time to go through the transaction, after the veteran has agreed to purchase the land. In some cases it requires from six to eight months. Possibly local lawyers as suggested by the hon. member for Royal, could be used to speed up the transaction, instead of lawyers in Toronto.


Walter Adam Tucker: I would say to the hon. member that in his province of Ontario, where he has not the more advanced system that we have in the west, it sometimes takes a long time to secure title. That is one cause of delay. Of course, when that does happen a veteran may feel aggrieved. Then there are times when there is difficulty to get possession. I assure the hon. member that any complaints along that line have received earnest consideration from the administration in order to eliminate all possible delay.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: Then I asked a question about small holdings. I received a return on June 12 to a question in which I had asked how many houses were being built under small holdings in Canada. The answer was that there were about 3,000. Apparently out of that number only about 400 had been completed. It would seem that many of these houses have been under construction for some time, and yet there does not seem to be any great effort made to complete them. Is the reason found in the fact that the prices of the houses are beyond the means of veterans to pay?
In one particular case 100 acres were bought for small holdings, but only four houses have been built. I understand that the remainder

Veterans Land Act
of the 100 acres is not to be used for this purpose. Possibly this indicates that the housing is not of the type the veterans want.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My recollection is that 1,200 have been completed under the Veterans' Land Act, and it is the hope of the department that the entire lot will be completed by the middle of next month.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: Does the minister say the entire lot will be completed next month?


Walter Adam Tucker: The middle of September.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: According to this return, tabled on June 12, only 406 had been
occupied.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There has been substantial progress since then in the building of houses. I am told by the officials that 1,200 have now been completed, and they expect 4,700 to be completed by the middle of September.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: Will the minister say whether he thinks this programme being carried out is really what the veteran wants, in view of the fact that they are not completing houses already there? In this instance, where 100 acres were bought, with the intention of building ninety houses, I am told that four were started, and that now, after many months, the houses are still there, uncompleted. I understand that the remainder of the land is to be sold and not used for small holdings.


Walter Adam Tucker: Where is that?


Charles Elwood Stephenson: Two miles outside my town of Port Hope, Ontario. This seems to indicate that 'the plan is not just what the soldiers want. Is it the government's plan to continue this programme?


Walter Adam Tucker: This scheme under the Veterans' Land Act administration, under which there is the actual building of houses, was an emergency measure to try to get something done so as to have houses ready for occupancy. But there was no intention of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Veterans' Land Act administration to continue to build houses on a scale like that. They have not been completed largely because of a lack of some materials.
For example, just before the dinner recess one hon. member referred to fifty houses in the township of Stearboro, and 100 in the county of Ontario. I am told that those houses were held up for lack of flooring. However, it is realized that it is necessary to have these houses finished and have them occupied. This effort has been made, by agreement with the Department of Reconstruction, and it is
expected that they will all be completed by the middle of September. I can tell my hon. friend that there are probably twenty applications for every house available under the scheme.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is the whole question. Proof of the success of the whole venture is the demand for tremendous expansion and extension of it throughout Canada.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: It indicates to me that that is not so, because, if this is the type of house the veteran needs, why would they dispose of the remainder of the 100 acres purchased for that purpose? According to my information, there has been no application by soldiers for these houses being built there at the present time.
Another case I might mention was one where all that was left to be done was the laying of the hardwood flooring. The flooring was already in the house; it was not a case of there being no flooring. It was in the house, but was not laid. I was told the reason was that the hydro-electric authorities would not hook up the power line, which was only a short distance away. The flooring lay there several months, but the work was not completed. I am now informed by the hydroelectric people that they have been willing to make the hook-up since last February. Yet the reason given for the delay in the housing Was that the hydro-electric people did not 'have the material to do it. There is something wrong somewhere.


Mr. BRACKEN:: I am sure the committee has listened with interest to the discussion of these matters during the last hour or so. Arising out of that discussion, particularly the comments made by the parliamentary assistant and by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I have two or three questions to ask.
The measure before us is one providing for certain amendments to the Veterans' Land Act. The primary purpose of the act was the reestablishment of veterans on farms. But a supplementary section provided for the building of homes on small holdings in the neighbourhood of urban centres. The parliamentary assistant has given some statistics with respect to that and the Minister of Veterans Affairs made one comment, about which I should like to ask him. He pointed out that the homes being built on these small holdings under the Veterans' Land Act are provided to those taking them, under more favourable terms than are the houses which are built under some of the other government schemes, and he intimated that the continuance of this programme would mean further discrimination with respect to the assistance rendered to veterans settling
Veterans Land Act

in urban centres and on these small holdings. The question I would ask him is this: How did the government come to get into that position and to bring in one measure which is more favourable to home builders than the others? I presume he has an answer.
The other questions I wish, to ask are prompted by the statistics given by the parliamentary assistant. He told us of the number of applicants for farms, the number of applicants for homes on these small holdings, the number of applications that had been approved and the number of veterans who have been settled under both schemes. I gathered from his remarks that the government was discontinuing the policy of making homes available to veterans under this small holdings plan because of what the minister called discrimination. If that is true, since the parliamentary assistant indicated that there were some 19,000 applications and some 4,700 or 4,800 veterans had been settled in homes, I would ask, at what point is the government discontinuing that project?
I have another question. The understanding was that these homes would not cost more than 86,000. The veterans who were assisted in purchasing them understood that they were to cost $6,000 or less, but in actual practice the government finds that many of the houses constructed are costing more than that. How many of these houses will cost $6,000 or less? How many of them will cost $6,000 or more? What is the estimated excess cost of all these houses above the $6,000 originally estimated? I hope I have made my questions clear.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I will answer my hon. friend's question in regard to the Veterans' Land Act and leave some of them to my assistant to answer. Before my hon. friend joined us in our councils here, we had formed a committee which worked hard for eighteen months. On that committee were many practical farmers, some of whom I think my hon. friend knows from Manitoba. After eighteen months' study that committee made some very fine recommendations, the basic feature of which was settlement on farms. At that time, as my hon. friend knows, prices for land were much less than they are to-day. The basic selling price then was $4,800, but we found it necessary about a year afterwards to raise that to $6,000.
Another recommendation which that committee made, which was entirely ancillary, was for small holdings, which was never considered to be a basic feature of the act, but as we went along we found it to be the most popular feature.


Howard Charles Green: Explain what it was for.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The essential principle behind the small holdings plan was that the veteran who had a job in a city or municipality would have a little place outside the city, a home and a patch of land where he could raise vegetables and do gardening after his day's work in the city was done.


Howard Charles Green: He would be partly selfsustaining.


James Arthur Ross: He could raise poultry and so on.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Absolutely. That was the idea. The committee were agreed about this in 1942, and we thought we were doing a fairly good job, but what happened since then was that this rural settlement feature developed into a housing problem. My hon. friend asked why we gave these special privileges to veterans.


John Bracken: I wanted to know why you gave more to one group of settlers than to others.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: To be absolutely frank, I think the real answer is that the housing policy of the government in other directions was not developed at that time.


James Arthur Ross: It is not yet.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is coming along and, I hope, will be successful. But the basic idea of all the members of the committee of 1942 was to combine a rural environment with employment for the veteran in the nearby city or municipality. That was done because the other housing features were not then developed, except Wartime Housing Limited. But now we have the three features, Wartime Housing, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and the Veterans' Land Act housing all incorporated in one housing scheme. That is the explanation and the answer to my hon. friend's question.


John Bracken: Would the minister or the parliamentary assistant answer my other question with respect to houses under the small holdings scheme?


Walter Adam Tucker: Just along the lines of what the leader of the opposition has said, the preamble of the act states.
And whereas part-time farming coupled with other employment is an increasingly important aspect of rural and semi-rural life in Canada;
. . . it is the purpose of the dominion government to provide a measure of financial assistance to veterans on their performance of prescribed settlement conditions in order to promote their


John Bracken: I did not expect an answer to this question to-night, but I thought it could be given some time before the bill received third reading.


Walter Adam Tucker: May I say to the leader of the opposition I hope we shall be fortunate enough to get third reading to-night, and we can give him the information on the estimates. The average cost so far of houses under the small holdings scheme is encouraging- $4,262 for 4,685 small holdings. The information is worked out in an appendix to our veterans affairs proceedings, which will be found by hon. members to be filled with information, starting at page 787. As I say, it contains a tremendous amount of information regarding the monthly rental costs and so on of different houses under the Veterans' Land Act. I shall not take time to go into it unless it is requested; but I would repeat, in case the leader of the opposition was not here when I mentioned it before, that where a house costs $6,000 there is $600 paid down by the veteran, and his monthly payment after that is only $20.20.


John Ritchie MacNicol: For how many years?


Walter Adam Tucker: For twenty-five years. The payment is $20.20 plus taxes-which I think most hon. members will admit is less than the average rental one would pay for ordinary housing.


Charles Edward Johnston: What did the minister say was the average cost of the houses?


Walter Adam Tucker: 


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is to the veteran. It is not the cost of construction.


Charles Edward Johnston: Is that the average for the five-roomed house or the six-roomed house?


Walter Adam Tucker: Taking all these small holdings, that is the net cost to the veteran after the write-off.


John Bracken: If the parliamentary
assistant will permit me, that is not the question I asked. I asked, what is the cost of the houses, not the cost to the veteran but to the state? How many of them cost less than $6,000 and how many of them cost more? The parliamentary assistant gave a figure of some $4,200, was it?
Veterans Land Act


Walter Adam Tucker: It is $4,262.


John Bracken: He said that was the cost to the veteran. I want the net cost to the state.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That will vary in every area in Canada. We had considerable trouble in getting contractors to accept contracts, and in some cases we had to make these contracts on a cost-plus fee basis, the ordinary fee being about $180 to $250 per house. In some parts of Canada, on account of peculiar difficulties, of which my hon. friend probably knows, the cost of the houses was very high. In other places, like the first ones built on Lulu island, in British Columbia, they were most remarkably low. Prices depended on such factors as climate, weather, material, labour, and transportation. For instance, in Quebec there was some trouble which is now under investigation, and there may be other factors in addition to climate. That matter may have to go to the courts.


John Bracken: That is readily admitted, but those are not the points I was raising. Just in order to make it clear, what I wanted to know-and I recognize that the minister or his assistant perhaps cannot get the information accurately in a hurry, and I am not asking them to go to a lot of trouble to try to find out-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The houses are not yet completed. We cannot tell.


John Bracken: If you cannot answer my questions, you cannot. But here are the questions. How many of these houses is it estimated will cost $6,000 or less?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: "Estimated?"


John Bracken: That is not to the veteran. The veteran may pay a much smaller amount than it costs. You may use this million dollars to write off some of it, and there is this direct grant to him. But what does it cost you? How many of these houses will cost you less than $6,000? How many will cost you more than $6,000? What do you estimate is the average excess cost of the whole project over $6,000 each?


Walter Adam Tucker: I would say to the leader of the opposition that on some of the projects it should be possible to get the cost of the houses and the land and the services and provide them on the estimates, because the committee which I have mentioned have been working on the thing and they have the charts and the full returns; and if he would permit, by the time we come to the estimates we shall have more complete information, because there will be more houses finished. But

I promise him that we will give him the fullest possible information on the cost of these projects.


John Bracken: That will be satisfactory.


Mr. BRADSHAW:: I should like to fight the case of these houses in my riding of Perth which are not making very much progress regardless of the shortage of nails, lumber or any other materials. The houses were started a year ago last May, the land having been bought at some $200 an acre. When the houses were partly erected they were left over the winter, and the cellars filled with water and dirt. The whole matter is related to the problem of sewage disposal. The land was bought outside the city of Stratford; negotiations are going on with the city to provide for the sewage disposal, and there is also the question of educational facilities, since they are about a mile and a half from the centre of the town. These houses are going to cost the veterans very dear. While I am on my feet, I should like to urge that the government expedite the business of settling sales of land to the veterans. We have a case in our township of a veteran who bought land; it was appraised, and I take exception to the statement of the parliamentary assistant that the deeds of title were hard to search. Everything was completed. The veteran has sowed his crop and the owner has not yet received any money for his farm. I would urge some expedition in this matter.


Walter Adam Tucker: I should be glad if the hon. gentleman would give us the actual facts of the case. We are anxious to check up whether there has been any improper delay.


Frank Exton Lennard: That is another case of
one lawyer in the city of Toronto trying to do all the work. He is making all the transfers of property for the province of Ontario.


Charles Edward Johnston: With regard to eaves troughs, is it the practice when they are available to put them on houses that are occupied rather than on those that are at present under construction and not yet occupied?


Walter Adam Tucker: It would depend on the contractor's idea of what was proper, because he is supposed to build according to specifications, and of course we do not take the houses over and clear them until everything is in accordance with the specifications. What the hon. member is asking about, I presume, is something that happens before the contractors turn the houses over to the department.


Charles Edward Johnston: I will tell the parliamentary assistant exactly what I have reference to. I am still referring to Calgary houses, though I am not going to debate that ques-

Veterans Land Act
tion. It has beea brought to my attention, however, that houses which have been occupied now for some six or seven months have no eaves troughs on them, while right across the street there are houses at present under construction, no one living in them, and no one likely to live in them for two or three months, that are being equipped with eaves troughs. The houses that the veterans are living in, not yet taken over by the government, are not so equipped, and these men are going ahead with landscaping which is being spoiled by the water that is coming down. What I should like to know is this. Where there are houses that are being occupied, which have no eaves troughs, and where these eaves troughs are available, will steps be taken to see that they are put on those houses rather than on houses right across the street which are not yet occupied and will not be for two or three months?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is my hon. friend commencing to debate the question of houses in Calgary?


Charles Edward Johnston: No, I am not.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Because I am ready for him.


Charles Edward Johnston: If you have your material I am ready too.


Howard Charles Green: Not to-night.


Thomas Langton Church: I have read the survey that was made of the soldiers overseas for the purpose of ascertaining what they desired to do on returning to Canada, and I am not surprised at the attitude of many of them. I have seen some of the results of the operation of land settlement after the last war; and I do not think this amendment, repealing section 3 of the act of 1942 and appointing a large staff consisting of a director and others, will meet the requirements. I do not believe that you will get many soldiers to sign agreements under these provisions. Many of the returned soldiers would like to take up market gardening on the outskirts of cities like Toronto and Hamilton, but too many restrictions are imposed upon them. I appreciate the principle of the bill, but I suggest that the minister and the Department of Veterans Affairs should be given the power to deal with these men. Many of the men want to take their gratuities and go in for market gardening. For the purpose they would like to buy a truck or a jeep, but they cannot do so and yet the very things that these men require are being thrown on the scrap heap. When the veterans want jeeps or trucks they are told to go to a dealer and see someone in Montreal in control of real estate. I have been communicating with one of those gentlemen for some time, as to soldiers getting into their homes, but I find that he is on holidays. When the veteran has to go to a dealer to buy a plough or a truck or a jeep he is charged three or four times more. Is it any wonder that these men are not going on the land?
The principle of settling men on the land started after the Fenian raid and1 it was again carried out after the South-African war. For a radius of sixty miles around our city veterans of the last war went in for dairy farming; they went into the live stock industry; they took up market gardening; and a system of roads, electrical railways, suburban railways, buses and so on was built up. One would naturally expect that with the return of these men's sons from overseas a great many of them would want to engage in these occupations, but I doubt whether you will get anyone to carry out the laborious provisions of section 2 of the new bill. The men are tied down to too many conditions. It would have been better for the act to leave the making of rules and regulations to the minister, instead of their being set out in the act. I do not believe that any soldier would care to sign the contract. The men were complaining. The minister has' attempted to make rules and regulations from time to time. If the rules and regulations were improved they would be better than sections 2, 3 and 4.


Charles Edward Johnston: Would the minister
answer my questions?


Walter Adam Tucker: Obviously we would have to get the answer from Calgary. We shall get the answer for him, and we shall be able to take it up on the estimates at the same time as we deal with the other matters if he is satisfied to leave it at that.


Howard Charles Green: It would be helpful if the Minister of Veterans Affairs would make a statement as to the present policy with regard to establishing veterans on small holdings. This evening he gave us the history of what has happened. Either he or his parliamentary assistant has intimated that a change of policy was made within the last few weeks. In the course of a speech on housing on July 22, the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply explained his idea of the small holdings policy. I should like to have confirmation of that policy from the minister to-night. Apparently the two departments are concerned. There must be approval by both the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. The remarks of the latter will be found at pages 36S1 and 3682 of Hansard. I understood him to say that from now on small holdings will be established
Veterans Land Act

only within the boundaries of centres of 5,000 people or less, with this restriction, that if such centre is on the fringe of a metropolitan centre of 15,000, then there would be no small holdings even in that town of under 5,000. He did say that there were certain exceptions; that where there was a city of more than 5,000 isolated in an agricultural area they might establish small holdings in that city. There were also certain other exceptions with regard to the fringe areas of a metropolitan centre. But he also said this-this is where some confusion comes into the picture.
We are very anxious to see the small holdings provision implemented to the full, provided it is implemented in the manner contemplated by parliament when the legislation was passed. My colleague and I have arrested a trend towards the small holdings section becoming a vehicle for financing veterans' urban housing.
I take it that means that if a veteran has two or three acres, no matter where it may be, he can come under the small holdings provision because originally that was the intention of the act. But in the veterans affairs committee Mr. Murchison told us the other day-unfortunately the proceedings of that day are not yet printed-that there is an arbitrary and definite prohibition established by the two departments against any small holdings going into certain centres. I questioned him about Greater Vancouver which the minister knows well, because we are both from that city, and Mr. Murchison said that there would be no small holdings established in the municipality of Burnaby, no matter whether the man had acreage or not. He said the same thing about North Vancouver and West Vancouver. The minister knows that in these municipalities there is land available for poultry ranches of two or three acres or for small fruits. It is ideal land for a small holding as we intended small holdings to be originally, and yet there is this arbitrary rule that there shall be no small holdings in these areas. I suppose there have been similar arbitrary rules made for other areas. That is contrary to the policy expressed by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. I would ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs to tell us now what the plan is at the present time.


Walter Adam Tucker: I shall endeavour to deal at least in part with what the hon. member has said. As I understand it, there are to be no small holdings inside urban municipalities having a population in excess of 5,000 without its being cleared by the committee on which the director of the Veterans' Land Act sits. In other words, it is a matter of clearing it and having coordination of the plans. I do not think there is any suggestion that this comfMr. Green.]
mittee is to overrule the act or to take an arbitrary attitude. I think that is correct. If a place is obviously fitted for carrying out the terms of the act I do not think the committee will overrule the plain intention of parliament. That is the first thing.
In regard to corporations where there are larger corporate limits, the idea is that single unit holdings will be set up outside larger corporations the same as heretofore without the director of the Veterans' Land Act having to clear it with any coordinating committee, if they are outside, on the fringe areas, and they are single holdings or even holdings up to six in number. As I understand it, it is a matter which the committee is going to try to coordinate. As I understand the attitude in regard to part of the area about which my hon. friend has spoken, it was felt that it would be an unwise move to divide up land, which may be needed badly for urban housing, into half-acre or one-acre plots.


Howard Charles Green: The minister knows that the land is there. I am sure he will agree with me that there is acreage available, and yet there is this prohibition.


Walter Adam Tucker: It may be that national housing or the coordinated housing administration may intend to develop that particular area as a part of its development scheme. The only idea of this thing is to coordinate the two, so that we shall not work at crosspurposes. If it is clearly within the terms of the act and it is not intended to use that particular area, then I think I may say that the act will be carried out. I think that is correct.


Mr. McMASTER:: I was astounded to find out that any other body of people in the government had anything to do with the Veterans' Land Act. As I recall it, the first time that I knew about it, it was put out in the form of glowing terms. It told what was to take place. The veteran who obtained this piece of land of several acres near a municipality would be able to carry on his occupation and do some farming, and eventually would be able to live off the money which he made off this suburban acre and a half. That has been entirely changed. I raised the question in the first instance when I spoke in the house. I said that certain members of the armed forces would be able to obtain $2,300 of gratuity and that other equally deserving people would not be able to get it simply because certain members of the returned forces would get a parcel of land near the city, probably an acre and a half, and conform to the regulations. Apparently

Veterans Land Act
that has been changed. First of all, it was changed so that they could take half an acre, which would not be hard to get near a city. Is that to be the policy in the future? Are they to be prevented from building under the Veterans' Land1 Act on less than half an acre near a large city or not? If so, will they be given the $2,300?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I just supplement the reply given by my parliamentary assistant to the hon. member for Vancouver South. Under the coordinated housing policy which has been recently established, the director has been asked practically to double his policy in regard to small holding units. I believe he has been asked for about four thousand units during the coming year. I think this will satisfy my hon. friend that the policy is not being ignored or neglected or abandoned. It is part of an integrated policy as between tihe Department of Reconstruction and Supply and our own department, without any interference except by way of consultation.


Howard Charles Green: Then there will not be a prohibition against municipalities such as Burnaby or West Vancouver or North Vancouver?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There will be no prohibition within the municipality with a population of five thousand, as explained by the parliamentary assistant. I do not see why we should not develop a policy for places like West Vancouver and North Vancouver according to the ideas advanced by my hon. friend. I see no reason for a prohibition; I think we can develop a policy to meet his suggestions.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister say Burnaby also? .


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


James Arthur Ross: Based on the answer given to the hon. member for Vancouver South, I wish to ask a question which I have raised in the veterans committee on previous occasions. I realize that the director is an efficient gentleman; but I have pointed out before, as the minister has suggested to-night, that this small holdings policy does get us away from the original intent of the act. If that be so, and since we are having great difficulty in getting qualified applicants settled for full-time farming, I have asked in the committee and I am going to ask the minister now if he will not consider dividing the administration within his department, making one offical responsible for full-time farm settlement and one responsible for the small holdings. He has stated that the policy in connection with small holdings is to be doubled, after making the statement that this policy was getting us away from the original intent of the act. I have heard the director himself say that this matter of house building has been so discouraging that at times he felt like throwing up his hands, and I can quite sympathize with him. The policy in connection with small holdings is now to be doubled, though the department still has many adjustments to make. This afternoon the minister referred to an article concerning the situation in greater Victoria with relation to one unit costing the applicant some $7,600-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. friend, but that is entirely erroneous. The actual cost to the veteran was $4,260, as my parliamentary assistant said. I believe the headline stated that this house would cost the veteran $7,364, but that is not the case.


James Arthur Ross: That was what the artiole said, but I might refer to a case about which I know a great deal, that of Charles-wood in Manitoba, involving some ninety units, where I believe no adjustments have as yet been completed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It will be done.


James Arthur Ross: I know it will be done and they are working on it; I am not blaming anybody for the delay, but I say this is an example of what has to be done. These four-room units have cost over $5,900 and the five-room units approximately $7,000, and now adjustments have to be made. I am just pointing out the tremendous amount of work that has to be done, even in making these adjustments. The settlers living in these ninety units are disgruntled because they still do not know what arrangements they must make to purchase their homes. I am just pointing out that with this double policy in connection with small holdings, the minister should consider making one official absolutely responsible for full-time farming and another responsible for the small holdings.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not like to keep on interrupting, but we had our greatest trouble in the constituency of the hon. member for Yale, in Kelowna and Vernon. However, I am glad to say all those matters have been adjusted and I received letters of thanks and appreciation only yesterday. They are all satisfied.


James Arthur Ross: Then I have another point; perhaps the parliamentary assistant can answer this, because he referred to the question of titles in the west. Once the board has accepted an appraisal on land they consider suitable for farming, if the vendor has a clear title how long should it take to complete

Veterans Land Act
the arrangements and issue the cheque to the seller? I have had some complaints in that connection.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Thirty days, I am told.


James Arthur Ross: From the date of acknowledgment ?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4.
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: I should like to say a word on this section. We have often heard it said that this act is primarily intended to assist veterans to establish or reestablish themselves in farming, to encourage them to farm or to resume their occupation if they were farming before going into the armed forces. In the areas of Canada suitable for farming, undoutedly this act will be of great assistance to veterans of that class. The director may acquire land and buildings, and may sell or agree to sell them to the veterans. He may even acquire land from the provinces or from the Minister of Mines and Resources; but representing Yukon here in this parliament I am chiefly concerned with the assistance required by veterans in that, part of Canada. We have veterans in Yukon with records as good as those of veterans in any other part of Canada; and their services in the war warrant them in asking and receiving assistance in reestablishment.
It is not practical to farm in Yukon on any extensive scale. They can produce farm products; they can keep dairy herds and so on. It is not a matter of the climate or the soil; it is the lack of any market. The market is too small to make farming worth while. Yukon depends entirely upon mining for its population. Successful mining means the success of that territory; unsuccessful mining means that the people move out. For the most part, the veterans in Yukon are miners returning to the mining territory to establish homes for themselves and their dependents. Those who are charged with the duty of administering this act seem to be doubtful whether under it assistance is possible for these veterans. First, in regard to the provision under which land may be acquired from the Minister of Mines and1 Resources, it has been established that the minister has no land in Yukon suitable to be taken up under this act; it has been all disposed of. I know the matter has received careful consideration by the minister and his staff. Apparently the physical and geographical conditions concerning Yukon have brought them to the opinion 
that this act cannot be applied to veterans there, but I think a careful reading of the let will show quite plainly that it is applicable and can be applied. How much broader could any statute be than the wording of section 7 of this act, which states:	'
The director may, for the purposes of this act,
(a)	purchase by agreement, at prices which to him shall seem reasonable, or
(b)	in any other manner acquire by consent or agreement from His Majesty in the right of Canada or from any province or municipal authority, or from any person, firm or corporation, such lands and buildings situate in any part of Canada and such other property including building materials, live stock, farm equipment and commercial fishing equipment as the director may deem necessary.
I am sure the officials administering the act, and also the minister, know that Yukon is part of Canada. Of course people who have not been west of Toronto do not realize that British Columbia, even, is in Canada. But here is this wide section 7 which refers to lands and buildings situate in any part of Canada. And they are purchased from whom? It is not from the province, not from the .territory, not from the Minister of Mines and Resources, but "from any person, firm or corporation". Any individual owning property there may sell it to the director, under the terms of section 7 of the act.
But to remove any doubt as to the application of the act to Yukon, and the settlements in Yukon, I wish to move an amendment, the effect of which will not be to broaden the scope of the act or to entail public expenditure beyond that now contemplated and authorized by the act, but which will apply explicitly to Yukon as part of Canada, and extend these benefits to Yukon veterans, giving them the assistance to which they are entitled.
I believe this is the appropriate time for this procedure, and I therefore move:
That there be added to section 35 the following:
"The director with the approval of the minister may acquire, convey, transfer, agree to acquire, convey, transfer land in Yukon territory including land within Dawson, Whitehorse and Mayo and subject to the provisions of this act and regulations made under this act may grant to veterans residing in Yukon amounts not exceeding the amount stated in subsection 3 of section 35 of this act, such grants to be used only for the purposes enumerated in subsection 4 of section 35 of this act."
I think that will set at rest any doubts which the administrators of the act, and perhaps the minister, may have.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I thank the hon. member for Yukon for his customary courteous presentation of his argument. He was kind enough to send me notice of his amendment

External Affairs
late this afternoon. It is quite true that the department has been giving extensive study to the situation in Yukon. I think, however, it is only fair to the administration that my colleagues should have an opportunity for further study of the situation. I promise the hon. member that if he will be kind enough not to press the amendment to-night we will go most carefully into the situation which he has so clearly and, to my mind, convincingly presented. It does mean, though, a departure in principle from the Veterans' Land Act. It means that the grant of $2,320 is made available for urban housing in Yukon where, as my hon. friend and I know, there are not extensive tracts of land available for settlement.
I wonder if the hon. member, after having presented his case clearly and convincingly, would be good enough not to press the amendment, with my assurance that I shall be glad to considt with my colleagues as to what can be done to meet the suggestion he has made.


George Black: Does the minister mean that the amendment will not be completed to-night, that it will be allowed to stand until to-morrow or later in the session?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If the house is so minded, we had hoped to get third reading of the bill to-night. I would give my hon. friend and his constituents through him the assurance that the suggestion he has made to-night will be given most careful consideration during the recess.


George Black: Under the circumstances I hesitate to press the amendment. To my mind, section 7 is broad enough, in that it gives the director the right to purchase land from, any person, firm or corporation-and not only the land, but the land and buildings situate in any part of Canada.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have not had an opportunity of consulting with my colleagues in regard to the matter. I would urge that the amendment be not now pressed, and I give the assurance that it will be carefully considered.


Howard Charles Green: Could the situation be met by regulation, under the act?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It might be; that is something to look into.
Amendment withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.	*
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, August 2, 1946