1946-08-08

PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
"journal" of august 5
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, on a question of personal privilege, I have before me the Ottawa Journal of Wednesday, August 7. On page 3 is an article entitled, "Low charges Mr. King courted communists." The heading and the body of the article are both inaccurate in reporting the contents of my speech at Noranda, Quebec, on the evening of August 5. I did not charge Mr. Mackenzie King personally with deliberately courting the communist party in the 1945 federal election. What I did say was, "The Liberal government is alone responsible for the alarming growth and spread of communism during the past ten years." I further stated that the Liberal party deliberately courted the communists prior to and during the election campaign of 1945.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. LOW:: I will repeat that for the benefit of the hon. members who want to drown it out. I further stated that the Liberal party deliberately courted the communists prior to and during the election campaign of 1945. My statements were based on an imposing array of factual evidence which I would gladly present here if the rules of the house did not forbid it. I stand by what I said and will present the evidence I have in this house at the proper time and before the highest court of this land, the people.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: Even in the revised version now submitted, what the hon. gentleman said was unutterable nonense.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Page Tim Buck.


Mr. POULIOT:: Page the civil liberties
league.



INCOME WAR TAX ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Acting Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 368, to amend the Income War Tax, Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Acting Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 369, to amend the Customs Tariff.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Foreign Exchange Control
[Stage Direction]
have passed now and these controls, with their attendant offences and penalties, should be removed as quickly as possible. I see no reason why our businessmen should not be allowed to carry out their transactions as they did before the war. In your district, Mr. Chairman, you are not far from the border and you know how difficult it is in Detroit and in the lake Erie and Niagara ports. People have complained to me also. I represent a large commercial constituency and I know that businessmen, large and small, are, as I have said, being simply hamstrung at the present time. No wonder we are not getting consumer goods as rapidly as we should.
Amendment (Mr. Hatfield) negatived; yeas, 17; nays, 57.
Section agreed to.
On section 26-Property.
Mr. HATFIELD:: I should like to point out that I believe section 26 interferes with treaties existing between the United States and Canada. Maybe the Minister of Justice should look into it. Under these treaties there are points in Canada where United States goods can be loaded in bond for shipment back to 'the United States at Canadian railway points; likewise, Canadians can load certain produce in the United States for shipment back to Canada in bond. That treaty has been operative for a good many years.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 27-Resident dealings in securities with non-residents.
Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: If this is the appropriate place I should like to ask a question on interpretation purely for information purposes. If a chartered bank holds victory bonds to the credit of a United States purchaser, will such bonds be released to the purchaser on application to the bank, or are they still under the control of the foreign exchange control board?


Mr. ABBOTT:: I am advised that the answer is, yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Still -under the control of the board?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; they can be released to a United States resident. A permit will be given without question.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On Section 28-Registration of transfer of securities by resident to non-resident, et cetera.
Mr. JACKMAN:: I wish to ask a question in regard to these securities. For the benefit
(Mr. Church.]
of the hon. member for Halton, I had not thought of this question when the committee was holding its meetings. Apparently no one is allowed to take securities with him should he change his residence to the United States. Let us suppose that an elderly person has arthritis or some other difficulty and goes to a warmer climate. Naturally he wants to remove the means by which he lives. Suppose that particular Canadian had the foresight to provide himself in Canada with United States securities, as is easily done under the present regulations of the board, as follows, namely, by selling Canadian securities which are saleable in New York and obtaining funds and putting these United States funds into United States securities. I understand that a Canadian going to the United States will not be declared a resident of that country under the interpretation section of the -bill except within the discretion of the board itself. Does it matter to the board whether that man is allowed to take with him the United States securities which he has purchased while here in Canada from the proceeds of sales 'of Canadian securities in New York? When the witness was before the committee the suggestion was made that there was a certain pool of United States funds which was available to the Canadian economy through the sale of Canadian securities to United States citizens. What I am suggesting to the minister is that there is a pool of United States money at a certain time in exchange for Canadian securities; but if that pool is not dipped into at the particular time it is gone, lost forever, and then you must wait until some Americans want to buy some more Canadian securities. I do not understand how the Canadian economy can be in any way damaged or this right to acquire more United States funds lessened by reason of the fact that the Canadian who was about to settle in the United States provided himself with United States funds at a particular time and then, when he established residence over there, he wished to take those funds with him. How can the board possibly have its scope so far as United States funds are concerned lessened by the transaction which I have just outlined?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The short answer to my hon. friend's question is that it is an export of capital by this resident who changes his residence from Canada to the United States, whether he takes it in Canadian dollar securities or in United States dollar securities.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: That is no answer at all.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is a pretty good answer.

Foreign Exchange Control
were allowed to go over the border and get their money and bring it home. Any man who was well known, a prominent citizen, could go to a bank and get sixteen, eighteen or twenty per cent. If I went in, dressed roughly, and perhaps with fish scales in my hair I would not get the same theatment. I know of many cases of that kind. I remember the case of a man who came with his wife to the town where I lived, and I may say before going farther that as a rule the larger the amount of money you had, the greater percentage you received. This man's wife had 81,000 to deposit in the Bank of Nova Scotia in St. Andrews, and incidentally, I may say, the manager of that bank is still living. She deposited her money and received twelve per cent. Her husband came with S700 and when he deposited his amount he received eighteen per cent. As they were about to leave for home he mentioned to his wife that he had got eighteen per cent and she was surprised to hear that. Although the bank was closed by that time, they went back and the manager discovered that he had made a mistake and the other six per cent was paid.
I do not know what conditions were like in the larger centres, but I know that in New Brunswick the rate of exchange was never at any time posted in the banks. I know of another case-this gentleman is living to-day. At that time he lived in the town of St. George, and it is interesting to know that there are many "saints" in Charlotte county. He had a certain amount of money to deposit and at one bank he was offered twelve per cent. He came to St. Andrews and they offered him fifteen per cent. Then he went to the Bank of Montreal in St. Stephen and was offered twenty per cent-all on the same day.
My chief reason for supporting this measure is that the foreign exchange control situation has been so handled during the war years that every man in the country, regardless of whether he wore a top hat or, as I have said, had fish scales in his hair, got the same treatment when he went to the bank. Everybody got ten per cent. That is the fair and just way of handling the situation, and I have no doubt whatever that if to-day the foreign exchange control board were thrown aside the same thing would happen as happened during the period of which I have spoken. You would find shysters on both sides buying and selling exchange. That happened before and I have no doubt it would happen again.
One hon. member to-night suggested that these regulations were going to create a nation of law-breakers. I suggest that if 63260-285J
we dispensed with the foreign exchange control that we have had during the war we would have a nation of lawbreakers, and they would be the banks and bankers. In my opinion we should stick to the board and allow them to carry on as they have been doing in the past five or six years.


Mr. CHURCH:: There is no doubt that we had a good many valuable officials in connection with the foreign exchange control board in war time. They did good work during the war. I suggest, however, that there is too much red tape about the regulations. These controls remind me of the game called winding and unwinding, in which the players rehearse a large' number of words and repeat them backwards. In my opinion we are surrendering too much of our financial initiative to Washington all along. We have had controls of foreign currency for five or six years and, if we are to wait for another eighteen months or two years before these controls are all removed, our businessmen will be hamstrung. We have nothing but officials, filing clerks and all the rest of it from the cradle to the grave over exports and foreign exchange, and no business, large or small, can possibly carry on under the interpretation definitions in this section.
Industry and labour in Canada worked wonders in the war and they can work wonders again in peace, but the prime necessity is stability in the delivery of all classes of consumer goods so as to promote our peacetime economy and provide the fullest measure of employment and export of goods and services. But how are our businessmen to do this under these definitions as set out under (a) and (b) as to property and sale by residents of "goods" to be exported. Under this control system we shall have to maintain a whole staff of employees of the foreign exchange control board. As I say, there is altogether too much red tape about the regulations, with armies of officials who think we cannot now live without them.
I have seen the way in which these regulations work at Fort Erie. I come from a commercial city in which there is a heavy American trade by water and rail. I have seen goods coming in and export of goods to nonresidents, and I know the difficulties which businessmen, large and small, have to put up with to meet market demands. I fail to see why, fifteen months after the war, we should continue to maintain these irksome controls, which interfere with the freedom of our people. Various transactions which were not regarded as offences in time of peace were created offences during the war; but the war years
Foreign Exchange Control

into the country without dealing through the agent of the foreign exchange control board. The total fines amounted to $300, all over a few tons of hay and straw.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am glad my hon. friend said he did not object to the B form, because my information is that there is really no added work in filling out the entry.


Heber Harold Hatfield: But the farmer has to send $2 to Ottawa to get a chance to take a few dozen eggs across the border.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That, I am glad to say, is a responsibility of my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce and not of the Acting Minister of Finance.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I am told by the Department of Trade and Commerce that they do not want to continue the export permit board, that this is only done at the request of the wartime prices and trade board and the foreign exchange control board; they are only policemen for that board; they are not getting anything out of it.


Mr. KIDD:: I should like to draw to the attention of the minister a condition which, somewhere between the foreign exchange control board and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, is proving a hardship. I speak on behalf of citizens of the upper St. Lawrence, Wolfe island and Howe island, which I represented in the upper house for fifteen years, and I want to endorse everything that was said by the hon. member for Stanstead. These farmers who have been living in the vicinity of Howe island and Wolfe island have been going back and forth across the border; in fact they are nearer to the United States border than they are to their own county town. Strawberry producers were practically put out of business two or three years ago on account of these controls. But I want to refer particularly to a man in my own city who went over to Saratoga Springs with a string of horses. He tried to get a permit to take a few oats over to the United States, and this was refused.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but this has nothing to do with the foreign exchange control board.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: But there is an overlapping. I wish the Minister of Trade and Commerce was in his seat at the present time. As I said, here was a man with a string of horses going to the United States, and he cannot get oats for them and cannot bring oats in. The results are obvious.


Mr. BRYCE:: Feed them hay.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: You cannot even get hay over there. We have at Kingston one of the finest racetracks there is; northern New York has nothing to touch it. Men arrange to take six or eight horses over, and then they are turned down at the border when they want to take over a few bags of oats. It is a nuisance, and I think that between the Acting Minister of Finance, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and some of their officials it should be possible to issue a permit to a horseman allowing him to take eight or ten or a dozen bags of oats in the back of his truck to feed his horses over there.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall bring my hon. friend's remarks to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
On the question which has been raised here about the farmers along the 3,000 miles of undefended border being able to ship produce back and forth, I do not think I can accept the amendment in its present form, and I question whether my hon. friend really intended to eliminate the B form. But what I will do is this: I will discuss the matter with the officials of the board and see whether, by regulation now or at a given time, some limit could be set under special local conditions. But, as I said before, I think it should be done by regulation so that it could be adapted to local conditions, instead of trying to make it general.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I do not care how they do it, but I should like these ministers and the boards to get together so that some simple way could be devised whereby a farmer can take over and sell his goods without going through all this nonsense. It piles up work for the different boards and departments and it is a great nuisance to the farmer. A United States citizen can come over here, buy $100 worth of goods and take them out of Canada without getting a permit; he only has to declare his purchases. Why should the Canadian citizen not be in the same position?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I appreciate my hon. friend's willingness to cooperate.


Mr. STUART (Charlotte):: The county in which I live is on the United States border. I believe there are hon. members on the other side of the chamber who can remember as well as I the way the foreign exchange control was instituted during the last war. At that time, as I recall, the Right Hon. R. L. Borden was prime minister of this country. I remember distinctly as a very young man at that time that, instead of the money of our fishermen and farmers being handled through a foreign exchange control board, our people

Foreign Exchange Control
That will do to start with. I will also ask him, with his experience as Acting Minister of Finance and1 in dealing with other departments, if the same information could not be obtained from officials in other departments who do exactly the same work? Would the minister be kind enough to answer my question?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think that information can be made available. It would be exactly the same number as the number of customs export entries. The Department of National Revenue may have the figures as to the number of entries. It is issued at the same time. It is the same form.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is a perfect example of duplication and waste.


Mr. McLURE:: I want to put a question that will not be as noisy as some of the questions that have been asked. To-day there is a large export trade growing up, that is large in number, to what are called the free port zones in New York. These zones are especially established for dutiable goods. I am wondering whether we shall have any protection under this new bill and these export regulations. To-day an exporter has, we will say, a thousand dollars worth of dutiable goods going into the United States. He just ships that with an ordinary permit, or has been shipping it with an ordinary permit. He does not have to declare any valuation except for insurance. Those goods, if they are shipped to New York, are shipped to the New York free port zone. The goods are not in bond but they are dutiable. The exporter ships through some chartered bank which has an agency there. Then the exporter notifies the man to whom he expects to sell, and that man goes to the free port zone and examines the goods. A price is then placed on them -by the exporter which is sufficient to cover the value, plus the exporter's profit, -plus the duty that will be paid on the goods. The buyer has nothing to do with the duty. He just goes in and looks at these goods and, if they are worth to him the price which the exporter states, he buys them. He pays -the bank, and the bank pays the United States customs officer the duty. What I want to know is, when that transaction is completed, how the funds will be handled and how the exporter will be protected under this new bill.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not familiar with the practice which my hon. friend has so clearly outlined. I think I shall have to make some inquiries and give him an answer a little later.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of goods have been shipped in the last few years. It is a trade which is 63260-285
essential to Canada. One of its advantages is that it is so easy to ship now. You do not have to value your goods; you do not have to pay your duty to go into the United States and then try to sell your product afterwards, and if we could get proper -protection in this connection it would be a great thing for the exporters.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will make inquiries and see if I can find out what happens in these cases.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. We have an amendment proposed by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton. Is it his wish to press the amendment in view of the explanation the minister has made?


Heber Harold Hatfield: I should like to say to the minister that I am not so much opposed to the B form, but I understand that the export permit board is being carried on by the Department of Trade and Commerce at the request of the wartime prices and trade board and the foreign exchange control board.


Douglas Charles Abbott: May I assure my hon. friend as strongly as I can that that is not the case.


Heber Harold Hatfield: That is, the permit.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thought that was the permit to which my hon. friend was taking objection.


Heber Harold Hatfield: That is the permit on which the foreign exchange control board has prosecuted all these people in my constituency, and the commissioner of customs told me that they were only policemen for the minister's department, that they were tired of doing it, that they had to put on an extra staff to police his foreign exchange control department. A certain farmer applied for an export permit on so many tons of hay and so many tons of straw. Since that time, two years ago, there was a shortage somewhere in Ontario or Quebec, a long way from his market, they refused a permit on the hay but they gave him a permit on the straw. The man, when he started to haul the straw, went -around the Canadian customs, paid the duty on his straw, and delivered it to the United States market, and when he got through with hauling the straw he hauled the hay. The mounted police came along and checked with the United States officer and found that the farmer had paid duty on so much hay and so much straw. He was arrested, brought before a magistrate and fined for exporting goods without making an entry to the proper customs officer, and he was also fined for bringing money back

Foreign Exchange Control

statistics on wheat and other things produced in Canada. Those were very satisfactoiy. That branch had many able men, and I do not see why there is so much duplication and triplication of bureaucracy in the form of various boards, commissions, branches, bureaus, et cetera.
Here we have another example. The country is going to have to feed all those who come from the university with diplomas bearing bright gold seals. They are the ones who are going to run the country. The policy of the government is supposed to be to promote private initiative, but how can there be private initiative when the men in this country with private initiative are like the giant described by a well-known English author and who was tied up by dwarfs? He was a giant, but he could not move; the dwarfs were all around him.


Mr. HACKETT:: Do you remember his name? Was it Gulliver?


Jean-François Pouliot: I know very well, but I wanted my hon. friend to show how well read he is. It was a classic. When as a child I read "Gulliver's Travels" by Swift, if I am not mistaken, I was enchanted. But I said to myself, how can a giant be tied up by dwarfs like that? I never thought I would see it done in the year 1946, that I would be a member of parliament then and actually see it done here in the House of Commons. We have through this board of duplication of services for which the taxpayer has to pay. I admit that hon. gentlemen have a right to lay their grievances against the board before this committee. I will go farther and say that it is their duty to do so. But on the other hand, if we want to stop these grievances against the board for good, we have simply to give no power to the foreign exchange control board, and I ask the committee not to forget what I said yesterday, that the only way to reform that board is to abolish it. It is the fifth wheel of the coach of state.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding) :: Order. We are on section 25.


Jean-François Pouliot: If I am permitted, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude. To come back to exports and imports-and I hope that the committee will be indulgent enough to let me speak of both at the same time because the two go together-


Angus MacInnis: The committee is far more indulgent than that.


Jean-François Pouliot: The committee is generous. My hon. friend was a member at the time I referred to and he remembers the discussion on imports and exports. There are two sec-
tions of the bill in relation to imports and exports, sections 25 and 26. There should be only one section, consisting of two subsections, subsection (a) dealing with exports and subsection (b) dealing with imports, so that the two could be discussed together and so that we could reach some conclusion regarding trade, which is the lifeblood of the nation.
WThat information can we get from this board about the shipment of various products since the beginning of the war? What about the shipment of cheese? What about the shipment of powdered milk? What about the shipment of meat, dressed meat, frozen meat and canned meat? What about the shipment of wheat and other grains? Can we get the figures of these shipments to various countries for the last five or six years? The board must have that information; otherwise they would not be in a position to grant any permit. In the Department of Trade and Commerce we have gentlemen who are most serviceable to members of parliament. We have to go to them sometimes when we are sending gifts to another country to find out if they are dutiable in that country, and they give us that information. What information can one get from the foreign exchange control board? What is the personnel of that board? What is the personnel that looks after imports? What is the personnel that looks after exports? We know the personnel in the Department of Trade and Commerce, the gentlemen who are compiling statistics, and we know the gentlemen who are issuing permits and compiling data in the Department of National Revenue.
I do not understand how any gentleman can complain about bureaucracy if he does not seize this unique opportunity to redress wrongs, to put a stop to them, and at the same time make life easier for the businessman, who at the present time has to go to the board and get this permit and that permit, then come back and get another permit, then have it countersigned by one expert, and even that counter-signature is not enough but must be initialed by another super brain. Even that is not enough. It mst be folded in such a way as to conform with the standards of the board. I cannot understand how 'business can prosper with all those obstacles in the way. I will ask the minister a simple question. Is it possible for the board to give any definite information about the total number of permits which have been issued over a certain number of years, say one, or two or three or four or five years, by the foreign exchange control board for various commodities; for flour and grain, including wheat of course; cheese, powdered milk, all kinds of meats, lumber, and minerals?

Foreign Exchange Control


Heber Harold Hatfield: I have in mind the case of a farmer who exported two cords of wood. When he came to the border he was asked to fill out the B form which the minister has spoken about, indicating how much he expected to receive for the wood. He said he had sold the wood for $30, and he made out the B form, stating that he would return $30 and sell it to the bank. The bank was acting as the agent for the foreign exchange control board. The man overlooked the fact that when he was in Maine he would have to spend $1 for his dinner. When he came back he had only $29, and he had to write a number of letters and the banker had to write a number of letters to the foreign exchange control board explaining why it was that he had not brought back $30.


John Thomas Hackett: Inasmuch as our dollar is now on a parity with the United States dollar, does not the reason for this provision in the bill, within the limits of the amendment, pretty well disappear? When there was a difference of ten per cent it was a much more serious matter than it is now. Another regulation imposed on the small exporter means an additional deterrent. I am reminded of the provision in the constitutions of many of the southern states that voters must read, write and understand the constitution. One gentleman of dark complexion was asked if he knew what that meant, and he said, "Yes, sir, it means that this nigger isn't going to vote." These regulations mean that our people cannot take their products to a ready and customary market. The result is an unnecessary loss.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Referring shortly to my hon. friend's first question, as to whether or not the fact that the Canadian dollar is on parity with the United States dollar has not largely removed the necessity for this restriction, I would say that the answer is in the negative. We still need to conserve our United States dollar reserves, and that is the purpose of foreign exchange control. Prior to the change in the exchange rate, the Canadian exporter received more in Canadian dollars for the goods which he exported, but that is the only change which has taken place.


John Thomas Hackett: United States dollars seem to be in current circulation in Montreal these days.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Illegally.


Jean-François Pouliot: This afternoon I listened to hon. gentlemen who were not satisfied with the legislation for returned men because it was not broad enough. I was reminded of denunciations of taxation which have been
made in previous times. When expenditures come before the house or before the committee they are all agreed upon; they are never enough. To-night I am thinking of the denunciation of bureaucracy. This bill is intended to increase bureaucracy. Hon. members have referred to a few cases where complaints could be lodged against the action of this board, but I am distressed by the fact that the hon. gentleman who sponsors this legislation has said that the export permits to be issued by the foreign exchange control board will not be the same as those issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce. This is another permit, something entirely different; it is not the same thing; it is something new. Then there will be other permits for imports different from those issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce.
There are four departments of government set up to promote trade between provinces or between Canada and other countries. The first of these is the Department of Agriculture. The next is the Department of Mines and Resources which supplies prospectors with maps, et cetera. Those two departments help the different producers in this country to develop trade. I remember the legislation passed by the Bennett government in connection with marketing between the provinces. That caused more trouble than could be described now, but the purpose was to develop trade through the Department of Agriculture.
Trade consists of exports and imports. To promote exports we have the Department of Trade and Commerce. This department has assisted Canadian producers and Canadian manufacturers; it has paid subsidies to navigation lines, et cetera. But on top of this department we have now set up a commercial corporation. This has been established by legislation, and unfortunately I was notjn the house on Monday when the particular legislation passed like butter in a pan. It was a new scheme thought up by a few of the intelligentsia to give direction to trade through the Department of Trade and Commerce. The long-established department was not enough; a corporation had to be set up on top.
We have had since confederation the former department of customs and excise, afterwards the Department of National Revenue, to deal with imports. There is another branch of that department, the bureau of statistics, which is supposed to do the work that is proposed to be done by this board. We have not heard from the bureau of statistics for a long time. I remember, when the Bennett government was in power, I used to receive
Foreign Exchange Control

farm or the catch up to a value of $100 each month, but it would not relieve such exporters from the necessity of making the usual export entry.
In point of fact, this permit about which so much has been said, as to the nuisance of getting it, is issued by the customs officer and forms part of the forms in connection with customs export entries. It is known as form B, and the permit is obtained by filling out the usual customs export entry form, which now calls for a declaration by the exporter of the goods, their destination, the price to be received and so on.
The whole purpose of this permit system is to make sure that exports to foreign countries and in particular to the United States- that is what we are talking about now-will result in proceeds of sales being paid in United States dollars and made available to our exchange fund. That is the purpose of the permit. Under subsection 2 of section 25 it is provided-
The hoard shall not withhold a permit for the export of goods from Canada where payment of not less than the fair value of the goods in a currency designated by the board as acceptable for such a transaction,
(a)	has been received by a resident from a non-resident and, in the case of payment in foreign currency, the foreign currency has been sold to an authorized dealer;
or
(b)	is due to a resident from a non-resident under the terms of sale within six months after the goods are exported from Canada and. in case where payment is to be made in foreign currency, the board is satisfied that the foreign currency will be offered for sale to an authorized dealer forthwith upon receipt.
There is not any great hardship involved in that. There is not any great formality involved in it. It is true there may not be a customs officer close to the point where a particular farmer wishes to take his load of hay across the boundary line. Nevertheless, if he is selling hay or any other commodity in the United States he must make an export entry for that produce. He should be required to do so and he is required to do so. There is no additional formality in obtaining a permit of the foreign exchange control board, because customs officers act as agents of the board in issuing those permits.


Heber Harold Hatfield: May I ask a question?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I understand that the export permit board, which is under the Department of Trade and Commerce, was set up for the purpose of forcing the exporter to take out a permit, so that the foreign

exchange control board could keep track of the exports from this country. I took this matter up-


Douglas Charles Abbott: What is the question? I was making a statement.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I took the matter up with the commissioner of customs-


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend may make another speech later. I answered the question by saying that the export permit required by the Department of Trade and Commerce has nothing whatever to do with the foreign exchange control board. I say that positively. It has nothing to do with it at all.


Heber Harold Hatfield: In these cases where a farmer was fined for taking a few dozen eggs or a ton of hay-


Douglas Charles Abbott: It has not anything to do with the export permit branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce. I was proceeding to say that this really involves no additional trouble on the part of the exporter. He must make out his export entry, and in making out that export entry he obtains at the same time a permit from the foreign exchange control board. He does not even fill out the extra form. The customs officer is the agent of the board for the purpose of issuing that permit.
The whole purpose is to enable a scrutiny to be made of the exports which are going to other countries, and the amount which is to be received for them.
I think, if a provision of this kind were to be included-and I shall be glad to discuss it with the officials of the board to see whether it is practicable-it would be desirable to make it by regulation rather than by statute. Personally I believe it would be a mistake to single out a special group or special groups for special treatment. If this can be done without danger to the efficient administration of exchange control, then I quite agree that it should be put in. But I think it should be done by regulation and not by singling out any special group for this special treatment.
I repeat that I do not think any real hardship is involved in getting this extra permit. I have a strong suspicion that some of the cases which have been described by the hon. member for St. John-Albert and the hon. member for Yictoria-Carleton are cases of individuals who were anxious to ship hay or some other product to the United States in order to avoid the ceiling prices which still prevailed in Canada.

Foreign Exchange Control
plaint before the banking and commerce committee when the bill was before it, so that the matter could have been gone into?


John Thomas Hackett: Because we understood we were going to discuss this matter.


Mr. CLEAVER:: Obviously you cannot have a matter of this kind discussed in the house. If the hon. member had brought these complaints before the banking and commerce committee-


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The free press of Canada has been stirred up on behalf of the victims.


Mr. HAZEN:: I think I expressed myself clearly with regard to this bill when it was before the committee.


Hughes Cleaver: Did the hon. member make any of these complaints before the committee?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: What would you have
done, if he had?


Douglas King Hazen: If the chairman of the committee wishes me to read the stand I took then, I have it here and I am prepared to read it.


Hughes Cleaver: Well-


Douglas King Hazen: Now, do not get impatient. He has asked if I mentioned certain instances before the committee. I did not mention particular instances because I did not think it was necessary. I had one or two instances in mind at the time.
But I will say this, that since we were before the committee there have been a great many more of these instances brought to my attention, and I am giving a few of the instances to the committee to-night. I am going to refer to two more of them. These are only two; there must be thousands of them; I do not know how many there are.


Hughes Cleaver: I understand that the hon. member did not know of these instances.


Douglas King Hazen: A farmer took a few tons of hay across the line because it was 'convenient for him to do so. He declared it to the customs authorities and paid the duty. He was summonsed before the magistrate by the board and fined $200. This man's name was Cain, from the county of Carleton in the province of New Brunswick.
There was another man who took a load of hay across. There was no Canadian customs officer there. He paid the duty on the hay to United States customs officer. This man was summonsed before the magistrate and was fined $200.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Does the hon. member know whether these cases were for infractions of
foreign exchange control regulations or for failure to obtain export permits from the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Heber Harold Hatfield: They were prosecuted by the foreign exchange control board.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was asking the hon. member for St. John-Albert. I did not know that the information was provided by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton. But I see that it was.


Douglas King Hazen: If you want to make a speech, go on. My information is that these charges weres laid by the foreign exchange control board.


Douglas Charles Abbott: But you have not personal knowledge of it.


Douglas King Hazen: I was not associated with the case.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I was.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: What difference does it make who has the information, if it is a fact?


Hughes Cleaver: There may be some doubt as to whether it is a fact.


Douglas King Hazen: I have the records of only a few cases, but there must have been thousands. However, I have referred to them to point out the hardships which exist under these regulations, and I cite them as an argument in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton.
Surely it would not have affected the rate of exchange if these primary producers were permitted each month to take not more than $100 worth of the goods they produce by their own efforts to the United States. As the hon. member for Stanstead has said, it is their natural market.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And where they can get higher prices, too.


Douglas King Hazen: As the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton- has said, it is their natural market. I would ask the minister to give this matter his sympathetic consideration, and to bless it with his approval.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Just a word respecting the proposed amendment. As the hon. member for Stanstead has said, I am thoroughly familiar with the conditions along a certain part of the Canadian-American border, having been born and brought up very close to that border. The proposed amendment would provide that in the ease of a bona fide farmer or fishermen there would be no requirement to obtain a permit from the foreign exchange control board in exporting the produce of the
Foreign Exchange Control


James Arthur Ross: In this amendment we are asking that the producer should report to the customs officials and make a declaration so that he would be saved the bother of writing to Ottawa for an export permit.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He does not have to; it is done by the customs officers when he fills out the declaration.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, it is.


James Arthur Ross: Whether it is or not, he would have the right to do it by this amendment. Does the minister say he has the right now?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall answer in a minute.


Mr. IRVINE:: I wish my hon. friend would also tell us what the amendment is, because he is the only hon. member whose voice we can hear over here.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Would it help if I made a brief statement?


James Arthur Ross: I am sorry if the hon. members did not hear the amendment proposed by my colleague. It reads as follows:
That section 25 be amended by adding a further clause, to be numbered 3, as follows:
"Nothing herein contained shall require a bona fide farmer or fisherman to secure a permit under this act to export the products of his own farm or his catch up to the value of $100 every month, providing that an export entry is made by such exporter to the appropriate customs officer at the port of entry."
That is exactly what is proposed. The situation as set forth by the hon. member, which prevails along the borderline in the towns of the maritimes, prevails all across Canada. I happen to be resident of a community close to the borderline. I personally know the details of the situation which exists along the boundary line through Saskatchewan. Alberta and Manitoba, and it is a situation which prevails from coast to coast in Canada. As has been pointed out, tourists travelling back and forth to Canada and the United States are allowed, under some reciprocal arrangement, to make a purchase every so often up to the value of $100, provided that they have spent so many days in the country. The minister should give careful consideration to this amendment which would grant that privilege to producers along the boundary lines. In many cases the closest town or community or market is much closer across the border than on the Canadian side where they happen to be living. I do not wish to repeat any of the arguments which have been made before the committee, but I hope that the minister will give serious and

favourable consideration to this amendment in the interests of a great many of our citizens.


Douglas King Hazen: I rise to support the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Victoria-Uarleton. The regulations made by the board are continued by this bill. These regulations have been not only a nuisance but a hardship to many farmers and fishermen who live along our international border. The hon. member for Stanstead has referred to the close community which exists between citizens who live on the other side of the border and those in or near his constituency. I would point out that in New Brunswick we have the town of St. Stephen on the New Brunswick side of the river with a large surrounding population, and the town of Calais on the Maine side of the river with a large surrounding population. The fire department of one community goes to the fires in the other community. The two communities use a common graveyard; the two communities celebrate the 24th of May and the 4th of July together.


William Irvine: Do they vote at the same polls?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: There are no C.C.F. there.


Douglas King Hazen: I referred to the hardships which have existed under these regulations. I wish to give one or two instances of them, and I can furnish the names if the minister wants them. Take the case of a farmer taking ten dozen eggs across the border. He declares these eggs to the United States customs and pays whatever duty there is on them. At the particular place where he declares these eggs to the customs authority there is no Canadian customs official. In more than one instance, as a result of not obtaining a permit before taking these few eggs to the United States, he has been summoned before a magistrate and fined $100. If the minister wishes the names I can furnish them. I have the name of the man who was fined in this instance, and I shall give another instance.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think we should have these names.


Douglas King Hazen: One is a man by the name of Burt, who lives in Centreville, New Brunswick. Another is a man by the name of Hartley, who lives in Centreville, New Brunswick.


Hughes Cleaver: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Douglas King Hazen: Yes.


Hughes Cleaver: Will the hon. member tell the committee why he did not bring this com-

Foreign Exchange Control
required to secure from the export permit branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce and the permit which one has to obtain under this section.


John Thomas Hackett: What is the point of order?


Mr. LESAGE:: I submit that the amendment is out of order, and so have been the speeches delivered by the two hon. members. I believe the hon.. members are confusing export permits that must be obtained from the export permit branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce and1 permits under this section.


John Thomas Hackett: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. May I ask that the hon. member be requested to state his point of order instead of attempting to make a speech in the middle of mine.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: I am stating the point of order. I say that the two hon. members are not speaking about permits that have to be obtained under section 25, but about those that have to be obtained from the export branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce and, therefore, are out of order.


John Thomas Hackett: I merely point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that no person shall, except in accordance with a permit, export any property from Canada, and I submit that that includes fish and the farm produce of which I am speaking. I know that, whatever be the lot of this amendment, it will have the friendliest consideration of some gentlemen opposite because they know the conditions whereof I speak.
There is one other point I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members opposite. By these unnecessary enactments, by these restrictive and highly irritating bits of legislation, without point or purpose we are making of our people a nation of lawbreakers. We are belittling the majesty of the law, we are sapping its status and its value and undermining its dignity. We are dragging it in the dust by this pettifogging type of interference with ordinary liberty and everyday business.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Hear, hear.


John Thomas Hackett: My hon. friends are fully aware that along the border there are opportunities for our farmers and, I suppose, for our fishermen to get substantial prices for produce. I fear that if they cannot get them in the ordinary way in which they have got them in the past they will seek to get them illegally, and that is a result which is greatly to be deplored. In the past ours has been a law-respecting population, a God-fearing people. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that by 63260-284J
restricting the people without purpose, by restraining them to no end other than aggravation, the law loses its majesty and the people their reverence for it. I ask the minister to consider the amendment carefully.


William Irvine: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question before he resumes his seat?


John Thomas Hackett: Yes.


William Irvine: Perhaps I had better put it
as straight as I can so as not to take time. I should like to know if there is any difference in principle between the so-called pettifogging restriction which my hon. friend referred to in respect of section 25 of the bill, and the restrictions which a man would exercise if he were to buy a box of cigars in New York, a pair of silk stockings in Philadelphia and a couple of new tires for his car in the days of the tariff and tried to cross this mutual border about which my hon. friend has been talking? I do not remember my hon. friend ever using that argument when he was supporting the tariff policy of Canada.


John Thomas Hackett: I shall be glad to answer that. I am speaking for the farmers of a farming community who are merely seeking the right to exercise a prerogative which has been theirs for generations. These markets in adjacent towns or in the other part of the same community have always been open to them; it was only when the restrictions of the foreign exchange control board were put on as war measures-I am not talking now of customs duties; they have to be paid-that their position was made impossible. I am talking of getting the permit which takes so much time and discourages the people from seeking the ordinary outlet for their produce in a local market.


James Arthur Ross: In supporting the amendment of my colleague the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, may I first of all add to the answer given to the hon. member for Cariboo. As I understand the situation, there is at the present time a reciprocal arrangement whereby tourists crossing the border, after having spent so many days in either country, can purchase $100 worth of goods, including the goods which my hon. friend mentioned. By comparison, that is all we are asking for in this measure.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They have to make a declaration.


James Arthur Ross: That is true.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is all that there is in this section. It is a form combined with the.-customs form.
Foreign Exchange Control

In my constituency the nearest market of a great many farmers is over in the state of Maine, a mile or two from where their farms are located; the Canadian market is probably ten to fifteen miles away from that point. Before the war and prior to the regulations brought down by order in council, these farmers always hauled some of their produce, when they could sell it at a higher price, over the border to the nearest market, and brought their money back into Canada and spent it to suit themselves. This section forces them to send two dollars to Ottawa to the export permit board to obtain a permit to export these goods. Therefore, to help these farmers who live near the border, I am going to move an amendment to section 25.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is no fee on the export permits. I think my hon. friend is confusing these permits with the permits of the export permit board.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Souris:
That section 25 be amended by adding a further clause, to be numbered 3, as follows:
"Nothing herein contained shall require a bona fide farmer or fisherman to secure a permit under this act to export the products of his own farm or his catch up to the value of $100 every month, providing that an export entry is made by such exporter to the appropriate customs officer at the port of entry."
Formerly that was all they had to do, these persons who live near the border, before the regulations came into effect. They put up with these regulations during the war because they thought there should be some regulations to help the war effort, but it works a hardship. Men have been refused export permits a great many times. Growers of strawberries throughout Canada, and specifically in Ontario and British Columbia, have been refused permits to export their strawberries to the United States market and forced to sell them to the British food ministry at a very low price, packed in S02, and these strawberries were shipped to jam manufacturers in Great Britain. You can go into any grocery store in New York or other United States cities and buy these strawberries, converted into jam, to-day, although the farmer who grew them was not allowed an export permit to export.


John Thomas Hackett: I was very much pleased, in talking the matter over with the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, to promise him my support. I told him that he would find on the front benches opposite at least some members who are familiar with life on the border and who would probably lend a sympathetic ear to his suggestion.
.'Mr. Hatfield.]
Hon. members who are not acquainted with border life do not appreciate the extent to which these regulations have wrought a hardship on border populations. Villages have grown into communities and the communities have stretched across the border. For instance, in my own constituency there is Stanhope and across the border in Vermont is Norton Mills. They form but one community. The acting minister knows well the geographical location of Beebe, Vermont, and Beebe, Quebec. The post offices were in the same building, the Canadian postmaster was for many years a faithful servant of the United States postmaster. He sold postage stamps for two countries as he dodged from wicket to wicket. He was a very useful member of the community. Stanstead and Rock Island, Quebec, and Derby Line, Vermont, constitute but one community. There was no duplication of service. There was one undertaker and there were churches on either side of the line, which people frequented according to their denominational preference. The butcher lived in one country, the candlestick maker in the other. The theatre was in both, straddling the line.
These regulations to which people submitted throughout the war, have created tremendous dissatisfaction and genuine difficulties. The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton is not seeking to undermine or defeat the main purpose of the act. He is asking the minister if bona fide farmers and bona fide fishermen may not have access to the markets that they have always known and supplied. It may be true that the actual monetary outlay to obtain a permit is not great, but there is interminable loss of time, and that something which every man hates and detests; going into an office where he is confronted by gentlemen who, though courteous enough, bring home to him the fact that he may not be able to read, or to write, the fact that he is not fully informed as to the date of his birth or the date of his marriage, or has not at his tongue's tip some of the minutiae of information which he is required to supply to get a permit to take a dozen eggs to the old lady just across the way, whom he has known and to whom he has sold eggs for probably twenty years.
These are matters of small importance, so small that they are unnecessary. These regulations spring, I dare say, from a desire to serve the country, but they are dictated by people who are not familiar with local conditions.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I wonder if the two hon. members who have been addressing the committee are not confusing the export permit that one is

Foreign Exchange Control
headlines these words: "Corps to be a civil defence organization"? There it is right in the order in council and in the regulations that were put out at that time. How can anyone, in the face of that, say that there was double-crossing?


Mr. GREEN:: What date was that?


Mr. TUCKER:: The date of the regulations approved by order in council was March 3, 1942. There cannot be any doubt at all in the face of that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in moving, with the consent of the house, the third reading of the bill, may I be permitted, as a minister of the crown, to say that this is the conclusion of the work of that painstaking, industrious, excellent and devoted committee on veterans affairs, and to extend to the committee on behalf of this house our thanks for the wonderful work they have done. Long after we have left this arena, the work that they have done for their comrades in Canada will be remembered by the veterans of Canada, those who survived, as long as they do survive, and it will be remembered, too, with deep gratitude by the nation at large. It is not surprising in the slightest degree that we had our contentions, controversies and disputations, but I think the measure of cooperation which the committee achieved was an example for all time to the parliament and people of Canada and will be an abiding inspiration to our comrades across the broad acres of the nine provinces of Canada.
Mr. T. J. BENTLEY (Swift-Current):: I am not quite satisfied yet. I appreciate, as I know all members of the committee do, the very fine words of the minister, and we are glad that the work we tried to do was recognized, but in our opinion that work has not been completed in the bill in its present form. The parliamentary assistant made quite a case a few minutes ago by holding up a pamphlet or some other document which stated that this civilian corps of fire fighters was in actual fact, by the order in council, a civilian corps. That could have been corrected. If I remember correctly we had to take action in the committee to bring the W.R.N.S. under the operation of the bill because of a technical error somewhere in the preparation of the order in council. Because of that, and because I believe this 63260-284
action is necessary, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright):
That this bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions that they have power to reconsider the position of these lire fighters.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise to a point of order. The only possible implication of the amendment, Mr. Speaker, would be that the bill would be referred back to the committee of the whole in order to reconsider the position of the fire fighters, which would mean the imposition of greater taxes upon the people. I therefore suggest that the amendment is out of order.


William Irvine: On the point of order, surely it is not infringing the rule to ask the committee to consider this. It is not a specific motion which would involve an increase of public expenditure; it is asking that the matter be referred back for reconsideration.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I shall have to put that amendment aside, and refuse it, since it is out of order.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. LENNARD:: On division.


William Irvine: We should like to know very much, Mr. Speaker, how you decided the point of order.


James Horace King: I have told the hon. member that this amendment was out of order, and then I put the question.


William Irvine: On what grounds, sir?


James Horace King: And I put the question to the house "that the bill be now read the third time", and the house adopted the motion.



FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, August 7, consideration in committee of bill No. 195, respecting the control of the acquisition and disposition of foreign currency and the control of transactions involving foreign currency or non-residents-Mr. Abbott-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
William Ross Macdonald: When the committee was last sitting it was considering section No. 25-Property.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I should like to point out to the minister that this will impose hardship on thousands of farmers and other citizens of this country living near the Canadian border.



War Service Benefits-Fire Fighters
channel daily, but our chance never came, and it was with keen disappointment and regret that our overseas contingent was finally disbanded before we could go farther and do more.
I simply wished to put that on the record.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I trust that the hon. members in the rooting section we have over in this corner will endeavour to be more fair. It may be necessary to put on Hansard the names of hon. members who make themselves obnoxious. I may tell the hon. members that I think they have disrupted enough the debates in this house on many occasions. They have been here long enough to leam how to behave in parliament, and I think it is time they began to do as they ought to do.


William Ross Macdonald: There are so many
interruptions that it is impossible for me to hear the hon. member for Lethbridge. He has the floor.


John Horne Blackmore: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I feel that the government is trying almost frantically to make a distinction without a difference in the case of the fire fighters. It is argued, for example, that they did not wear the king's uniform. I do not think it ever entered the heads of any of the fire fighters that they were not wearing the king's uniform when they donned the uniform of the fire fighting corps for service in Britain. Certainly they were, in uniform. It was said that they were not wearing khaki. Neither were the men of the naval forces wearing khaki nor the men of the air force. I think the longer this discussion goes forward, the more complicated the position the government is in becomes and the more completely untenable. It is argued that General LaFleehe did not speak with the authority of the government. Let it be borne in mind that General LaFleehe was a responsible minister of the crown for a long time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not at that time.


John Horne Blackmore: At one time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Later on. You are
all mixed up.


John Horne Blackmore: Did not General
LaFleehe sit in this house as a responsible minister of the crown?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not then.


John Horne Blackmore: But he did sit here as Minister of National War Services.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Afterwards.


John Horne Blackmore: That is true, but the simple fact remains that all over Canada it

was recognized that General LaFleehe was a minister of the crown. Could a man in one of the remote parts of Canada be expected to know, when General LaFleehe made that promise, whether technically he was a minister of the crown and thereby empowered to make it?


Jean-François Pouliot: He was always irresponsible.


John Horne Blackmore: All I can say is that when he was a member of this house no one dared rise and tell him that that was the case.
Mr. CRU'ICKSHANK: We have had five irresponsible leaders of the opposition in this house within recent years.


John Horne Blackmore: I really do not see the connection between that remark and what I am saying. The point I was making was simply this. There was a considerable period of time during which General LaFleehe was a responsible member of the government of Canada. He was a member of parliament and a minister of the crown. It must be conceded that he probably was not a minister of the crown when he made the promise to these men, but he certainly had been for so long a member of the government that anybody would be justified in accepting his word as being the word of the government.
The hon. member for Rosthern seemed to make a considerable amount out of the fact that General LaFleehe said in 1944 that he was "trying" to get a certain thing done, but all he succeeded in establishing was that the government simply double-crossed General LaFleehe. After he had made that promise to the fire fighters the government let him down. That is just about all that the statement of the hon. member for Rosthern amounted to.


Walter Adam Tucker: I just wish to place this on the record because statements are being made here about double-crossing that I do not think should appear on the record in justice to parliament and to honest and honourable men.
I want to draw again to the attention of the committee the regulations under which these men entered the service. I have sat here and listened to a great deal and I propose to set the record straight. Here are the regulations, and on page 6 in black headlines is set out the intention of the government beyond per-adventure or doubt. It says in black headlines: "Corps to be a civil defence organization". How can anybody say that there was double-crossing when right in the order in council and in the pamphlet placed in the hands of these men there appeared in black

War Service Benefits-Fire Fighters
My main purpose in rising is to draw attention to the fact that we seem to be getting this bill out of perspective. Even if I were opposed to this bill as some hon. members are I would not further delay the debate. I would try to keep in mind the legislation which this house has passed in the last couple of days. I would keep in mind the record of the government in accepting the recommendations of the committee. I think, that situation being as it is, this government or any government-if in point of fact an injustice is being done by this legislation-will find that the remedy lies at the hands of members of this house and changes will be made. Those of us who are not happy about this legislation are obviously not going to get any farther at the moment. We might just as well accept it, accept what we have got which is considerably more than we were offered at the beginning.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have had a very fine debate representing the various viewpoints of the house. I think this committee is entirely in support of what is in the bill, but some hon. members would like to have some additional clauses. I wonder if I could not appeal to the committee to get ahead with what we have. This is the declared policy of the government and I think, in the interests of the fire fighters themselves, we should get along and finish this job.


William Irvine: There is much good sense in what the minister has said, and the reason we on this side did not oppose the bill on second reading was because of what he has just stated.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will my hon. friend pardon me for interrupting him? The War Service Grants Act and the Veterans Rehabilitation Act which affect 1,115,000 Canadians passed this house in thirty minutes this afternoon, and we have already spent nearly two hours in discussing the problems of 400 fire fighters.


William Irvine: I appreciate that. I will tell the minister that I have not taken one minute of that time and I shall not take any more than one minute now. All of us were not members of the veterans committee and we are not acquainted with the details of this and other legislation. A distinction has been made between the fire fighters as a civilian group and the army as such, and on the face of it that seems reasonable. I should like to ask what the fire fighters were paid. Were they paid on the basis of the rates paid to soldiers or on the basis of civilian rates?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On the basis of the rates paid to soldiers.


William Irvine: If they were paid on the basis of the rates paid to soldiers, then I think the distinction was not made in time. The distinction cannot ,be made now when they were enlisted as soldiers.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; as civilian fire fighters.


William Irvine: I understand what the minister's objection is, but I am trying to get over my viewpoint. While they are called a civilian group, in reality they were nothing of the sort. They were enlisted on the same basis as soldiers; they were paid the same rates and they should receive the same consideration in every detail as is given to all the rest.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They were not enlisted or attested as members of the fighting services.


Frank Exton Lennard: Replying to what the parliamentary assistant had to say in connection with my quotation of what Major General LaFleche said in 1944, I would point out that he was merely qualifying his promise to the fire fighters in 1942. It was stated a few moments ago that heat and pressure or a sort of high-powered bombardment had been exerted in connection with the fire fighters. I want to assure every hon. member that at no time was any heat or pressure put upon me in connection with my stand with reference to the Canadian fire fighters. I did what I did because I conscientiously thought they deserved these rights.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think everyone who knows the hon. gentleman will agree with every single word he has said.


Mr. KNIGHT:: A great deal has been said to-night by hon. gentlemen on the other side about the dissimilarity of these men and the ordinary enlisted soldier. I rose once to reply to a statement made by the parliamentary assistant and I should apologize to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the committee for rising out of turn. You will have to put it down to my enthusiasm for the cause. The parliamentary assistant said that these men in their civilian jobs were not liable to go overseas, I mean from Great Britain to the continent, to take part in the fighting. While that is strictly true, I should like to place on the record the statement of these men about what happened when they were in England. This reads:
We further offered our services anywhere in the world, on any battle front. One hundred men spent four and a half months taking specialized training to go to the continent with the invasion forces. We were attached to the British twenty-first army, with their army personnel as liaison officers. We expected to cross the

War Service Benefits-Fire Fighters


Mr. ARCHIBALD:: When the government denies the responsibility of a deputy minister, and then on the other hand when it suits its purpose in the case of a man like Gordon when it is a matter of ten cents an hour-


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: -it shows the hardened attitude on the part of the government.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I can out-speak you.


William Ross Macdonald: I must ask hon. members that when the chairman rises they take their seats. The hon. member for Skeena has stated that he can out-speak any other member, and that may be true-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I challenge him on that.


William Ross Macdonald: -but it is improper for him or any other member of the committee to out-speak the Chairman.


Mr. MUTCH:: To-night I am listening to this debate for the fifth time in less than a year. As I listen to it, I am reminded of the fact that we have already passed some eleven bills, ten of which I think deal specifically with the care of those who served in the armed forces. The whole ten of them have not generated as much heat either in committee or in this chamber as has this particular bill-and not just to-night.
I have been one of those who have, as recently as last week, and on various other occasions asserted myself for, and put forth claims on behalf of these fire fighters. But I am also one of those who have held and will continue to hold-and will make no apology for so doing-the view that there ought to be some measure of demarcation between that which is done for a civilian in any branch of the war effort and that done for those who were in the armed forces. In that I made one exception-I made it the other night, and I make it again now-and that is the case of the supervisors, which I shall not discuss now, but mention only to keep the record clear. I held the view then and I do now, that possibly there should be some differentiation between them and the fire fighters. But I am bound to say that I am not one who doubted or now doubts the fact that the fire fighters who left Ottawa to proceed overseas were in their own minds, and with justification, convinced that they had become without uniforms a part of the services.
Further to that, there was one observation made by an hon. member this afternoon-I

do not remember which one-where he said that the fire fighters had fought fires in England under the same disciplinary terms as those under which the armed forces were operating. So far as I know, that is the only wholly inaccurate statement made in the discussion this afternoon. I think it has some bearing-in my judgment it has-because I am-


Frank Exton Lennard: On a point of order, I was the only one who spoke this afternoon with respect to fire fighters, and I never said that.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I would have been surprised if the hon. member were in error, because he showed great restraint. However, it may have been this evening. I know the statement was made, and it is inaccurate.
As a member of the House of Commons, I am not completely happy-indeed I am not happy at all-about the situation which has arisen with respect to the fire fighters. I will be perfectly frank about it and say this, that, had it not been for the fact-to me it is a fact-that commitments were made-whether they were made with or without authority is beside the point at the present time, because they were not refuted by anybody who was in authority-I would not have urged in the committee, as I am prepared to urge here now that further consideration be given to those claims. But I am not prepared to go the whole way with this or any other group which is really a civilian organization. To my mind, there must be some point of discrimination between the volunteer military services and those who served, no matter how meritoriously, in any other branch of the war effort.
I do not intend to interject anything into this debate which will precipitate another discussion, but I am thinking of men who were test pilots and were never out of this country but who were engaged in an exceedingly dangerous occupation. I am thinking of those who worked on the ammunition dumps on our sea coasts and in the artillery camps. I was not much moved by the picture of a chap sitting on a ship loaded with bombs. People have been blown up in dumps and by explosions in our artillery camps. It seems to me too bad that this kind of emotionalism has crept into the debate. I would not suggest that the heat that has been engendered in debate is due to the name of the organization. I am inclined to think it grows out of the commitments made by certain members and perhaps by certain groups in the house before all the facts were fully before them.

War Service Benefits-Fire Fighters


Walter Adam Tucker: May 8, 1946. It states:
Following for the Hon. Ian A. Mackenzie,
begins:
Your telegram No. 72 of May 7. When fire fighters volunteered they faced risks as great as any, although they would be unarmed.
That was the attitude of General LaFleche.
Through official channels I did everything possible to assure them pay, pensions and other benefits, identical with those for members of the armed forces-
This is his attitude. Nobody denies it. He wanted to get these things for them.
-but could never, and did not, pledge. Chester Payne and Walter Wood know and file will show, as I dealt with my deputy minister, departmental officials and then with my colleagues. I believe any remaining discrepancies are worthy of your further consideration. Ends.
That is the attitude of General LaFleche when he was fighting for these people to get these things, so that they should have them. But he did not pretend that he had authority to promise them. That is the cable from General LaFleche, and it is accepted by the government as correct. It should be realized-


Mr. COCKERAM:: On a point of order-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Order.


Alan Cockeram: I rise to a point of order.


William Ross Macdonald: Order; if the hon. member has a point of order he should state it.


Alan Cockeram: The parliamentary
assistant has placed a cable from General LaFleche upon the table. I wonder if he would place on the table the telegram which he sent.


William Ross Macdonald: Order; that is not a point of order. Rather, it is a question which the hon. member could ask the parliamentary assistant.


Walter Adam Tucker: I have no objection to placing on the table our cable. This is what it says:
Following for Major-General Lafleche from Ian A. Mackenzie, Begins:
Thirty fire fighters filed affidavit you pledged full treatment same as members forces. Claim rehabilitation legislation limited benefits to overseas is breach faith. Your confidential comment desired. Ends.
I have already placed on Hansard the cable from General LaFleche. Anybody who has anything to say about-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You have the whole story of that.


Walter Adam Tucker: Anybody who has had anything to do with this sort of thing-any lawyer
in the house-will know that you cannot go very far on the recollection four years later of a speech, when nobody made any notes of it. What was said in this house has been by affidavit, identical affidavits taken by these various members of the fire fighters. Everyone of them is identical. In other words, one has said, "This is my recollection", and the others all concur in it. The very fact that they are identical shows that it is based upon discussion between them, and they say now that that is their recollection.


Howard Charles Green: You think the affidavits are untrue?


Walter Adam Tucker: The statement made by the hon. member for Wentworth, that General LaFleche at the very time that he was trying to do these things thought they should have them, showed why these people might possibly have that opinion now. That is borne out by what he says now in this cable. He thought they should have it, and he tried to get it. He was a deputy minister, and he had no right to pledge the government. Is it to be said by members of this house that if a deputy minister without any authority from a government goes out and makes that sort of statement, the government is bound then to carry it out? Is that responsible government? Is that what members of this house say?


Jean-François Pouliot: What about Chisholm?


Walter Adam Tucker: Somebody has said that these people enlisted upon the face of this so-called promise. My understanding of this matter is that these people were already signed up. They came to Ottawa to be looked over, reviewed, congratulated and talked to. They were already in the forces before General LaFleche made this alleged statement to them. So that any suggestion made that they were lured into the service-*


Mr. PEARKES:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Did he not say, or did not General LaFleche say he was using every influence to try to get the men to join?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not to join, no.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is that not the inference?


Jean-François Pouliot: He was talking through his hat. He had no power of attorney.


Walter Adam Tucker: I will read it again. This is what he says:
Through official channels I did everything possible to assure them pay, pensions and other benefits identical with those for members of the armed forces but could never, and did not, pledge.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The words are "could never, and did not, pledge".
4506	COMMONS
_____War Service Benefits-Fire Fighters
adian fire fighters with reference to causes of death and pensionable disability which the fire fighters experienced. There are thirty-three members of the corps in receipt of disability pension.


Howard Charles Green: Out of how many?


Walter Adam Tucker: Out of 405. One of them only sustained injuries as a result of enemy action; one out of 405. There were three deaths, of which one was due to enemy action. Therefore, out of the 405 fire fighters there were two cases of death or disability due to enemy action. I thought the committee would like to have these figures.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Frank Exton Lennard: I was ruled out of order a few moments ago on a question of privilege. I just wish again to draw the attention of the
committee to the statement made by Major General LaFIeehe on April 24, 1944, as reported at page 2323 of Hansard. This is what he said:
I think I can save a great deal of time and speak as forcibly as anyone can and cover the entire ground when I say that my department is trying at this moment to make certain that members of the fire-fighters corps receive benefits identical with those granted to men w-ho are discharged from the armed forces.
When the parliamentary assistant says that Major General LaFIeehe declared definitely that he did not make that statement I challenge him to state when and where he made it.


Walter Adam Tucker: The very statement read by the hon. member contradicts what he has just said. In the statement he just read General LaFIeehe said, my department is trying to get these things done.


Frank Exton Lennard: That was two years after.


Walter Adam Tucker: Trying to get it done.


Mr. GRAYDON:: What was stopping him?


Walter Adam Tucker: The decision of the government. Our department has recommended that various things should be done and the government has not accepted it. We have tried to get certain things done, but because we say we tried to get them done it does not mean that the government has to do them. The very statement indicates that that was the attitude of General LaFIeehe; that he would like to have these these things done. The statement itself is an admission that he did not say that they would be done, or he would not have made that statement.


Frank Exton Lennard: No, he would not.
TMr. Tucker.]


Walter Adam Tucker: I submit that is it. If I may I should like to read a statement in regard to a matter referred to by Mr. Winston Churchill.


Frank Exton Lennard: Has the parliamentary assistant the statement?	*


Walter Adam Tucker: The statement I should like to read is as follows:
Mr. Winston Churchill is quoted in the London Times of March 14, 1945, as stating that war gratuities would be paid to firemen on the same general principle but at three-fourths the rate that is payable to the armed forces, namely seven shillings and sixpence for each completed month of service. In referring to other groups who had contributed to the war, he stated that excluding them would cause disappointment, but that it was impossible to extend the concessions further without opening the door to an unending succession of new claims.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We pay them $15 a month for every thirty days of service.


Walter Adam Tucker: I have already laid before the committee what we have done with regard to these people who served in civilian services. They were serving alongside of people in the civilian fire fighters corps of the United Kingdom doing their ordinary civilian work.


Frank Exton Lennard: That is no comparison.


Walter Adam Tucker: They were serving alongside of other A.R.P. workers, serving alongside other people whose duties kept them in London during the blitz. There were the merchant seamen who had to go into Archangel, who had to undergo all the dangers and difficulties of being torpedoed in those northern seas.


Frank Exton Lennard: What has that to do with it?


Walter Adam Tucker: There are all these various grades of civilian service. All I say is this, that it was felt by the government that when they went as far as they have gone in regard to this particular civilian group they had gone so far that, if they went a little farther, they would be admitting that this particular civilian group was entitled to practically the same rights as if they were in the armed services.
I have here the telegram from the Canadian ambassador to Greece, which sets out what he has to say about this matter. When so much has been said, and I have been challenged to put it on the record, I will now do so.


Howard Charles Green: What date?


Walter Adam Tucker: We asked him to state actually what had happened.


Howard Charles Green: What date?

War Service Benefits-Fire Fighters
kenzie) to see that they would get a square deal. I shall have to take back that message and modify it a little bit when I go back. The fact is that a veterans affairs committee was set up and, since all of us could not be on that committee, we put our trust in the capabilities of those who were appointed members of the committee. I think it is generally recognized that the members of the committee did a good job. On two different occasions the committee voted on the question whether these fire fighters were to be given the same benefits as the soldiers, and on both occasions the contention on behalf of these men was upheld and the committee passed it. But when it comes to the government they just disregard the committee's proposals entirely. They set aside its recommendation, notwithstanding that we as members of the house put our faith and reliance in the government to see that the returned fire fighters should get a fair deal.
It seems a queer state of affairs that we should set up a committee of the house to investigate thoroughly all these problems; and, when they take evidence from all parts of the country, when witnesses are brought in from every section, and when the committee in their considered judgment, arrived at on two occasions, declare that these benefits should be extended to these men, the government takes it upon its own responsibility to disregard these recommendations. I fear that the country will not take this too well. Further than that, I wish to join with those who protested on the grounds that General LaFleche made this promise. As the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) said a moment ago, no matter how the government may endeavour to use it as an excuse to get out, the fact remains that when General LaFleche was deputy minister he made the promise in order to get the fire fighters to enlist. Therefore they were bribed into enlisting under the pressure of something which they believed would be given. It cannot be considered in any other light than a deception on these men who put their faith in a government official of no less standing than a deputy minister. The Minister of Veterans Affairs excuses the government by saying, "Oh, well, we cannot be responsible for that." If that be true, then it was the duty of the government to dissociate themselves entirely from the remarks made by the deputy minister; otherwise the men who joined the corps were justified in taking the remark as being true, more particularly when they were going on a mission of life and death.
It would not have been difficult for the government to dissociate themselves from the
remark when they knew well that they had no intention of putting the promise into effect. It is not good enough for them to say now that it was given by an inferior member of the civil service. When the parliamentary assistant tries to imply that the fire fighters were not in as great danger as some of the others in the armed services he is belittling the work that these men did.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He never said that.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: Yes, he did; he said they were not in as great danger as some of those in the front line. When these men went over there they were fighting fires under attack. They could not run to shelter; they were not a voluntary service in that respect. They had to stay there and face the music with no possible chance of escape. One hon. member said that they were guarding ships full of ammunition. That should not be taken too lightly at this time. In my opinion it is a disgrace to men who conducted themselves so valiantly overseas, who were promised these considerations, who were called the fourth arm of the service and who were given the definite assurance by the deputy minister that they would be given all the consideration of those in the armed services. It is not right for the government to back down now in the face of the fact that on two occasions the committee made this recommendation and that it was carried by a majority vote of the committee. Having regard to that fact, the government should withdraw this bill and reconsider it.


Mr. RODNEY ADAMSON (York West):: I spoke on this matter at some length when the budget resolutions were before the committee, and I do not propose to take up the time of the house at length at this time. I merely wish to add my protest against the discrimination which has been shown to these men who were definitely promised that they would be given this consideration. Everything I said on that occasion still stands. As a member of the veterans affairs committee which, as has been said here to-night, asked for, and in fact voted that- these men be given this consideration, I wish to protest against the lack of generosity in the bill.


[Stage Direction]
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-Short title.
Walter Adam Tucker: There is just one set of figures which I am sure the committee would like to have in regard to the corps of Can-

War Service Benefits-Fire Fighters


Walter Adam Tucker: I am speaking to a point of order. The point is this. It is said that this commitment was made by General LaFleche. General LaFleche denies that he made that commitment; others say that he did.


William Irvine: That is not a point of order.


Walter Adam Tucker: My point is this. It is alleged that General LaFleche made that statement. General LaFleche denies that he did, and no member has the right to say that he did make it and then proceed to argue that there is a breach of faith.


Frank Exton Lennard: When did Major General LaFleche say that he denied making that statement?


William Irvine: That is not a point of order either.


Frank Exton Lennard: That is only on the word of somebody else.


Thomas John Bentley: When the hon. gentleman who rose to the point of order can produce in this house a statement signed by General LaFleche denying it, and when the hon. gentleman can lay that statement alongside the one which all of us on the veterans affairs committee have, signed by thirty members of the fire fighters organization, in a letter committing themselves to get all the fire fighters living in Canada to sign that statement that General LaFleche did make the statement in question, then I will begin to doubt that General LaFleche said it. But until I see that signed statement by that gentleman to offset the statement we have, I must still believe that he made the statement in question, regardless of the denials coming from the parliamentary assistant to-night or at any other time. .


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Speaker, in justice to the parliamentary assistant and certainly in justice to the fire fighters, it should be pointed out-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Order. Did not the hon. member speak before?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


James Horace King: The hon. member has already spoken.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, it is really quite astonishing to me to see the government bring in such a bill.


Mr. GRANT:: Are you a fire fighter? You are a fire eater.


John Horne Blackmore: I am a member of the House of Commons. Perhaps that it enough. As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, I am 
surprised to see a measure of this sort brought in. I had always supposed that we granted rewards to our armed service personnel for certain considerations such as: that they had rendered service; that they had risked danger; that there had been disruption in their lives, with resultant financial and economic loss; that they had shown a willingness to place themselves at the complete disposal of the government, and so forth. In the case of these fire fighters, we find that these men have rendered excellent service. No one doubts that. They risked great dangers, loss of life and limb; their lives were disrupted, with resultant economic and financial loss. I know farmers who were in the fire-fighters corps who, in order to serve their country, disposed of their farms only to come back finding themselves with no farm. How were they to tell when they enlisted how long they would be called upon to serve? Finally, they had a willingness to go wherever they were told to go by the government of the country.
Under those circumstances, surely they have qualified for treatment similar to that which we accord to our fighting men. How can discrimination against them such as is contemplated in this bill be justified? It has been argued that General LaFleche. when he made the promise to these men, was only a civil servant. I see no disposition on the part of the government of Canada to treat lightly the pronouncements of Donald Gordon, who is also a servant of the government. His pronouncements seem to be surrounded by an air of sanctity.
It seems to me that the government has no defence for the position it has taken up in this bill, and, if this house is to reflect upon Canada that honour which it should reflect upon the country on this occasion, I believe it should ask the minister to withdraw the bill and reconstruct it in such a way as to give the men of this splendid corps treatment such as they have richly deserved.


Charles Edward Johnston: I would be remiss in my duty if I did not add my protest to the passing of this bill now. Over a year ago, before the veterans affairs committee was set up, I had the pleasure of interviewing a number of fire fighters, and particularly the fire fighters of Calgary and that district, who came to me in regard to their case. I pointed out to them on that occasion that I felt certain a committee of the house would be set up to deal with the matter and, rather foolishly I think, judging by the way matters have turned out, I told them that I put a great deal of confidence in the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mac-

War Service Benefits-Fire Fighters
Sir Aylmer . . . spoke glowingly of the work of the Canadian fire-fighter corps, "which fitted in awfully well, worked hard, did any job under the highest pressure and usually in the most dangerous spot.
Actually there were members of this corps killed and other members wounded in Great Britain. When the raids were on they had to be out on the streets. Evidence to that effect was given before the special committee on veterans affairs; and, as other members of the house have pointed out to-night, the veterans affairs committee recommended that these overseas fire fighters be accorded all benefits, pensions, rehabilitation rights and income tax exemption accorded to members of the armed forces. We had the question up the other day when considering income tax, and the Department of Finance have now agreed to treat these men in the same way as the auxiliary supervisors, those men sent over by the Canadian Legion, Y.M.C.A., Knights of Columbus and the Salvation Army; the firemen are now to get exemption for one-fifth of their income. Further, this very government last fall brought in a bill giving the men of the auxiliary services and the fire fighters exactly the same allowances. I have here the draft bill then submitted to the committee on veterans affairs, and it treats these two groups in exactly the same way. But this year it is different. The house this afternoon passed bill No. 325, which gives the supervisors of the auxiliary services all the rights of men in the forces with the exception of income tax exemption, but the bill for the fire fighters leaves out quite a few of these rights. In other words, the two groups are now being treated in a different way. I suggest to that house that that is not right, but that the fire fighters' bill should be in the same terms as the bill for the supervisors which was passed this afternoon ; and I would urge the minister, even at this late date, to comply with the recommendations made by the veterans affairs committee and treat these firemen just as though they had been members of the armed forces.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I can only speak with the unanimous consent of the house, because I formally moved the resolution. If I have that consent I should like to say a word.


Howard Charles Green: The minister can close the debate.


Jean-François Pouliot: I hope that the minister will speak. We all like to bear him.


Thomas John Bentley: I feel I must make a protest against this bill, on the same grounds as have been made before. The parliamentary assistant has pointed out that 'hese people were civilians, that they were issued
a pamphlet, more or less a bill of fare of what they could expect. All of this may be very true. He says also that there are other types of civilian workers in the war who may claim equal treatment with the civilian corps of fire fighters. I shall not debate that question now. But I protest against this bill and support the other members who have demanded that the fire fighters be included in all the benefits, because of the statement of General LaFleche. The parliamentary assistant said that the government cannot be responsible for what an officer of the government says. I am the last one, probably, in this house who would say very much in favour of private enterprise; but I cannot believe that one could find a company in Canada, no matter what other faults it might possess, which would repudiate a statement to any of its customers or anyone with whom it dealt that had been made by one of its highest officers.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He was not a government officer. He was a servant of the crown under the government.


Thomas John Bentley: You can use that term or any word you like. My statement was that if any reputable company in Canada had a servant or an officer, call him by whatever name you like, who was responsible to that company, and who made a commitment on behalf of the company, that commitment would be honoured, no matter how severely that officer or servant might be dealt with for having made an error. This promise was made to these men.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not by a minister of the crown.


Thomas John Bentley: By an officer of the crown.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: By an officer not
charged with ministerial responsibility.


Thomas John Bentley: I have the floor. I think I have made my position clear, Mr. Speaker, but if I have not I will do so again. I said that a reputable company would not do that.


Charles Edward Johnston: Neither would a reputable government.


Thomas John Bentley: One hon. gentleman says, "neither would a reputable government." Well, we are not debating that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am glad my hon. friend is standing for reputable companies.


Thomas John Bentley: The point is that no reputable company would repudiate a commitment made by a responsible individual in their employ.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.

II ar Service Benefits-Fire Fighters
to fight wherever he was sent and the man who went into the service of his country in a restricted way. If you give to civilians exactly the same consideration as you give to those in the armed services who placed their lives at the disposal of their country without any restriction whatever, then those who did that might have some cause to think: Well, after all, there should be a little extra consideration given to the men who volunteered and placed themselves entirely at the disposal of their country. So that it was not a question at all of not recognizing the splendid work that these men had done, but it was felt that those who went into the armed services should get a little extra consideration because in volunteering and enlisting they placed themselves entirely at the disposal of their country.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: The minister said that these fire fighters went over for the civilian service. I wonder if he, as a fire fighter sitting on a ship loaded with munitions in a harbour in Great Britain, would think he was doing civilian work when at any moment he might be blown to hell and back again by one German torpedo or bomb. And they did that; do not let us have any doubt; they did it in Great Britain.


Walter Adam Tucker: Merchant seamen did it right along. People working in munitions factories were working in very dangerous places. So were most of the people in Great Britain who were working in war factories.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Certainly.


Walter Adam Tucker: Then why pretend that these people were so different from thousands and thousands of other civilians?


Arthur Leroy Smith: Because they sat on munitions ships to protect them from fire.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They did nothing of the kind.


Howard Charles Green: How many speeches is the parliamentary assistant going to make?


Walter Adam Tucker: Do you object? I am giving the facts.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Let him go on. It gets worse all the time.


Howard Charles Green: The parliamentary assistant has based his argument on the order in council which was passed in 1942, and which, he says, sets out the conditions that were to apply to these firemen. That order in council does not mean a thing, because it was passed after these men, or certainly after a great majority of them,

had been recruited, and neither the parliamentary assistant nor anyone else can properly contend that the men knew they were being recruited subject to those terms. He has made light of the promises given by Major General LaEleche, who at that time was deputy minister of national war services and was in charge of raising this corps of fire fighters. I have an affidavit here, sworn on August 3 in Windsor by Lester Barron, Robert Ferguson, Joseph Shilliday, Douglas Copeman, George T. Monk, Neil Brillinger, George Glabb and Donald Berneche, firemen, all of the city of Windsor in the county of Essex, and John Thornton, captain, fire department, Hedley G. Coates, deputy fire chief, and James Emmett Byrne, captain fire department, all of the city of Windsor. These men make oath and say:
1.	That we were all members of the corps of Canadian fire fighters.
2.	That we were present in Ottawa and were addressed by Major General L. R. Lafleche (then deputy minister for national war services) prior to our departure for service overseas.
3.	That at the times referred to in paragraph 2 Major General Lafleche. in substance, assured us that we would be looked after in the same manner as the armed forces; that our families would receive the same protection and benefit granted to families of persons in the army and that we were to be known as the fourth arm of tne services.
That affidavit was sworn five days ago before J. P. Holden, a commissioner for Ontario.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have all seen that.


Howard Charles Green: Surely the government is not going to "renege" on a promise of that type. This parliament should stand behind the promise made by the deputy minister who was in charge of recruiting these men. Quite apart from what the men did, the government should stand behind that promise. And that is only part of the story. The hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Lennard) told the house this afternoon very clearly what type of work these men had done. Other members have told the same story here to-night. I have here a press dispatch from the Ottawa Citizen of May 24 of this year, reporting a statement by Sir Aylmer Firebrace, C.B.E., R.N. (retired), chief of the British national fire service, at a civic reception and luncheon in his honour at the Chateau Laurier on May 23. The heading of this dispatch is:
Sent Canadians to hottest spots says Sir Aylmer.
And Sir Aylmer had this to say:
Because they wanted action, we sent the Canadian fire fighters to the hottest spots in Britain, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Southampton and Bristol . . .

War Service Benefits-Fire Fighters
which I put on record in the committee praising their work most highly. There is no suggestion that their services were not most highly appreciated.


Mr. HARKNESS:: On what basis were our troops recruited at the outbreak of the war? Certainly they were not, so far as I know, promised any of these benefits which they now enjoy.


Walter Adam Tucker: They were not enlisted as civilians. But the fire fighters were a special corps and the basis on which they were to serve was laid down in this pamphlet. The men who joined the armed services were subject to being sent wherever they were required. They placed themselves at the disposal of the government in every way, shape and form, and there did not have to be a pamphlet like this issued in their case. But the very fact that a pamphlet like this was issued shows that the fire fighters were joining a very special corps to do civilian work.


Mr. QUELCH:: Did the government contradict the statement made by General LaFleche at the time it was made?


Walter Adam Tucker: I think it was put on our records just what General LaFleche did say.


Victor Quelch: It was not contradicted by the government.


Walter Adam Tucker: The government's policy in regard to fire fighters is laid down in the order in council, and General LaFleche had no power to alter the order in council. The fire fighters knew their terms of service because they all had a copy of this pamphlet.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Did they know that General LaFleche could not change the order in council?


Walter Adam Tucker: May I put upon the record exactly what is being done for the fire fighters? This table shows the benefits extended to them:
Clothing allowance	
Transportation on discharge to place of engagement.
Rehabilitation grant	
Reinstatement in civil employment	
Free transportation to Canada of wife and children
Pension	
Medical treatment:
(a)	conditions related to service	
(b)	conditions not related to service	
Veterans' Insurance	
Veterans' Land Act	
Unemployment insurance credit	
Vocational and technical training	
University training (including post-graduate) .... War service gratuity ,	
Reestablishment credit	
Out-of-work benefit	
Temporarily incapacitated	
Awaiting returns	
Civil service preference	
War veterans' allowance	
Decorations	
Exemptions from income tax	
Assistance from dependents' board of trustees ....
Post-Discharge Benefits Fire Fighters Same as armed services Same as armed services
To members who served overseas Same as armed services Same as armed services Same as armed services
Same as armed services None
To members who served overseas To disability pensioners None
To disability pensioners None
$15 for each 30 days' service overseas None None None None None None None None None


Thomas John Bentley: Did I understand the hon. member to include Veterans Land Act?


Walter Adam Tucker: To disability pensioners,
yes. I do not want to take up the time of the house-


John Horne Blackmore: Do not worry about time.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am sure that everybody feels that this subject has been debated at considerable length. The fire fighters have
deserved a great deal of consideration and that is why we are extending their benefits under this act. It carries the benefits quite a step farther in regard to vocational and technical training and benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act. That is to meet the recommendations of the committee. But it was felt by the government that there should be some distinction drawn between the man who placed himself or was placed by the law entirely at the disposal of the government

Wn)- Service Benefits-Fire Fighters
an O.B.E. for their work on behalf of the services because we have passed eight bills to-day. I want to pay a tribute to what the fire departments have done, not only overseas but here in Canada. According to a return I got in 1944, we had $4,500,000 worth of damage done by fire in our camps while the troops were in training during this war. That is a lot of money and much of that loss was not insured. There was a large fire at Camp Borden, and only for the fortunate fact that the wind was blowing in a certain direction many people might have been killed. The same thing happened in the maritimes.
Some tribute should be paid to the fire departments of the country. During the last two great wars these departments, along with the police and street departments, provided hundreds and hundreds of recruits, many of whom were wounded and many of whom did not return. These recommendations in connection with those who went overseas are most commendable. While I am dealing with this particular question, I might mention that we have a fine fire chief, George Sinclair, who has been on duty for a long time and he was passed over when the decorations were handed out. When we leave this mortal body and take on the immortal body I suppose a few letters after our name will not make much difference. I believe in paying tribute to the men who have worked in our fire departments both in peace and war. I remember that the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) when a student at Toronto university, used to cover the fire halls and police court when Colonel Dennison was the magistrate, as a reporter for the Globe and Mail, and he took a great interest in the department at the time of the disastrous fire of 1905 in Toronto in which the father of our able present mayor, R. H. Saunders, K.C., C.B.E., was badly injured.
In adopting this bill, parliament will be paying a tribute long overdue to a fine body of men who by day and by night risk their lives to protect the life and property of the citizens of our country.


Mr. L. W. SKEY (Trinity):: I am another member of the committee who feels that I cannot let this bill go forward without recording that I also regret its present form. To be brief, may I put on the record that these fire fighters for overseas service were recruited under federal authority and were asked to serve in the United Kingdom, but so far as the men themselves were concerned they were prepared to go anywhere. Had they been asked to serve in Burma, India, the middle

east or anywhere else, it would have been the same thing to them. Sixty per cent of these men were trained fire fighters and they were directed into this corps because that was their trade. It may interest the house to know that a brigade of this fire-fighting corps embarked for France on D-day, but through some technicality they were recalled and did not enter France. But they never argued that that was not a part of their voluntary duties. I am sorry indeed that the government has not made good the promises which, if it did not put them in writing, were assumed to be a moral obligation on the part of the government, and I am sorry to see that these fire fighters are being penalized as to income tax, in benefits and even in decorations.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, there has been the suggestion that promises were made to the fire fighters when they went into the service. I have here a pamphlet issued by the king's printer in 1942, containing the regulations pertaining to the corps of (civilian) Canadian fire fighters for service in the United Kingdom, as approved by order in council, P.C. No. 76/1656 of 3rd March, 1942. It sets out exactly the terms under which these men were recruited and were supposed to serve. If anyone is interested, 1 have no doubt that he can get a copy from the king's printer.
The pamphlet also sets out what they were to receive on discharge. We hear a lot about what somebody is supposed to have told them, but this pamphlet sets out in writing what they were told they were to get upon discharge. It will be found at page 17 of this pamphlet, under the heading, "discharge":
Upon discharge, at the termination of his service or for medical unfitness or other cause, a member shall be provided with a transportation warrant to his home, together with such meal and lodging warrants as may be required. He shall be given a clothing allowance of thirty-five (35) dollars provided he has completed one hundred and eighty-three days of full service with the corps.
There is no suggestion whatsoever there that they were to be on the same basis as the armed services. But it does set down in writing the basis upon which this corps, which is definitely referred to as the (civilian) Canadian fire fighters for service in the United Kingdom, was raised.
In the face of what they were actually promised. I should like to put upon Hansard what is being done for the fire fighters. Incidentally I think we shall all admit that they did a good job. The head of the fire fighters in the United Kingdom wrote a letter

War Service Benefits-Fire Fighters
ing; we should be getting more than that." They will not be satisfied, and then we shall have trouble. But I shall not be responsible;
I shall tell them what occurred in this house, and Hansard will be there as a record to show that I foresaw what was necessarily going to happen.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the veterans affairs committee has seen fit to recommend to the government that increased benefits be provided for this handful of brave men, and I am pleased also that the government has seen fit to follow that recommendation. I have argued previously in this house the case of the fire fighters, taking the attitude that they should receive equal benefits with those men who are commonly called the combatant veterans. Like other hon. members, I attempted to prove, and I think I did with little difficulty, that in some cases their task was equally arduous and dangerous as that of the soldier in the front line. However, I shall not go into that now.
There is one question I should like to ask with reference to section 6. I think this shotdd be asked before we come to the section so that it may be passed at that time. I refer to vocational training. Prior to the war, some of these boys were not, as the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) has said, experienced firemen with technical training. Some of them were attending the universities of this country. I know one student of theology who enlisted. In the expectation that the benefits granted to the fire fighters would be increased, he went back to the university after returning from overseas and he has been there for a year. Perhaps I could have found out this information in another way, but I should like a definition of vocational and. technical training benefits referred to in section 6. I should like that defined in terms of university work such as I have described. As I understand it, it would not cover university work; that, as it now stands, it means training a man to work with his hands for the purpose of fitting him to make his own living.	-


Walter Adam Tucker: It does not cover it.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: All I can say is that I am very much disappointed. I do not see why a young lad at the university should not receive the same benefits. Unfortunately many people think of education as being vocational training only, and I had something to say about that in the budget debate. This man who is taking up theology or a man who is taking up an arts course to become a
teacher, should be encouraged, and I appeal that these benefits be extended to cover the cases I have cited.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the government has seen fit to bring in this bill in its present form, because I am satisfied the majority of the fire fighters will look upon it as being a breach of faith. Furthermore, it is in direct opposition to the wishes of the veterans committee. The veterans committee gave this question a lot of consideration. They listened to briefs by the fire fighters on two occasions and, as a result, came to certain definite conclusions. One of them was that the full benefits of veterans legislation should be made available to the fire fighters. It is well to remember that on two occasions a vote was taken and that each time the vote was in favour of full benefits being given to the fire fighters. This bill is being brought into the house in direct conflict to the wishes of the veterans committee. ^
I think the reason the veterans committee took this stand was obvious. In the first place they felt that the government was under direct obligation to make these benefits available in view of the fact that General ijaFleche, then deputy minister of war services, had made that promise to the men upon their enlisting. The second reason is that, when they enlisted, the battle of Britain was on, and it was believed that these men would face hazards just as great as those faced by the men in the armed forces. If it is argued that the hazards to be faced by these men decreased greatly and their job became easier as a consequence and, therefore, they should not receive the full benefits, then I would point out that the same might be argued regarding many of the men who served in the armed forces.
An important point to remember is that these men volunteered for service overseas on the plea of the government. In many respects we treat the man who never went outside Canada more generously than we are treating the fire fighters. These fire fighters enlisted and went overseas, and it was not their fault that the blitz subsided and the work they had to do was less hazardous than was expected. Why should they be penalized_ because of that fortunate situation? I submit that, when a pledge was given by the government to men going overseas, that pledge should be kept and not broken merely for the sake of saving a few dollars.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, the bill which is before us now is one of the most important we have had this session. I think the least that could be done is to grant all the members of this committee

War Service Benefits-Fire Fighters
retraining overseas to fit them to do the fine job they did could not have cost very much. When they went over they were fit and qualified to do their job. As a citizen of Toronto, I cannot, of course, be criticized for taking pride in the Toronto fire department, the job it has done in peace time, the masterly job it has done through the years, and what this large number of volunteers did overseas.
I know a number of these men-I have the names of nine of them here-and I shall close what I have to say by putting on record the names of these outstanding and practical firemen of Toronto. They are Dick Hake, Tom Kendall, Jim Gow, Tom Hogg, Charles Rown-tree, Jr., A. Blackburn, M.M.-it will be noted that this man had won the military medal- Dick Wood, Dave Maxwell and Herb Magill.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Mac-Nicol) upon the fine speech he has made. As a Canadian I am proud of the fire brigade in Toronto, just as I am of the fire brigade in every other city across Canada. However, under the able leadership of my honourable and very dear friend the member for Broadview (Mr. Church) the fire brigade of Toronto was particularly well organized.
My hon. friend's remarks bring to mind those cities which have chosen the most able men in every field of activity, so that the business of those cities might prosper and the taxpayers pay the least possible in taxes. One realizes when he goes to Toronto that the two most popular men there are, precisely, the hon. member for Broadview and the hon. member for Davenport. Even the taxi drivers speak highly of them, and I am sure many of them know no other men in public life than my_ two hon. friends. Surely that is some reward for their years of service and their accomplishments on behalf of the common people.
We have seen the Canadian fire fighters at work in front of this building, and we know they did exceptionally well. However, there is one thing that strikes me, and that is that the fire brigades have been so well organized in the various cities of Canada that it was possible for them to take the risk of sending some of their members overseas to fight the fires in the large cities of the British isles, and particularly in London. Those men deserve great credit. As a young boy I was always interested in where the fire brigade was going; we were always like that, and I believe we still are. Many people go to the window to look at them when they pass. Those men are well 
trained and do their work well. This is not only a tribute to the heads of municipal councils who have provided1 all our cities and towns with excellent fire protection, but also a tribute to the people of Canada who have taken upon themselves the risk of sending overseas for the protection of the British isles against fires precisely those men who were needed at home. Not only the municipal authorities but also the people of Canada generally should be commended upon that act of generosity. I wonder if the same thing would have been done by other countries if Canada had1 been exposed to bombardment similar to that which cursed the British isles. However, we must give everyone the benefit of the doubt.
Since those men did so well, I cannot see why the British government does not fix them up so that they will get from the United Kingdom, which has been showered with so many gifts of money from Canada, some reward. I admire the firemen. They went over there and assumed great risks, They did so for civilization, and for the civilization of the British isles. I wonder why the British government comes again to Canada begging-no, they did not come to Canada this time; they are reluctant to come-but the firemen are being helped by this country just because they were not given enough by the United Kingdom government. Here again I protest against this kind of legislation. I do not do this because I am not in favour of the firemen. I admire them just as much as do the hon. members for Broadview and Davenport and all my colleagues in this house. I admire them and realize that they deserve a lot, but that lot should come to them from England and not from Canada. That is my point of view.
This reminds me of the father-and I use a metaphor to illustrate my point-who had numerous children who were crying for bananas. He got sick and tired of hearing them, so that he decided to buy a large bunch of bananas. The children started to eat bananas that day and they had plenty of them and finally ate the whole bunch. Then the father bought another bunch and, after they had eaten a few of that bunch, they were all sick of them; they had eaten too much. The same thing is likely to happen to the men for whom this legislation is designed. They may get too much; they may become fed up with it all, and it will cause trouble.
After Jean Francois Pouliot has protested, it will be the men themselves who will show their dissatisfaction. I had an example not long ago of a boy who said to me, "We are getting only $60 a month for vocational train-

War Service Benefits-Fire Fighters
service considered then to be as dangerous as that performed by any human being in the British isles, whether in uniform or not.
At the next session of parliament he had this to say on April 24, 1944, as reported at page 2323 of Hansard:
I think I can save a great deal of time and speak as forcibly as anyone can and cover the entire ground when I say that my department is trying at this moment to make certain that members of the fire-fighters corps receive benefits identical with those granted to men who are discharged from the armed forces.
In conclusion, may I say that I want it clearly understood that I am not one who is merely advocating a greater government expenditure. I have never done that and I hope I shall never be guilty of it. I put forth these arguments merely because, in my opinion, these promises were made by a responsible representative of the government. They were left unchallenged when they were made; they were accepted in good faith and, in my opinion, they should be recognized. That is cricket.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Lennard) did such a good job that he left very little for anyone to say. I compliment him upon his contribution on behalf of all the firemen who participated in the serious work for which they volunteered overseas. But I would be derelict in my duty if I were not to say something about those gallant and efficient men who volunteered from the Toronto fire department to go overseas. I might say, Your Honour, there was a considerable number of them, and of that number a large proportion enlisted from Davenport riding.
I have used the word "efficient", because the captain of the Toronto fire department, Captain George Sinclair, is known throughout America as a chief who is efficient and who has raised high the position of Toronto firemen on this continent. Before proceeding to say what I intend to say, I should add that, during his seven years as mayor of Toronto, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) was to a great extent responsible for the high standard of efficiency of the fire brigade in that city.
To-day I received a letter from one of the fire fighters in Toronto who enlisted and went
overseas. It is not my intention to read the letter, but only to state briefly what is contained in it. They are not complaining. They volunteered; they went over there to do their duty and were proud to have that opportunity. Some of them were wounded, while others made the supreme sacrifice. But, with all that, they were all gallant men who were proud to render a service during a great war.
This man tells me in his letter, however, that he and his buddies were away for two years, eight months and eleven days, or a total of 999 days. This particular correspondent's pay from the Toronto fire department, which pays good wages to its men was $2,624 a year. In the 999 days he was away, had he been home at his job with the Toronto fire department he would have earned $7,021, or within a dollar or so of (that amount. While in the service he received $2.70 a day, with $35 a month separation allowance for his wife, or $3,942 for the 999 days he was absent. This meant a depletion in his income, or what would have been his income if he had remained at home, of $3,079. He tells me that he received-I presume as a gratuity, although I. am not quite sure what it is called-(the sum of $465. This means a net loss to that Toronto fireman-and, for all I know, to all of those Toronto men who enlisted-of $2,614.
The bill does say that, if they wish to have it, these men will receive vocational training and unemployment insurance. But to the professional firemen on the Toronto fire brigade those two items are of little significance. They will not require unemployment insurance because their positions are permanent. Then, the men in that fire department received sick leave, and all those other things which go along for the benefit of those who work for a city which pays its men as the Toronto city council pays the men of that city. Nor will they require vocational training.
I have been wondering what the department will give those men in place of vocational training and unemployment insurance. They suggest that they be granted the benefits of the Veterans Land Act which, as I understand it, would entitle them to assistance, provided that they took over a small lot close to the city. Some of them, of course, are pensioners. There is a suggestion that they be given reestablishment grants. I am not conversant enough with what the minister has in mind to pass comment upon it, but I am just passing on this information as it has been given to me.
Those men who went from the Toronto fire department-and I have no doubt the same would apply to others who went from other fire departments-were well trained. Their

War Service Benefits-Fire Fighters
what they knew best and they gave to that service their best. Several of these fire fighters were married men. with families and would never have been called up by the armed services in any event.
I am sure that what I have said applies to all fire fighters who went overseas, some 400. They volunteered at a time when the national defence tax was being deducted at the source. None, however, was deducted from them. The same thing applied when income tax deductions were made at the source. If they were to have been taxed, the government as their employer erred badly in not deducting that tax. Those who paid the national defence tax for the early part of 1942 received rebates from the government. I wish to point out to the house that none of these deductions made by the Department of National Revenue were made at the source.
These men were all on the same footing as the Canadian army overseas. They came home and were discharged, and months after that they received notices from the revenue department-the good old revenue department-that they owed so-and-so in back income taxes. That is a fine reception, a grand finale to a job well done.
It is repeatedly stated that the corps was limited to service in the United Kingdom. I wish to quote a portion of paragraph 3, part I of the regulations, which reads as follows: Purpose of corps-
3.	The corps shall assist the national fire service in Great Britain in-
By the way, Mr. Speaker, the corps was considered by the British government as a fourth arm of the service and was on the same footing as those in the armed services. I continue:
The corps shall assist the national fire service in Great Britain in (1) the extinction of fires, and the protection of life and property in case of fire, in Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man; (2) the extinction of fires and the protection of life and property in ships and vessels at sea.
There is no restriction there. There was no limitation to their duties at sea, apparently.
Another angle that I wish to emphasize is that these overseas fire fighters were asked to volunteer to proceed to France on or after V-E day. The entire overseas force volunteered for this special duty, and from them were picked 100 men who were specially trained and attached to the 21st army group, and were ready to leave for France on V-E day. They were on the boat or on landing barges and they were taken off. They were fully trained and had army personnel attached to them in a liaison capacity. The only thing that pre-

vented them from seeing duty on the continent was the mere fact that the raids in France did not develop as was expected.
Another matter that I feel should be emphasized i3 the fact that of the overseas personnel three were killed, five seriously wounded, three wounded, and twenty-seven are at the present time receiving pension. Some hoped to receive treatment. This is being denied them under the bill.
As is often the case, a man who served overseas with the corps applies to the civil service commission for a position as fireman. I know of one or two cases where this has happened. What happens when he applies for that position? He is turned down. Why? Because he is told that he was not a member of the armed service. He is told that, despite the fact that he is a full-fledged and experienced fireman who has served overseas. He is told that, because he was not with the armed service, he can get no civil service preference.
These fire fighters have received recognition from the British government in the award of the defence of Britain decoration. They have quite recently, as announced by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, been promised the latest service decoration, the war medal. I would urge that the government give consideration to awarding them the general service medal. This medal has been worn by all those in the service whether they left Canada or not, and I feel that these fire fighters who went over and did their bit should be extended that privilege. I hold in my hand an editorial which appeared in the Toronto Daily Star of August 1. This is a paper which usually supports the government, and has done so in recent years. I shall not read the whole article because we want to get along.


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. member would say it is a wise paper?


Frank Exton Lennard: In this case I am quoting from an editorial which reads as follows:
Mr. Abbott said: "I do not know whether a promise was made or not."
The Minister of National Defence was referring to the promise made by Major General LaFleche. I continue with the editorial:
Mr. McCann would only say that General Lafleche "did not recall having made any commitment." It appears to be reasonably established that he did so, and while he may have had no authority from the government, a promise from the deputy minister was regarded as a governmental pronouncement by the enlistees.
I may say that in 1943 Major General LaFleche, as minister of war services, had this to say when he spoke in the house on July 22, 1943, as reported at page 5244 of Hansard:
But may I say that Canada will never forget the fact that these men volunteered for a

War Service Benefits-Fire Fighters


Howard Charles Green: As I read the section, it is not wide enough to cover business and professional loans under the other bill we passed to-day. Should it not be amended to provide that the supervisors may get the benefit of the loans? I am not sure either whether it covers educational allowances.


Walter Adam Tucker: The veteran is described as a person resident and domiciled in Canada Who has received or is entitled to gratuity under the War Service Grants Act. It gives all rights in regard to these rehabilitation benefits.


Howard Charles Green: That would include educational allowance?


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes. As to the other point, about whether we are conferring on them the benefits that we have given other veterans under the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act, that is not yet in force. It was certainly the intention that the supervisors should have the same rights except as to income tax as if they had been members of the armed forces. I am sure there is no objection to giving them the benefit of the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act, and to that end we might have another subsection added.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I would move that section 3 (a) be amended by adding a further subclause, 6, to read as follows: "business and professional loans act".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended 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. 326, respecting benefits to fire fighters who served in the United Kingdom.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I formally move the second reading of the bill.
Frank Exton Lennard: In rising to speak on this subject, I beg to assure the house that I shall be only a few minutes. Mark Twain once said that a man could say all he knew on any one subject in twenty minutes. I am not going to take that length of time.


Walter Adam Tucker: You have not wasted any time.


Frank Exton Lennard: I may observe in passing that, with the exception of one or two important debates, if speakers were limited to twenty minutes the affairs of the house would be conducted in a more businesslike manner. I fully realize that this is the bill, and it will go through as it stands, regardless of what I have to say, but I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without pointing out certain facts.
In volunteering to do the job they were best equipped for, men from the Canadian fire departments answered the call of the dominion government, and accepted the dominion government's terms without question, just as volunteers did in any other service. They offered their lives if necessary, their limbs and their health. Their term of duty was for the war's duration, or as long as required, just the same as the armed troops. It has been said by a present responsible minister of the crown that the reason fire fighters did not receive full recognition was that they could resign from the service at any time they wished. I have a copy of a letter written in reply to a communication from a controller in Toronto which would lead one to believe that the members of the cabinet council, or some of them, did not have the actual facts before them, because regulation 30 reads:
A member may be required to serve for the duration of the present war or as long thereafter as his services may be needed.
These men accepted comparable ranks and pay, the same allowances for their wives and families; they received the same treatment as regards medical examinations, medical care, pensions, discipline, clothing, feeding, travel, right down to the smaller items such as carrying Canadian army cards, being photographed and finger-printed by the Canadian army, and receiving similar discharge csrtification on discharge. Before these men went overseas, they were promised by Major General LaFleche, then deputy minister of war services-and he made the statement on more than one occasion, because these men left in drafts of fifty or so-that they would receive all the advantages that would be granted to the armed forces.
It has been said that some of these overseas fire fighters were conscientious objectors and had joined the fire-fighting corps to evade the army call-up. The boys who went from my part of the country-Dundas, Hamilton, Wentworth riding and the surrounding district, some twenty or so-had been volunteer fire fighters for a good many years; some of them were members of the permanent fire departments, and all of them had years of fire fighting experience and knew a great deal about the mechanics of that job. That was
4494	COMMONS
War Service Benefits

Auxiliary Services



SUPERVISORS WAR SERVICE BENEFITS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue, for the Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved the second reading of bill No. 325, respecting benefits to certain supervisors in the auxiliary services.
Mr. G. S. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: I wish to say a very few words with regard to the provisions of this bill. The older veterans of the first war well recall the three associations named in this bill: the Knights of Columbus, the Salvation Army, and the Y.M.C.A., and the splendid services they rendered to the troops. In this war we had, in addition to these three associations, the Canadian Legion, and I am sure that if the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) were here at the moment-and I see he is not- even he would not find anything to object to in this bill, because all the supervisors as they are defined in this bill are Canadians; they all served outside the western hemisphere, and while perhaps they were not really part of the army, they were attached to the army for discipline, pay, rations, quarters and everything of that kind. It was only when the war started that the government realized that only these different bodies could render the type of service which was required, and, quite properly, they made the necessary arrangements for these four bodies to carry on.
With reference to the various provisions, there is one matter which I should like to mention to the minister, and that is regarding the amendment which he agreed to this morning in connection with a somewhat similar bill, as to benefits granted to persons recruited in Canada by United Kingdom authorities. The minister agreed to accept an amendment whereby he would remove the words "part I of" in section 3. By doing that, he would make the provisions of part II of the War Veterans Allowance Act applicable to the widows and children of these supervisors. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that all hon. members, not only members of the veterans affairs committee but all members of the house, will be heartily in accord with the provisions of this bill. I know that the old soldiers of the first war have many pleasant recollections of the benefits and services which they received from these organizations.


Jean-François Pouliot: I appreciate what the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White) has said, and I will remind him that, although I try to be as conscientious as possible, I am not a conscientious objector.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Mr. BROOKS:: I want to ask a question with reference to the definition of "supervisor". Is that broad enough to include the helper and the man on the headquarters staff of the auxiliary services?


Walter Adam Tucker: It was not intended to include that. It was just intended to include the supervisors.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not think, if I remem-[DOT]ber correctly, that was the intention of the committee. I think the committee felt that the helpers should be included as well.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: They are dealt with separately.


Walter Adam Tucker: As I understand it, "supervisor" means a duly selected and approved representative of these four groups who was attached to and served with the naval, military or air forces of Canada outside the western hemisphere. He must be a duly selected and approved representative and attached to these groups. Of course there were many individuals who worked with these groups but whom it is not intended to cover. This is, I think, an all-inclusive definition.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Supervisors deemed to be veterans with entitlement under certain acts.
George Stanley White: Would the parliamentary assistant agree to amend this section whereby "part I of" in paragraph (a) in subparagraph (iv) will be removed, as was done in the amendment of the bill to -which the minister agreed this morning?


Walter Adam Tucker: That is satisfactory. That was the understanding, that they should have all rights under the War Veterans Allowance Act, and it was our understanding that the bill gave them those rights. If there is any possibility of doubt it is quite satisfactory that the matter shall be made very plain, by deleting "part I of" there, and perhaps the Minister of Justice will move that "part I of" in section 3, paragraph (a) (iv) be deleted from the bill.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.

War Service Grants
afford to pay the expenses of every soldier, nor do I think the great majority of these students expect it. I just wanted to make that clear.
Victor Quelch: I rise to support the bill in its present form. I think we are doing a very fine job in helping to establish the veteran. The amendment contained in this bill widens the scope of the act and will receive our support. It is true that the committee did receive a request from student bodies that the amount of the grants should be increased. Nevertheless the students made it quite clear that they appreciated very much what was being done for them. I know that a great deal of pressure has been put on the minister to get an increase in the amount of the grant? to the student, but on the other hand, when one considers that university students are benefiting to a far greater extent than any other group of veterans I do not think the government would be justified in increasing the amount of the grants. It has been argued that unless there is an increase in the grants many of these students will have to give up their studies. This bill provides for taking care of that situation by making loans available to them, and no veteran who finds himself in a position where he cannot carry on his studies because costs are increasing should hesitate to take advantage of this legislation and obtain a loan.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. LAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved the second reading of bill No. 333, to amend the Veterans Rehabilitation Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved the second reading of bill No. 334, to amend the War Service Grants Act, 1944.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the amendments, so far as they go, to the War Service Grants Act which are covered by this bill. There has been criticism that some of the amendments do not go far enough. Some are merely clarifications and nothing need be said about them.
There are four amendments which amount to anything. Two of them deal with gratuities, particularly the supplementary gratuity, and the other two deal with reestablishment credits. The ones dealing with gratuities mainly provide that a man who joins the permanent or interim force and takes a reduction in rank to do so shall not thereby lose part of the gratuity to which he would otherwise be entitled. That, I think, is sound and fair, and we are entirely in agreement with it. The other amendment dealing with gratuities fixes a cut-off date for men who join the permanent or interim force. There is no criticism of that. The third amendment deals with the extension to the widow of a soldier who may have died of the right to his reestablishment credit if the veteran had not drawn it before his death. That is a provision with which we are wholly in accord, and in my opinion it should have been written into the act to begin with. At the same time it impresses me as unfair that, because a man did the country a service by not drawing his reestablishment credit immediately, his wife should be penalized if he happened to die before he had occasion to use that credit. The only criticism I have is that I think the privilege should have been extended to the man's children. The amendment only provides that it may go to the widow and the dependent mother. The case of a man with dependent children, whose wife or whose mother is dead might well have been covered in the amendment, and I hope that that will be done at some future time. The fourth amendment is with regard to the use of the reestablishment credit to enable a veteran to pay off indebtedness on his home. Previously he had only been able to use this credit up to twice the amount which he himself paid. That is now being improved in that he can use it up to twice the amount paid, even though it was paid some years in the past. That also, I think, should have been liberalized so that it would not have been necessary to limit the amount of this reestablishment credit that he could use to twice the amount he paid himself. That is another change in the act which I would also hope to see instituted.
<492
Veterans Rehabilitation Act


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
Howard Charles Green: There is not much point in setting off one group of veterans against another.


Mr. McKAY:: What about the Veterans' Land Act?


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. member comes from Saskatchewan, and he should be the last to suggest that we are doing too much for the men going on the land in Saskatchewan.


Eric Bowness McKay: I did not suggest that; I simply asked as a matter of information. I think the hon. member should withdraw his remark,


Walter Adam Tucker: I did not make any
iimproper remark.


Eric Bowness McKay: You said I was the last one that should be suggesting that.


Walter Adam Tucker: I said you are the last one who should suggest that. Why did you mention it?


William Henry Golding: I would remind the hon. member that an hon. member who is speaking should not be interrupted without his permission.


Eric Bowness McKay: I was speaking on a point of order.


William Henry Golding: If the hon. member wants to raise a point of order, that is quite all right.


Eric Bowness McKay: On a point of order, I want that withdrawn. I did not make any such implication.


Walter Adam Tucker: If the hon. member just wished to ask me why we are giving so much under the Veterans' Land Act-


Eric Bowness McKay: I did not; I said, "What about it?"


Walter Adam Tucker: -and did not want to make any suggestion about it, I accept that. I suggested that he was finding fault with what we are giving under the Veterans' Land Act, but if he was not, that is all right. If a man goes on a farm there is considerable risk and so on, and if he does not get a certain equity he cannot hope to make a success.


Eric Bowness McKay: On behalf of this group I wish to support what the hon. member for Vancouver South suggested with reference to these university grants. Several members of this house have benefited by that paternalism which the Minister of Veterans Affairs suggested was not so good and incidentally almost abhors. We have several Rhodes scholars in this house, and I .consider it an

honour to have them here. I do not think there can be too much subsidization for education. I would remind the Minister of what the poet said:
A little learning is a dangerous thing,
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.
I would suggest that if any of these boys or young ladies are unable to complete their full course at the university it might mean that some of our best brains would be lost to Canada.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I completely and
definitely and emphatically repudiate the suggestion of the hon. member that I had said the state should not assist education. I know the value of education possibly more than my hon. friend does. I came up the hard way.


Eric Bowness McKay: So did I.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not wish to prolong this debate, but there is one point I wish to bring up. The hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. McKay) has said that his group was supporting a certain idea.


Eric Bowness McKay: And it still does.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I point out that in the committee we acted as individual members and soldiers, and party views were not expressed?
I do not agree entirely with the hon. member for Vancouver South in what he said, nor do I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by the minister. I take a sort of half-way course. But I feel that in what we are doing for these students the country is only paying a debt that it owes to these men. I was pleased indeed to hear the minister's parliamentary assistant speak of the good work that these students have done. I had an opportunity of visiting some of the universities, and I know that the returned soldiers are leading their classes all along the line.
As to the comparison which the minister makes between the cost of education to-day and fifty years ago, one can hardly make such a comparison because I remember that when I attended university I paid $3 a week for board and my son who is now attending pays S14 a week for board. As the minister says, the real comparison is between the different kinds of rehabilitation benefits our veterans are getting.
We must also consider what the country can afford to pay. If this country could afford to pay the expenses of every soldier at university I would have no objection at all but I do not believe that the country can

Veterans Rehabilitation Act
is no .political value of any kind in it. We have been very generous to them; let us not be too generous. We shall have approximately
38,000	in the universities next year at a cost of about $4,000 apiece. That is what is being given to those who are privileged to go to our universities when we give only $400 to the boys who are receiving just the reestablishment credit. I say it is fundamentally unsound.


Howard Charles Green: What about my two suggestions: first, the transportation allowance and textbooks, and then the dependents board of trustees.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We considered that very carefully. I want to say honestly and sincerely to my hon. friend that we felt it would be creating additional discrimination. That is the final answer. As my hon. friend knows, under section 5 (a) there are alternative benefits provided to students at the university. The first duty of this parliament is to be as fair as possible to all veterans who have served.


Howard Charles Green: What about the dependents board of trustees?	.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Of course that is a matter that could be considered. It has not as yet been considered.


Howard Charles Green: Would it not be possible to do something of that kind?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not at the moment, no.


Walter Adam Tucker: Just so that the members of the committee may have the actual figures, which are much more encouraging than the hon. member for Kamloops indicated-


Mr. FULTON:: I used the figures that were supplied to the committee.


Walter Adam Tucker: I have the figures up to July 31, 1946. First, I should like to say that these students have made a wonderful record, and all the university presidents are delighted with their showing. The numbers at present in training are as follows:
Post-graduate	 1,138
Undergraduate	 21,130
Pre-university	 15,840
38,108
Those discontinued to date are as follows:
Post-graduate	 64
Undergraduate	 1,436
Pre-university	 1,429

The total since inception is as follows:
Post-graduate	 1,202
Undergraduate	 22,566
Pre-university	 17,269
41,037
The analysis of discontinued cases, university and pre-university, since inception is as
follows:
University graduation	 324
Employed before completion	 1,055
Entitlement expired service	 401
Failed in year's work	 368
Transferred to vocational training..	422
Ill-health	 165
Re-enlisted	 184
Financial reason	 lo
2,929
I should like to comment upon the fact that only 368 failed, which I think is an amazing record. Then there were only ten discontinued for financial reasons.


Howard Charles Green: We include the ten hundred in that reason.


Walter Adam Tucker: Those are the actual figures and I think they indicate that this programme is working amazingly well. Great credit is due to the universities which have accommodated these 38,000 extra students, and it is a great credit to the students who have come back and were ready to enter these courses and make a real success of their studies.
There is one thing more I should like to. say. I think most of the university graduates

in Canada to-day went into debt in order-to get their education. Most of the boys F know did that.	.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Most of them were a good deal younger.


Howard Charles Green: They were not married either.


Walter Adam Tucker: I was not, and then I did not have nine children either. Eighty per cent of the veterans will get the reestablishment credit, which averages a little under $425. The number who will receive these university grants is approximately 40,000 which, as the minister stated, amounts to $4,000 apiece. There are about 100,000 who will receive vocational training. The figures which I have up to date show that this will cost about $9,100,000, or approximately $910 apiece. Then there is the Veterans Land Act under which we hope to settle 100,000. In that case the maximum grant is $2,320.
There is something else I should like to put to the members of this committee. If a man has the ability to go through, say for medicine, and the state advances him sufficient to get a medical degree, to the extent of $4,000, even though he has to go into debt for $1,000 or $2,000, I think we are doing infinitely more for that man than we are for the man who is receiving a reestablishment grant of $425.
Veterans Rehabilitation Act

la other words, the committee found that the allowance is not sufficient for some of the married men who have not suitable housing; and they based their findings on the fact that the government-[DOT]


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Which committee is that?


Howard Charles Green: The university advisory
committee. They based their findings on the government only being responsible for board and lodging, which was not the basis for the fixing of the allowance at all. The committee based their findings, further, on the students being able to work in the summer. As I have pointed out to the minister, many students cannot do that because they take courses in the summer months.
I do not think the minister will dispute that it was his intention to get at least a text-book allowance and transportation allowance for these university students. I understood that that was to be done. About two weeks ago a Canadian Press dispatch appeared in the papers to the effect that the Department of Veterans Affairs had recommended that student veterans at universities be given $5 a week commutation allowance, if they had to travel a certain distance to school, and $5 a month text-book allowance. The report went on to say that the veterans affairs committee, if you please, had rejected that recommendation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was wrong.


Howard Charles Green: I raised this matter on a question of privilege, and the minister admitted that the veterans affairs committee had never rejected any such proposal.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Correct.


Howard Charles Green: But that proposal did not just come out of the air. 1 suggest to the minister that that was the original intention of his department, namely, to provide for allowances such as were set out in the dispatch. They would certainly have helped a great deal, and I still suggest to the minister that he give consideration to allowances of that type.
If he cannot do that, I suggest that he make provision whereby the dependents trustee board would be able to help out needy cases.	There is not the slightest
shadow of a doubt that, particularly among married veterans, there are many cases of real suffering. These young men, backed by their wives, are going through great hardship in order to obtain university degrees. I know of cases where there has been sickness or, as this young wife says, where there have been
I Mr. Green.]
additions to families, with great hardship as the result. Why would it not be possible to give power to the dependents trustee board to help out in those cases of hardship?
I should'like to have a statement from the minister, first as to the possibility of some arrangement of that type being made and, second, as to this phantom allowance for commutation expenses and for textbooks.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend has made his usual human appeal in regard to the situation. But when one analyses the whole picture of what the taxpayers of Canada are doing-and generally in matters of this kind I am on the aggressive side, although on this occasion I am on the defensive-he must keep in mind the $693,500,000 being spent this year, the contingent liability of a billion and a half dollars for the next four and one-half years, the matter of the uniformity of treatment, the matter of the average cost per student who is taking university training as paid by his fellow taxpayers in Canada, a cost of about $4,000, when the maximum grant to the settler on the land is $2,320 and the amount for vocational training. $1,120-


Howard Charles Green: Twenty-three hundred and twenty dollars.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I said that, did I not? Vocational training $1,120. Then the reestablishment credit to the great bulk of the
1,125,000	soldiers, airmen and sailors who served Canada in this war and who will not get these other benefits amounts to an average of $400. The hon. member is a sincere friend of the veterans and has been for many years, but I say to him that if you go too far in one direction you are going to create resentment in another. The policy we have been trying to establish, possibly not successfully, is one of equality.


Howard Charles Green: You started this university training; why not see it through?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We are seeing it
through. I was through it myself and on a much tougher scale. These men can get through on 860 a month for a single man and SS0 a month for a married man, with allowances for dependents. I know I am saying an unpopular thing, but I do not care a bit about that. My heavens, if I had had $60 a month when I was going through-


Howard Charles Green: You would have considered yourself a millionaire?


An hon. MEMBER:: You would not have graduated.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Let us have a sense of balance in this thing, because honestly there

Veterans Rehabilitation Act


Howard Charles Green: -therefore I have to be careful. But I suggest to him that there have never been a finer type of young manhood and young womanhood produced than the young men and women who fought this country's battles in the second world war. .


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We agree with that; that is not the issue.


Howard Charles Green: No one can question that they are certainly the equals, and perhaps the superiors, of those who served in the first world war. This whole question comes down to whether or not the investment this country is making in these young men and women is to be lost. It is not a question for a lot of excitement and emotionalism; it is purely a question of investment. I would point out to the minister and to the committee that twenty-five per cent of the veterans who are attending universities are married men. That is a condition which did not exist after the first world war. We have never had a situation like it in Canada.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Under the present bill we are making provision for loans to these married men.


Howard Charles Green: Well, if you were a married man you would understand these problems better than you do.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Thank you very much.


Howard Charles Green: Surely the minister knows that these young veterans will think twice before they will incur an indebtedness of $2,000 or S3,000 to get a university degree, particularly when they have wives and children to support. That means that when they start out in civilian life, after receiving training, they have that tremendous burden on their backs. I am quite sure many of these young men will decide that the game is not worth the candle-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, they will not.


Howard Charles Green: -and they will not go ahead with their courses. In its wisdom, the government decided that young veterans would be given this chance to get university training. It was a splendid move, and it will reap wonderful dividends for Canada. What worries me is the danger of losing that investment.
I have had letters from many of these veterans. I have one here, received this week, from the wife of one of these student veterans, which I shall read to the committee This woman's husband is a student at the university of British Columbia, and she says:
63260-283J
I am the wife of a U.B.C. veteran. It is absolutely impossible for us to live on the government allowance. We realize that it is wonderful that the boys are being given an opportunity to receive a university education, ,but after a.11 it is nothing more them they deserve. My husband, like millions of others, gave the best five years of his life to his country. He is twenty-six now and had the war not come along he would be well-established in business. As it is now he has to start at the bottom. I'm not not complaining or even hinting that he is sorry he enlisted in the active army very near the beginning of the war, but don't you think they are entitled to a living when they come back"?
I am working and in that way we are able to scrape py, but in the event that we should have an addition to our family, we should find it impossible to live on the allowance alone. I feel that as long as the government says that they will pay the education and give the boys a living allowance while they are attending school, they should see to it that it is a living allowance. The only way one could manage on it would be to pay $8 per month rent and as you well know, such places are not to be found these days.
You might say that the boys should be able to earn enough during the times they are not at university to put to their allowance and make it sufficient to live on. Well, since the boys have lost so much time being in the army for a number of years, I think they are entitled to take advantage of these "speeded-up" courses they are offering. In that case they are given very little free time in which to work. They have to complete a year's course in two subjects in six weeks. That takes a lot of studying.
As the minister knows, that is so. At the university of British Columbia there are hundreds of these men taking special courses this summer.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have exactly the same letter.


Howard Charles Green: It continues:
I sincerely hope you see the point in the boys' asking for increased grants. They have given sq much, it is up to the government to do the giving now.
The first year is past. These men have used up their gratuity. The. minister himself told the committee that of the 2.740 who had dropped out, over 800 had gone to take employment. We submitted to him then, and we submit to him now that many of them left because they could not carry on with the allowances they were being paid.
Then, this afternoon, the minister referred to the advisory board, comprising men from different universities, and said that they agreed with these allowances. Well, here is their statement read before the veterans affairs committee, as set out at page 683 of the proceedings:
Summing up, the committee was of the opinion that if employment is available during summer recess and if the government confines its responsibility to board and lodging, the present training allowances are adequate for all but a relatively small group of married veterans without suitable housing.
Veterans Rehabilitation Act

Provide any university in Canada with moneys whereby and wherefrom the university may make small loans to meet emergency conditions among veterans who are being paid allowances pursuant to sections 8 and 9 of this act.


James Horace King: Order. I would remind the hon. member that we are on second reading of the bill. He should discuss only the principle, and not the different sections until we get into committee.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: The previous speaker
referred to this section and I was replying to him. I believe that the previous speaker clinched my argument by saying that possibly at the conclusion of the university course the student would be short possibly $1,000 or 81,500.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Barring any other development; that is the minimum.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes. Apart from that, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the party to which my hon. friend belongs has always considered it reasonable to provide for all the vicissitudes of life or things which might happen.
As I said before, the hon. member said that a student might find himself in the position where he owed 81,000 or 81,500. We should face this question realistically. After the amount of money which will have been granted to the students, which will, I understand, average something over $4,000 each, has been expended by the people of the country, surely no Canadian who is anxious to improve his own circumstances and to play his part is going to take exception to finishing his course with a loan of possibly 81,000 or $1,500. I believe that the provision made in paragraph (a) of section 5 covers the situation, according to the information presented by the representatives of the university students.


James Horace King: Order. We are discussing the principle of the bill. I suggest to the hon. member that he wait until we are in committee before he discusses the different sections.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
William Ross Macdonald: We are considering bill No. 327.
On section 1-Supplementary grants to universities.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): I just wish to say one word. We had a university committee consisting of some of the most distinguished members across Canada investigate the whole sphere and scope of the adequacy of allowances. I

made certain remarks before the veterans affairs committee which have been extremely criticized-I do not mind that-in my home city in regard to the fact that the allowances are inadequate. If 860 for a single man and $80 with allowances for a married man are inadequate, it would have meant untold wealth to me when I was struggling to pay my own way through university in the old days. I hope this nation in being generous will never lean too far toward paternalism. That is the danger which exists in this situation to-day. I want to tell every party in the house that there is not the slightest political advantage to be gained in advocating higher rates for university training, because no nation in the world has made a more generous investment in its future or in the future of its higher education than has Canada, which will probably have 35,000 or 38,000 students attending these courses next year. According to my information, so far only nine have been constrained to abandon their courses as a result of financial necessity. To me 860 would have been a goldfield.


Howard Charles Green: That was fifty years ago.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, but fifty years ago developed men.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You will have to prove that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think the story of the nation will prove it. Paternalism will never develop men.


Eric Bowness McKay: Time will tell.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You believe in individual enterprise. What does that mean? It means the striving of the student against odds, and it is the finest thing you can get any nation to do. Subsidization of the student by the state is a most dangerous thing in connection with developing free enterprise and brilliance in university courses that one can possibly adopt. When I say that I know I am saying an unpopular thing; I do not care, but it is the right thing to say. I have no sympathy whatsoever for these people who tell me that they cannot go through on 860 for a single man and 880 with allowances for married men. They can. I am against all this agitation, strongly against it, and I will say so on any platform in Canada.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has said a few w?ords about the type of men produced fifty years ago. I am in that class myself-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We are together there.

Veterans Rehabilitation Act
running into debt at the rate of $300 a year and, in many cases, considerably more. That was an average figure. So that at the end of four or five years, barring any emergencies, they would be approximately $1,500 or $2,000 in debt on the average.
At about that time the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie), while in Vancouver, made a statement in a public speech which afforded a great deal of encouragement to many veterans. What the minister said on that occasion was summarized in the Vancouver Sun of June 27, 1946, as follows:
Order in council bringing "improved" benefits to war veterans attending Canadian universities is expected to be passed by the federal cabinet next week, veterans affairs minister Ian Mackenzie said to-day. While the minister said he could not specify what added benefits the new schedule would bring student veterans, he declared that the government planned "fairly substantial improvements for the men."
As I understand the position, the only order in council which was passed was the order in council now embodied in bill No. 327. That bill, however, makes provision only for grants to universities to enable the universities themselves to make loans to the veterans. It in no way extends grants to veterans and, inasmuch as the universities will only extend loans to veterans, it makes no change in their financial position. They will still finish with the same amount of debt as if the order in council or this statute had not been passed. Bill No. 333 merely introduces a number of technical amendments into the act and makes no change in the financial effect of it. Therefore the lack of fulfilment of the minister's statement merely had the effect of disappointing the veterans without meeting the situation.
In the light of these facts, it is interesting to look at the statistics as to the number of veterans who have left universities since the inception of the plan. These statistics will be found at page 1407 of the proceedings of the veterans affairs committee, and they show that 2,470 students have discontinued their courses, of which number nine left for financial reasons, while 841 left to take jobs before completing their courses. In view of the information given the committee by the organizations which presented briefs, it is a safe assumption that these students left, not because they preferred to take jobs rather than to complete their course, but because they had to take the jobs for the reason that they were financially unable to complete the courses. This means that 850 out of 2,470 left for straight financial reasons or because they had to take jobs. In other words, thirty-one per cent of the total number up to 63260-283
that date left for financial reasons. The information we have is that a great many more will leave this summer. I have heard that the number will be as high as fifty per cent in some universities. However, that is in the future. I have given the statement that was made by the students themselves, and we have no figures on which to base definite predictions for the future.
Unfortunately, the only amendment we can move to take care of the situation is one that would involve the expenditure of public funds. It was urged that the grant for married veterans be increased to $100. The attempt we are making to-day is to show that the act, as it stands at present or as it is about to be amended, will not take care of the position of the married men at the universities who are running behind at the rate of $40 a month.
I would conclude by urging the minister to fulfill the implication contained in his speech as reported in the newspapers on June 27, so that veterans may be able to take advantage of the legislation and we shall not be in the position of spending a great deal of money on veterans and having it wasted because the veteran is unable to complete his course, because those who have looked into the situation are convinced that large numbers will be forced to discontinue their courses. I should like to conclude by reading the following submission:
In conclusion, student veterans, and especially married, have adopted every means possible to keep going. We submit that they will still try in the future, but that the case is obviously that they won t be able to unless, at least in the case ot married, a substantial increase is made in the allowances.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). I would expect him to put forth that argument. Being a Rhodes scholar, he would naturally argue for increased grants to university students. The committee gave this question a great deal of consideration. I listened with great interest to the representations put forth by the representatives of the university students. I must say I am quite sure that the committee were sympathetic to the necessities of university students; but, after listening to the presentations and considering the bill which was presented to us by the government, and which was considered previously by the committee, I am quite frank in saying that the government has, in my opinion, been most considerate in this respect. Paragraph (a) of section 5 of bill No. 333 reads:	[DOT]



Veterans Rehabilitation Act
that the interest rate shall be 3J per cent. It is therefore an imposition on the revenues and taxes of the people.


Mr. GILLIS:: We are reducing it, not increasing it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member for Melfort has very kindly but bluntly suggested that we subsidize the difference.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Eric Bowness McKay: On division.


Clarence Gillis: What is the difference?
Sections 4 to 13 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third, time and passed.



VETERANS REHABILITATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved the second reading of bill No. 327, to amend the Veterans Rehabilitation Act (university grant).
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I just spoke to the minister a few minutes ago and suggested that items Nos. 15 and 19 on the order paper be called together. No. 19 is bill No. 333, to amend the Veterans Rehabilitation Act. I suggest that both measures deal with the same subject.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, certainly. Mr. Speaker, have I your permission and the permission of the house to move at the same time the second reading of the concomitant bill?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before the second reading is carried, I have some remarks to make. Both bills, Nos. 327 and 333, are amendments to the Veterans Rehabilitation Act, and both have largely reference to the facilities afforded to veterans in university and vocational training. Briefly, the attitude of our party can be summed up by saying that the bills are quite acceptable as far as they go, but they do not go nearly far enough.
The minister summarized the effect of these bills in his general statement on July 30, as wrill be found at page 4087 of Hansard in connection with bills Nos. 327 and 333. Of that summary we have no criticism to make. In stating that the bills do not go far enough, the basis of our position is that the veterans will not actually be able to take advantage of this legislation because the benefits extended are not sufficient, and to that extent we are in danger of wasting the money which parliament has indicated it is willing to vote for the purpose.

In order to make that point clear, I should like briefly to summarize the present position as regards vocational training and university attendance on the part of veterans. The deputy minister of veterans affairs recently made a statement that it was expected that a maximum of 40,000 veterans would take advantage of the act to receive university training while 70,000 would take vocational training. He placed on the record a statement as to the importance of the act when he appeared before the veterans affairs committee. This will be found at page 682 of the report of the proceedings of the committee:
It goes without saying that after enactment of a programme that has attracted over 30,000 veterans to our universities our department is vitally concerned that no appreciable number of veterans are compelled to give up their course on financial grounds.
It is largely with respect to university students that the criticism made to-day is offered, and it is particularly to that statement of the deputy minister that I wish to relate my remarks, because the point we make is that the grant is not sufficient and that, therefore, there is grave danger that many veterans who have so far taken u.p university courses will not be able to complete them because of serious financial embarrassment.
The position of the veterans was fully discussed before the veterans affairs committee when briefs w'ere presented by the national council of student veterans and a separate brief was read by the university of British Columbia branch of the Canadian Legion. It was pointed out that under the present grant of $S0 a month for the married veteran attending university the veteran incurs an average deficit of S43.50 a month. That statement is to be found at page 1407 of the report of the committee's proceedings:
The dominion bureau of statistics figures given to the committee by the deputy minister reveal that married student veterans have borne deficits averaging $43.50 per month. With living costs still rising, particularly with respect to housing, the deficits between allowances and actual living costs will . become even more severe in the future.
On that basis, these veterans presenting the brief, who w'ere acutally student veterans themselves and knew what they were talking about, suggested to the committee that many veterans would be forced to give up their courses, although they had started on them, because they would not be able to undertake the financial obligation which they were incurring. At the rate of $40 a month, and taking a six-month course, that would mean an average of $240 a year, and it was stated that most of the veterans found that they were

Veterans Business Loans
in the last six years has been an attempt at uniformity. We have not accomplished that yet, but the suggestion of my hon. friend would, in my humble judgment, involve discrimination against other veterans who are not able to get the same treatment.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Then eliminate the discrimination.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have to be as fair and uniform in our treatment of the veterans as we can be, and I must reject my hon. friend's suggestion at once.
Amendment (Mr. Green) negatived.


Clarence Gillis: Apparently I am too late.


An hon, MEMBER:: Sit down.


Clarence Gillis: I have not any intention of sitting down. I think such a remark from across the floor is the height of ignorance. Eighty-five per cent of the people who voted on the amendment had not the slightest idea of what it was all about. That is what I am objecting to.


James Arthur Ross: That is not right.


William Henry Golding: The amendment was put to the committee and defeated; there can be no further discussion on that. If the hon. member wants to discuss section 2 he would be in order.


Clarence Gillis: I have no intention of disregarding your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I certainly should like to see the interest of the veteran protected, and I am not so sure that it was, in the vote which has just been taken. The matter is pretty well tangled up.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: I have a question on the definition clause, paragraph (k), which states: "veteran" means a person resident and domiciled in Canada who has received, or is entitled to a gratuity under the War Service Grants Act . . .
I have here a copy of the War Service Grants Act, chapter 51 of the Statutes of Canada, 1944-45, and in paragraph (p) it is stated that:
"service" means time served on active service in the forces (i) while enlisted or obligated to serve without territorial limitation; or (ii) in the Aleutian islands.
It seems to me that this does not cover the case of a veteran who has not volunteered but who has served in Canada only for two or three years, whilst under the Veterans' Land Act he is entitled to the benefits of that act, and I just ask the question if it would not be fairer to provide that the definition of "veteran" in the bill we are now studying should be the same as in the Veterans' Land Act.


Walter Adam Tucker: If the hon. member will permit me to answer that, the reason why it was put here is that this is a companion measure to supplement the use of the reestablishment credit under the War Service Grants Act. The hon. member :s quite correct; a person who was called up and did not volunteer and only served in Canada does not get a reestablishment credit. It was felt that this is a companion measure to that, and should be on the same basis. Incidentally I might say that I think the reason why the veterans affairs committee did not recommend anything further was this, that we felt that the person who volunteered was entitled to some extra consideration as against the person who did not.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: I know, but why extend the provisions of the Veterans' Land Act to those persons who have served for twelve months even if they did not volunteer, and not extend it in this case, which in my opinion is a companion bill to the Veterans' Land Act. Thait act was also a measure to supplement and complement the war service gratuities.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I point out to my hon. friend that the committee on the Veterans' Land Act sat in 1942 before certain other issues developed within the nation, and the provisions made there were made universal, before other difficulties developed which we were confronted with.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: It is a mistake in any event to suggest that the credits under the Veterans' Land Act make it a companion measure to this, because it is impossible for the veterans to take advantage of both, whereas in this case they may.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Minister to pay losses of banks within certain limits and under certain conditions.
Eric Bowness McKay: I have an amendment, which is seconded by the hon. member for Melfort, that the word "five" in subsection 1, paragraph (g), line 39, be struck out and the words "three and one-half" be substituted therefor.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I immediately rise to a question of order. It is completely out of order.


William Henry Golding: That amendment is out of order.


Eric Bowness McKay: On what ground?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On the ground that the message from the crown through His Majesty's advisers has recommended five per cent, and there is the suggestion of my hon. friend
Veterans Business Loans

march to socialism. I am sure that the hon. member for Acadia in that suggestion is not following the lead of his leader.


Victor Quelch: The civil service could give this service at cost instead of at a profit.


Walter Adam Tucker: That is following the C.C.F. ideas. The ultimate cost to the veteran and to the taxpayer under state administration would probably be twice as much as under the banks, which can do it as an extra to their present business. I could understand such a suggestion coming from the C.C.F., but not from the hon. member for Acadia or any other member of the Social Credit party.


Clarence Gillis: Why not use the industrial development bank?


Walter Adam Tucker: The industrial development bank was set up to make industrial development loans. It has very few branches throughout Canada. If a veteran in the province of Saskatchewan had to travel all the way from Melfort to Regina to try to get a loan of $1,000 or $1,500, and the bank had to make investigations three or four hundred miles away before making the loan, the thing would just not be feasible. To carry out that suggestion, the industrial development bank would have to set up branches all over the country. Our experience with the Farm Loan Improvement Act was so satisfactory that I am surprised that there is any criticism of this bill. There was some doubt about the act when it was first brought in, but it enabled the farmers to get a loan from their own bank at five per cent, and the banks did that extra business much more cheaply than a new institution that was set up especially for that purpose could possibly do it. I think it will be agreed that five per cent is a reasonable rate, especially when the borrower is allowed ten years to repay the loan. It is much better for the farmer to be able to go to his own bank only a few miles away than to have to deal through the government and go through all the red tape that is necessary when you deal with governments.


Percy Ellis Wright: The parliamentary assistant has given quite an explanation but, he did not explain why the government could not absorb the difference between 3^ per cent and five per cent in order to assist the veteran. An}rone can get a loan at five per cent but a veteran is entitled to a better deal.
There is one other point. The chief objection raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South with regard to not being allowed to incorporate was the personal responsibility which would be the veteran's in case of

failure. The bank might seize1 other than the particular business for which the loan was made. Section 7 empowers the governor in council to make regulations and to prescribe the security, if any, to be taken by the bank for the repayment of any guaranteed loan. I would ask the minister to state whether the government intends to pass regulations under that clause to prevent the bank from taking over other assets of the veteran than the particular business for which he secured the loan.


Walter Adam Tucker: The banks have a tremendous amount of protection against loss, and they can lend freely under this bill. The five per cent is to cover their costs of operating these loans; there is nothing in it to provide against loss. The regulations will provide that they may take security upon the property purchased with the loan. The attitude of the banks under the Farm Loan Improvement Act is this. They can rely on the government's guarantee, and they do hot like to take any more security than they are required to take. In other words, the security is more or less a protection against the government having to pay a whole lot of losses rather than the banks. The banks take only the security they are required to take by the regulations, and the regulations will require them to take security on the property purchased.


Percy Ellis Wright: I suggest that the regulations prescribe that that shall be the only security which the banks shall take, that they shall not be able to take security on other assets of the veteran.	[DOT]


Walter Adam Tucker: The difficulty about that is this. A veteran might be anxious to get a loan, but his record might be such that even with the guarantee the bank would not make the loan. But if the veteran can say to the bank, "I will repay this and as a guarantee here is some extra security," he might be able to get a loan that otherwise he could not obtain. The more elasticity you have in this, the more useful it will be to the veteran. It enables the veteran to get a loan that he might not otherwise be able to obtain. The various veterans' organizations have pressed strongly for legislation of this kind, and they would be sorry if we had too many hampering restrictions so that the loans could not be made speedily.


Percy Ellis Wright: Why is the government not prepared to absorb the difference between 3i per cent and five per cent?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The whole underlying policy of government legislation for veterans

Veterans Business Loans
section 1 of the War Service Grants Act contains almost the same definition of business as there is in this bill. That was done because we felt that these are companion pieces of legislation and should be more or less the same in their provisions as to where the money could be invested. That is one reason why it was felt that they should be permitted to use their reestablishment credit- to buy into a partnership or to buy an interest in a business, but not to buy shares in a corporation. It was felt the restrictions should be the same.
Our department, which has had a great deal of experience in the reestablishment of veterans, felt strongly that veterans should not be exposed to the possibility of somebody coming to them and getting them to go to a bank to borrow money with which to buy an interest in a corporation. We felt that we might be exposing veterans to pressure from unscrupulous persons. They might have a tendency to throw their reestablishment credit into some business and lose everything.
It was not pressure from the financial institutions that decided the government; it was advice from Major General Burns, our director of rehabilitation, and the deputy minister, that decided the government. The government felt they would be wrong in not taking that advice, that they should not permit this act to be used to buy shares in corporations. In following that advice we felt that we were following the best advice we could get.
There has been some question as to why there should be a guarantee of only ten per cent in the case of farmers who are going to farm under the Farm Improvement Loan Act when there is a guarantee of twenty-five per cent of the first million of loans made by banks under this bill. The answer is that the whole basis of this act is to help the veteran who has enlisted and who may have been overseas for five years when he would not have an opportunity to- build up a relationship with his bank manager. When this man comes back he is almost a stranger, and it was felt that the government should give a form of partial guarantee of his loan. This is an altogether different proposition from a farmer getting a loan, because the farmer is generally well known. This higher guarantee is given not to help the banks, because w'e know they will do business in such a way as not to throw away their money; it was done so that credit, should be freely available to worthy veterans. If a bank can lend a million dollars and if one-quarter of those loans are guaranteed, it obviously means that the
veteran with any reasonable proposition can hope to get a loan. This is a most advantageous piece of legislation for any veteran going into business.
Some question has been raised about cutting down the rate of interest. I am just as anxious as any one to see rates of interest kept low, but I think it would be a poor way of serving the best interests of the veteran if you said to him that he could get a loan, say of $3,000, under this act and be charged three per cent instead of five per cent, which would so.ve him $60, and then have the bank decide that they could not work under that arrangement no matter what the guarantee might be. The bank might consider that they would lose money on it and refuse to make any loans at all. That would be an amazing way to help the veteran.


Victor Quelch: Why could not the government supply the money in exactly the same way they are supplying it under the Veterans Land Act?


Walter Adam Tucker: I am surprised at my hon. friend mentioning that. Obviously if you try to handle this under the Veterans' Land Act you would have this position. The banks are set up to advance money; that is their business. They have branches all over the country. The banks are supervised to see that they do not make undue profits. Very careful investigation was made and five per cent was considered a rate at which the banks would probably break even. My hon. friend says, why not do this under the Veterans' Land Act?


Victor Quelch: No; I said in a similar way.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am surprised at my hon. friend suggesting that.


Percy Ellis Wright: My suggestion was that the government pay the difference between the 3J per cent and the five per cent.


Walter Adam Tucker: If the suggestion of the hon. member for Acadia had come from the C.C.F. I would not have been surprised, because they believe that the government should go into this business and have a horde of civil servants operating every branch of business from one end of the country to another.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are already in it.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am surprised at the suggestion coming from the Social Credit party, because it would cut down the field of private enterprise still further and accelerate t.he
Veterans Business Loans

the Veterans Land Act, legislation which in part would give them a grant, and then a loan at a reasonable rate of interest of not more than three and one-half per cent.
While no doubt this legislation will help, nevertheless, as I have said, it will be a great disappointment to the veterans of Canada. Under it no grant is made, although I understand a veteran will be eligible for a reestablishment credit. It is stated however that the rate of interest will be five per cent. I cannot understand why we can help set a veteran up on a farm at three and one-half per cent, in addition give him a grant of $2,300, and then say to the veteran who wishes to begin a business, "We will not give you a grant, but we will soak you five per cent interest." I cannot see any possible explanation or justification for that attitude.
As the hon. member for Weyburn has pointed out, these veterans are not to get. even the ^benefits a civilian gets when he asks for a farm improvement loan. He can borrow money *nt five per cent, with the government putting up only ten per cent, whereas in this instance they guarantee the chartered banks up to twenty-five per cent of their aggregate losses.
During the war we heard a great deal about the patriotic services rendered by the chartered banks in helping to do this and that. The war is over, and I think the banks might very well prove their sense of patriotism by letting the veterans have these loans at a rate of three per cent, thereby giving them a little more help. If the banks are not prepared to do that, I suggest it is a service the government might very well perform.
A short time ago we made provision in this house for loans to foreign countries at the rate of two per cent. The reason given for that low rate of interest was that these countries could not afford to pay more. Many applications for loans by veterans are being turned down on the groundi that they will not be able to meet their obligations. If it is found that a veteran is not able to meet his obligations under this act, should not the rate of interest be reduced on the same ground that we are making money available to foreign countries at the rate of two per cent? There is no suggestion of that kind at all. Why are we so liberal in making loans to foreign countries at two per cent when we refuse to treat our own veterans in a decent manner?
The hon. member for Weyburn suggested that the government might well consider reducing the rate of interest on these loans to three and a half per cent as a maximum, and then if the banks will not accept that responsibility the government should make the loans themselves. After all, during the war the gov-

ernment was able to borrow money at less than one per cent, for short term loans, and I am sure they could borrow for less than three per cent and then pass the money on to the veterans at a rate of three per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Howard Charles Green: This is a section about which I made some suggestions during my remarks on second reading. I am going to move:
That section 2(i) of Bill No. 332 be amended by striking out the word "partnership" where it appears therein and substituting in the second line of the subsection the word "business."
The subsection would then read:
(i) "purchase of a business" includes the purchase of an interest in an existing business and the advance of capital for a new business, if the business is to be the main occupation of the veteran, and he intends to participate actively in that business.
I pointed out before my reasons for suggesting that change. I am quite sure that if the change is made the bill will be of more benefit to the veterans than it will as the section reads at the present time, and I urge the government to accept the amendment.


Walter Adam Tucker: This was very carefully considered by our committee, and it is quite true that the. committee finally recommended that this change be made. The government has had the advice of the director general of rehabilitation, who carefully considered the matter, and of the deputy minister, and their feeling is very strong that we should not agree to this change. As has been pointed out, the veteran must pay one-third of the total amount of the investment. Most veterans will have to use their reestablishment credit in order to do this. The reestablishment credit provisions were before the house, and our committee, and it was decided that we should not permit the veteran to use his reestablishment credit to purchase shares in an incorporated company. It was felt that a veteran might be lured into buying shares in an incorporated company, perhaps on the promise of getting a job, and then, having no control over the company after he had invested his reestablishment credit he might find that for some reason or another he was dismissed and would lose any benefit from the reestablishment credit. So we did not recommend that they have the right to use the reestablishment credit to purchase shares.
There was also the danger that they might be exposed to all kinds of pressure to buy shares in various companies. Section 2, sub-

Veterans Business Loans
suggestion by the hon. member for Vancouver South to allow veterans to purchase interests in incorporated companies, or to allow them to establish such companies. The protection offered is that in every instance the loan must be secured, with the endorsation of the veterans affairs department; and the credit issued as the result of investigation by. the local bank manager who knows the situation, and the man involved. I would again ask the minister to give this matter his careful reconsideration.


Eric Bowness McKay: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) did not wish to imply that only supporters of the government and the official opposition had anything to do with the preparation of this legislation.


Howard Charles Green: No.


Eric Bowness McKay: As a matter of fact both C.C.F. and Social Credit groups played their full part on the veterans affairs committee, and I believe our record for attendance was good. Moreover, while I am definitely in favour of the principle in the bill, I am not in favour of the banks being granted the privilege-and I use that word advisedly-of being able to charge a five per cent interest rate. The banks have argued that of necessity the loans will be small, and that they will be spread from coast to coast. They point out that in most instances repayment will be on a monthly basis, and that therefore the costs of administration will be high. Let me point out that the great majority of loans made by banks are small; any bank manager will say that. They are widespread, too. Every bank manager handles such loans, and veterans' loans will not require any more attention than average small business loans will.
A local bank manager always investigates a loan before he will make it, and most loans are repayable on a monthly basis. For these reasons I cannot understand why a rate of five per cent should be charged, and six per cent on loans in default. In fact, six per cent is the legal maximum; they could not charge more if they wanted to. Anyone knows that he can go into a bank almost anywhere and obtain a loan at five per cent. At the present time veterans can obtain loans at three and one-half per cent from the Department of Veterans Affairs for the purchase of land. Why is the government not handling business loans in the same manner, either through the Department of Veterans Affairs or through the industrial development bank?
A guarantee to the extent of twenty-five per cent has been made to each chartered bank in Canada against a loss. This guarantee 63260-282J
is made where the amount of guaranteed loans does not exceed a million dollars. For anything exceeding that amount there is a guarantee of fifteen per cent. Despite these facts, the banks are permitted to charge what I describe as an exorbitant rate of five per cent on what anyone who has anything to do with banking knows is almost a sure-fire proposition.
The banks say they would like to have a reasonable rate of interest. Well, they got only three per cent on victory bonds, and they have other investments on which they receive considerably less. They go on to say that otherwise they will not have any incentive to do this business. It is all very well for them to say that, but they must remember that the boys left our shores for $1.50 a day, and did a good job. It seems to me if the banks take that attitude they are not patriotic, that they are cold-blooded free-enterprise businesses which our lads at $1,50 a day went from our shores to preserve. Apparently the chartered banks have forgotten already the sacrifices made by those boys on the field of battle.
In connection with farm improvement loans, the banks are guaranteed only ten percent of their loss by the government, and surely there-can be nothing more risky than loans of that kind. Losses in connection with home improvement loans have been considerably less; than two per cent, and small business loans losses run from one-half of one per cent to one per cent. Under this bill the government guarantees to every chartered bank in Canada -not to just one of them-twenty-five per cent on loans up to a million dollars. To me this makes the loans a sure thing so far as the banks are concerned. It is a sure profit with no risk-or at the most very little risk. Even if the Department of Veterans Affairs recommends favourably, a bank does not have to make a loan. Then, out of his own money a veteran has to put up fifty per cent of the amount the bank will agree to lend. Very seldom do banks ask for that percentage.
Unless the banks are prepared to lend money to veterans at three and one-half per cent-or three per cent, as someone has suggested, which is the rate on victory bonds; this is just as good a proposition-I suggest the Department of Veterans Affairs reconsider the matter with a view to lending the money themselves. I am opposed to veterans getting into the clutches of the money lenders.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Speaker, for a number of years there has been a persistent demand for legislation to help set veterans up in small business. I believe the veterans will be disappointed with this legislation. They had hoped that legislation would be brought down along the lines of

Veterans Business Loans
is section 2, paragraph (i), and I am going to read the recommendation which we made as the wording for that paragraph:
"Purchase of a business" includes the purchase of an interest in an existing business.-
We struck out the word "partnership".
-and the advance of capital for a new business

Again we struck out the word "partnership".

and if the business is to be the main occupation of the veteran and he intends to participate actively in that business.
That is the suggestion I have to make to the minister in regard to this particular bill.


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member-


Howard Charles Green: I have concluded my
remarks, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): What I find wrong with this bill is that it applies to veterans, and the word "veteran" is not properly defined. How can we know? Do members have to carry a library with them, have to carry the statutes of 1942, 1944 and 1946, to know who are those who will be benefited by this act? The drafting of the legislation is bad. Every time something is done for anyone, those who have to interpret the law must know exactly who are those who will benefit by it. That is elementary; the interpretation should not be left to the courts or to the bookworms who try to find out what the legislators in their wisdom have decided. There is no wisdom because there is no proper definition. Plato used to say that those who can define are divine. In this case there is no divinity in the department.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Nor in the hon.
member.


Jean-François Pouliot: And there is no one who can add the letters "D.D" to his name. I have an objection to this bill. I like to see the returned men, all the men in the army, helped by the assistance of the state. I have no objection to that, and everybody is for it; so far as is possible and reasonable we are all for it. Nobody can say that I am opposed to it. But I have another ground for complaint, one which is entirely different from the one which was expressed so ably by the hon. member for Vancouver South. It is that only those who have volunteered will enjoy the benefit of this legislation-and if I am wrong I want to be corrected at once, because I do not want to put the house under any false impression. I have fought bitterly against the theory that those who have done their duty are only

those who have volunteered. Of course the men in the air force and in the navy volunteered to get in; that is right. But in the army there are men who have abided strictly by the law, and they are put into the class of untouchables. The benefits of this legislation will be denied them.
I will not repeat what I have said, but again I protest strongly against the kind of legislation, which deprives assistance to law-abiding Canadians who have done their duty, who have complied strictly with the law of the land, and who are set aside by a measure such as this, which gives benefits to some Canadians who have done more than was required by the law of the land.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rise to support the bill. It will be a great benefit to a large number of veterans who wish to establish themselves in business or professionally. But I wish to concur in the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). The defect in this bill is that it does not enable veterans to buy into an incorporated business or to establish small incorporated companies. I am going to speak of a situation of which I have some knowledge. There are experienced loggers and lumbermen in my constituency. I know of their circumstances; I know their experience, and I know the conditions. In my constituency, we have immense stands of timber. I can think of one block-the hon. member for Vancouver South knows of it- where there are over 500 million feet of timber in the Lardeau district. We have veterans of experience. We have the natural resources. I believe if this bill had included a provision under which men could join together to form incorporated companies we would be giving those veterans with experience residing in that community their rightful opportunity to develop those natural resources. In that district alone, if this provision were incorporated in the bill-and I suggest that the minister give the matter serious consideration-he would be making it possible for a considerable number of veterans to establish themselves soundly, as the result of experience, in the lumber industry of that community. I am sure a similar situation exists in other parts of British Columbia.
Under the present bill it is possible to enter into a partnership, but I am sure the minister must realize that partnerships of that type are most unsatisfactory. Under modem conditions a business cannot be carried out in the proper way by sharing the ownership with three or four other persons in a partnership. I would ask the minister to reconsider the

Veterans Business Loans
lines of endeavour. However, this bill should help, and the official opposition believe that it should be passed and given a fair trial.
I think I am correct in saying that of the bills being considered by this house it is the only one that is brand new. The others are either amendments to old acts or bills enacting orders in council in statute form. This bill however is a new one, and it is to assist not only in the establishment of a business but also in starting in a profession or going into a trade.
As I read the bill, the general plan is that it will enable the commercial banks of the country to extend assistance to veterans in cases where normally they would not grant a loan. This end is achieved by way of a guarantee by the government to the banks. It is a blanket guarantee, and if I remember correctly the government is liable up to a total of 25 per cent of the money lent, up to $1,000,000,-


Walter Adam Tucker: For each bank.


Howard Charles Green: -and fifteen per cent for any amount over $1,000,000 lent to each bank. In return for this backing the banks are to make longer term loans than they would normally do, the limit being ten years under the act. They are to charge a lower rate of interest, five per cent only, I believe, until the loan falls into default, when they can charge a higher rate. They are enabled to take security on real estate, which as members know they cannot do in their ordinary business.
From the veteran's point of view the maximum loan, I believe, is $3,000. He cannot get more than that amount, and he must put up half as much as he borrows; in other words, if he received $3,000 he would have to put up from his own resources the sum of $1,500.


Walter Adam Tucker: One-third.


Howard Charles Green: It is one-third of the total invested in the business, as I read the act, which means that if the bank put up $3,000 the veteran would put up $1,500. There is a very wide discretion in the bank to turn down loans. The banks do not have to make loans unless they wish to do so. Finally, the act is in effect for only five years. In other words, if the veteran is to get a loan he must get it within five years from the passing of the act. These, I believe, are the main features of the bill. The minister or his assistant will correct me if I am wrong.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: There is one point about the bill which should be drawn to the attention of the house, namely, that it restricts a veteran to buying into a business which is a partnership. He cannot buy into an incorporated company. That feature was considered carefully by the veterans affairs committee, and after a good deal of discussion we recommended that the veteran should be given the power to obtain a loan for the purpose of buying into an incorporated business; that he should not be restricted to a partnership. But the government did not see fit to accept that recommendation. According to the bill as it now reads, the money can be used only to buy a partnership or an interest in a partnership. I would point out to the minister that it is unwise to make that restriction. In these days, as he and I well know, the average business man wants to have his business incorporated. That gets him away from a personal liability. If the business fails, then the owner of the business will not be personally responsible for all the debts. The veteran is entitled to the same privilege, but he is not getting it under this bill. The reason given was that he might buy into a firm where he did not hold a majority of the shares, and then the majority shareholders could squeeze him out or be unfair to him. Of course there is a good deal of truth in that, but at the same time he could be treated roughly even if he were in a partnership. Despite the fact that he has certain rights as a partner, still, in the long run, if the partnership goes broke he is in a bad spot.
This is an instance in which the finance department, who drew this bill, was not willing to go far enough. We are told by the government that if the veteran is to use his rehabilitation grant he can use it only for buying into a partnership, not into an incorporated company. But this is a different case entirely, because these business loans have first to be approved by the Department of Veterans Affairs, which is one protection for the veteran, and after that there has to be approval by the bank which makes the loan, which is the second assurance that the veteran is not to be treated unfairly by the person with whom he is going into business.
I do suggest to the minister that even at this late date he accept the recommendation made by the veterans affairs committee, that there be no such restriction placed on the veteran; that he be allowed to buy an interest in a business, or buy the whole business, whether it is a partnership or an incorporated company. The minister will remember that the section under which that would be done

4478	COMMONS
Public Health-Infantile Paralysis
General measures which might be taken during an epidemic are: First, general warning to physicians and people generally of the prevalence of the disease, and warning of parents to report all suspicious cases for immediate medical care. Second, all children with fever should be isolated in bed pending diagnosis. Third, protection of children as far as practicable against unnecessary contact with other persons and crowds, avoiding all unnecessary visiting and travelling. Fourth, maintenance of general health of all children at as high a level as possible, with rest periods.
For the general information of the house I may say that not a great deal of progress has been made in the treatment of infantile paralysis. The new drugs which people speak of so much nowadays, sulpha drugs and penicillin, are absolutely powerless against the ravages of poliomyelitis. The disease is caused by what is known as a virus, and these dings do not appear to have any effect upon that particular virus. It would appear that the disease itself occurs in cycles, because the virus increases in virulence over a period of four or five years. Other methods of>
treatment which have been discarded have been the injection of human serum taken from the spinal cord of patients who have made a recovery. That is not giving the beneficial results which had been hoped for. I hope that people will not place too much reliance in the new drug called curare, which in isolated cases has given results but which has not been generally tested sufficiently to warrant the assertion that it has specific curative powers. For that reason it is to be hoped that people will not put too much confidence in it.
I am apprehensive that this may be one of the cycle years and in view of the fact that the epidemic has reached enormous proportions at this time in the United States, there is grave danger of there being a considerable increase in the number of cases in Canada.
I do not know that any better advice can be given than to tell people generally to follow the precautions that we have outlined, and that children, who are the principal victims, should be kept away from crowds and given plenty of rest and that their lives should be so regulated as not to give them too much exercise.


Gordon Graydon: I take it from the
minister's remarks that medical science has not made very much progress in ascertaining the cause of the disease known as infantile paralysis.


Mr. McCANN:: The cause has been pretty well determined. It is caused by what we call a virus as distinct from a bacillus, and medical science has not been able to find any specific remedy that will kill the virus.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member should be thanked. That is the way the minister of health should talk to the house.


Eric Bowness McKay: Has the minister considered the advisability of using the Canadian Broadcasting corporation's stations, under the auspices of the Department of National Health and Welfare, to inform the public of the symptoms of the disease and the early treatment?


James Joseph McCann: I may assure the hon. gentleman that every facility will be used by the federal department of health, in conjunction with the provincial departments, to keep the public aware of the progress which the disease is making and of such measures as can be provided to prevent the spread of it to the proportions of an epidemic.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved the second reading of bill No. 332, respecting loans to veterans to assist in establishment of business or professionally.
Howard Charles Green: The description of this bill gives an idea of what it is supposed to do. It is described as an act respecting loans to veterans to assist in their establishment in business or professionally. I believe the main idea was to help the veteran to become established in a small business. Recommendations to that effect were made over a year ago by the Canadian Legion and other soldier organizations, and the special committee of this house which sat last fall also made a recommendation which is to be found in their last report as follows:
Your committee further recommends that the government give consideration to providing some measure of assistance other than that now provided under the War Service Grants Act, 1944, by way of loans to veterans who wish to engage in business.
This legislation is the result of those recommendations. I regret that there has been such long delay in bringing in the measure, because probably the result will be that quite a few veterans will not be able to take advantage of it, having in the meantime gone into other

_____________Public Health-Infantile Paralysis
give me the assurance that we can take this matter up with the Minister of Transport and that he will have the authority to introduce bills dealing with the rehabilitation of merchant seamen without interfering with the work that has already been done by the veterans affairs committee, I shall be prepared to accept that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I snail be very glad indeed to give my hon. friend, on behalf of my colleague, that assurance. May I refer the hon. member for Cape Breton South to a pamphlet issued by the Department of Transport on merchant seamen:	part 10, benefits
to members; part 11, remuneration-I am not going to weary the house by reading it now- wartime benefits, income tax concessions, pensions and compensations; part 12 thereof, civil reestablishment, hospitalization and treatment, merchant seamen, special bonus order; part
13	thereof, other benefits to seamen; and part
14	thereof, before the discussion which he expects will take place.


Clarence Gillis: That is all contingent upon whether the seaman is pensioned. If he is not pensioned he is not entitled to this.


Walter Adam Tucker: Not all cf it.


Clarence Gillis: None, unless he is pensioned.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, no.


Clarence Gillis: According to our evidence it is.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We will discuss it later.


Jean-François Pouliot: My suggestion is that in due course preference should be extended only to seamen on Canadian registered vessels, especially Park Steamships, not the vessels of the united nations.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 6 to 62 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, may I have the permission of the house to make a brief statement with reference to a question which was asked yesterday by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon)? Yesterday the hon. member for Peel asked a question with reference to the increase of cases of infantile paralysis in certain sections of Canada, and wished a statement on the present
situation and what steps can be taken in connection with the spread of the epidemic. He also asked for a report on the number of cases and the comparison with the number in previous years when the epidemic was at its height in Canada.
I can well understand the concern of the hon. gentleman, as well as that of the Canadian people generally who recall the devastating effects of previous epidemics. This matter is of increasing importance to Canadians in view of the fact that the epidemic is sweeping sections of the United States, and our proximity to that country gives us reason for fear that the epidemic may spread to Canada.
Infantile paralysis is a peculiar disease, in that it appears to run in cycles of years. The greatest incidence of the disease in recent years was in 1941, when there were between January 1 and July 31 of that year two hundred and two cases. In 1937, it was regarded as epidemic in Ontario from the middle of August until the middle of October. In 1941 it was regarded as epidemic in Manitoba and New Brunswick from the middle of July to the middle of September.
I will now give you the total number of cases occurring in Canada from January 1 to July 31 for the years 1937 to 1946:	1937,
130; 1938, 139; 1939, 85; 1940, 47; 1941. 202; 1942, 111; 1943, 43; 1944, 88; 1945, 67; and to the end of July, 1946, 155 cases have been reported.
The control and treatment of poliomyelitis falls within the jurisdiction of the provinces and the municipalities. The dominion Department of Health and Welfare can act only by extending any assistance in its powder upon request of the province. Actual control and treatment of the disease is primarily a matter for municipal authorities acting along general lines of the regulations of the municipality and of the province.
Methods of control may be classified under two headings. First, as respects the infected individual. We suggest encouragement of as early recognition of the disease as possible. When the disease is epidemic, measures are taken to make consultant and laboratory services easily available to medical practitioners. Those laboratories are both provincial and dominion laboratories. Second, the hospitalization of the sick as far as this is possible, with isolation of the patient for from two to three weeks. Third, disinfection of discharges from the nose, throat and bowels, and of soiled articles. Fourth, investigation as far as possible of the sources of infection to locate unrecognized and unreported cases of the disease.
Civilian War Pensions


Jean-François Pouliot: Just a word in support of the contention of the hon. member for Fraser Valley. This bill is for the purpose of granting allowances to men who do not have a pension. If a man has a sufficient pension to live on, he does not need any allowance, and that is so much saved to the country. The purpose of the allowance is to correct the position of the man who is entitled to something from the state but has not been awarded a pension. If the seamen are given the civil service preference, they will be appointed to jobs which will provide them with enough to live on, and they will not ask for allowances. Therefore I think we are perfectly in order in suggesting that the civil service preference be given to seamen. These men were down in the engine rooms of ships that were stoked in the old-fashioned way, and they had to work much harder than seamen who were working on big modern ships. If they are given the civil service preference and get a civil service job, a lesser amount will be paid in allowances by virtue of that. So in the first place there are those seamen who have a pension; in the second place those who have jobs by virtue of the civil service preference, and the men who will get an allowance will be those who have not a pension and have not been successful in passing a civil service examination and getting an appointment notwithstanding the civil service preference given to them.
I am interested in this matter. Last session I asked a question about the civil sendee preference being extended to merchant seamen, and I did so again this year. Therefore I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we are strictly in order in discussing the improvement of this bill by giving to the seamen the same opportunities as have been given to men in the armed forces.


William Ross Macdonald: I am afraid that the discussion is not strictly in order. For instance, the preference which is given to members of the armed forces is given under the Civil Service Act and not under the Pension Act. The discussion of the civil service preference at this time when we are considering a bill to grant war pensions is not in order. One hon. member stated that the bill had to do with civil war pensions and allowances. I have glanced through the bill and it occurs to me that the allowances referred to are allowances in lieu of pensions, and not allowances generally. If I am incorrect in that, I would ask the parliamentary assistant to explain to the committee the meaning of the word "allowances", so that the discussion in committee may be in order.


Walter Adam Tucker: There is just one thing in this bill in regard to allowances for a merchant seaman who is taken prisoner. Provision is made for his pay and allowances being brought up to the level of what the merchant seaman would have got if he had not been taken prisoner. That comes under section 14, and these allowances are called detention allowances. The only reason that this department is involved is that the administration is placed in the hands of the pension commission. I suppose strictly speaking it could be argued that because provision is made for detention allowances we should provide a lot of other benefits, but my suggestion to you, Mr. Chairman, and through you to the committee, is that all these other things to be done for merchant seamen will be done under the Department of Transport. That department has been studying the evidence taken by the veterans affairs committee and its recommendations and has arrived at certain decisions as to what they will ask parliament for. I think this discussion is a little beside the point, because we are not prepared to answer questions in regard to what another department is going to do. If we are to do that we should send for the Minister of Transport and his officials, but it would seem to me that in the interests of speeding up the work the members should be willing to bring those questions up on the estimates of the Department of Transport.


Clarence Gillis: I would be satisfied to accept the suggestion of the parliamentary assistant and hand this whole thing over to the Department of Transport and discuss it on the estimates of that department if I were not afraid of what the Minister of Transport would say. In fact he did tell us that the only bill that they were preparing was one with reference to compensation. We have already accepted this responsibility. Reference has been made to our proceedings in the veterans affairs committee. If hon. members will look at page 40 of the proceedings they will find that we have extended to seamen the benefits of veterans' insurance, the Veterans' Land Act, vocational training, and certain other benefits contingent upon the merchant seaman being pensioned. That gives the Minister of Transport a chance to say that all these rehabilitation measures are conditional upon "if pensioned". It is not reasonable to suppose that the Department of Transport will bring in bills duplicating something we have already done. As we have made the benefits conditional upon "if pensioned", I think we are obliged to discuss the position of the merchant seamen under veterans affairs. But if the Minister of Veterans Affairs will

Civilian War Pensions
A bill was brought in concerning merchant seamen, but it was an imperfect bill. As a member of parliament I have the right and privilege to make recommendations.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Did my hon. friend make any remarks whatsoever when the bill was discussed last Monday?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I do not know
whether I did or not, but I am going to make plenty before this is through.


Howard Charles Green: That bill dealt only with workmen's compensation.


William Ross Macdonald: A bill which passed the house last Monday cannot now be discussed.
Mr. CRUICKSHANIv: The minister referred to it; I did not.


William Ross Macdonald: I do not think the discussion should continue.


Angus MacInnis: That is just the point I was going to make. The bill last Monday did not have any relation to the matter that is before us now, and it should not have been discussed under this measure.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Chairman-


Walter Adam Tucker: The reason it was brought up-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Have I the floor, or not?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order:


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am not going to sit down for the new leader in Saskatchewan. I am asking if I have the floor or not.


William Ross Macdonald: I am giving a ruling with regard to procedure. It is irregular to discuss a bill which has already been passed at this session. I suggest that the committee do not discuss it further.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is the very thing I did not want to discuss; I did not bring the bill into this discussion and I leave it to any member to say if I did. I understood defintely, and other hon. members of the veterans affairs committee were with me, that we had the assurance that any suggestions or amendments we wanted to bring in concerning merchant seamen could be brought in. That is the only reason why many members of the veterans affairs committee agreed to allow this bill to pass. I am not opposing this bill; I am simply stating that we were given that assurance. One particular item I want to discuss is the fact that a merchant seaman has no civil service preference. Can you show me anything in this bill having to do with that? I
am merely asking if there will be any opportunity for a member to discuss these matters concerning merchant seamen.


Walter Adam Tucker: Just so that there may be no doubt about this matter, may I say that our committee did deal with that question and were very much concerned about the merchant seamen. They discussed it, and the understanding wras that it was a matter for the Department of Transport to handle, because merchant seamen were always under that department. This bill gives rights to merchant seamen in regard to pensions-


Howard Charles Green: And allowances.


Walter Adam Tucker: It provides for a detention allowance for merchant seamen, and I suppose that if you were to pres very strongly you could argue, why not give other rights? Technically I suppose that could be discussed. But I do suggest to my hon. friend that our department, outside of the administration of pensions and administration of detention allowances, has not had under consideration this whole question of what further should be done for merchant seamen. That has been under consideration by the transport department and its officials. We have not the transport officials here, and we did not come prepared to discuss matters coming under that department. The Minister of Transport is fully familiar with this question, and I suggest to hon. members that they bring up this question of what is 'being done for the rehabilitation of merchant seamen and salt-water fishermen when the estimates of the Department of Transport are before the house, or perhaps on some bill which that department brings in. There is no doubt that hon. members will have a chance to discuss this matter under the estimates of the Department of Transport.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Have I the assurance of the parliamentary assistant that this matter can be discussed then?_ I and others did everything we could to bring the matter before the veterans affairs committee, and each time we were sidetracked by the statement that we would definitely have an opportunity to discuss it. If that matter has nothing to do with veterans, why are seamen mentioned in this bill? Of course it has something to do with veterans affairs. By order in council these merchant seamen were given the assurance that they would1 be treated as a fourth arm of the service and given every consideration. Surely we are entitled to the assurance that we shall be able to discuss whether the merchant seamen should be given the same benefits as an A.R.P. warden in Hull is getting.
Civilian War Pensions


Walter Adam Tucker: The exact situation with regard to what has been done for merchant seamen will be found set out on pages 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 of the proceedings of the committee. To read those pages and place them on the record would take a considerable time. Every hon. member has a copy of the proceedings. It would be out of order for me to outline them unless I had unanimous consent.


William Ross Macdonald: I am sure the parliamentary assistant has answered the question of the hon. member for Skeena. The hon. member did not necessarily want a statement placed on Hansard; he wanted to know where it could be found.


Howard Charles Green: There is one serious omission in the allowances made to merchant seamen. The bill we are now dealing with has to do with allowances and pensions, but the omission I refer to is the inability of merchant seamen to qualify for educational assistance or vocational training. They may qualify for vocational training if the training they are to take has something to do with their ocupation as seamen. In other words, a seaman can take training in order to qualify for certain posts in the merchant navy, but he cannot take general vocational or university training. I think that is unfair. I do not blame the Department of Veterans Affairs for it, but the fact is that a man who served only in Canada, in the forces, can get training at a university, while the seaman who served in dangerous waters cannot. I suggest that the government give consideration to remedying that omission.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I understand that the Minister of Transport is making provision for exactly what is suggested by the hon. member. I think my colleague has a letter to that effect.


Howard Charles Green: Could we have the letter read into the record so that we may have assurance that the omission is to be made good?	.


Walter Adam Tucker: We have been interested in the matter because it was before the committee. We are assured that vocational training can be dealt with by an item in the estimates, and I understand it is to be dealt with. It does not have to be done by way of change in the law.


Howard Charles Green: Will it include educational assistance?


Walter Adam Tucker: The Minister of Transport will deal with that. I do not want to be too definite about it, and I suggest that the matter be brought up on his estimates.


Howard Charles Green: Will it include educational allowances?


Walter Adam Tucker: No, vocational training only. If it does not go as far as some members of the committee would like, I suggest that they bring up the matter when the estimates of the Department of Transport are before us. In regard to unemployment insurance, a bill amending the Unemployment Insurance Act is before the senate and will come before this house. That is all under the Department of Transport, and it would be better to have the minister deal with it. The committee can then get exact information as to what the intentions are.
Mr. CRUICIvSHANK: Speaking on behalf of a new member of my party and myself-I am speaking jointly-I want to say I understood that assurance was given in the veterans affairs committee-my hon. friend will correct me if I am not right-that we would have a chance to discuss the things that have not been done for the merchant seamen. Some members of the veterans affairs committee took strong exception to the decisions of the chairman and of some members of the advisory committee, and my understanding was that we were to have a full opportunity here under some bill to make recommendations in the matter.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Was my hon. friend in the house last Monday?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I was here all the time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A bill dealing with merchant seamen went through the house last Monday.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Yes, that is just the thing I am kicking about. I think some hon. members feel that that bill did not include everything they wanted.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Did my hon. friend not have an opportunity to discuss that bill in this house last Monday?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I do not want to get into any argument. I attended nearly every meeting of the veterans affairs committee and I understood distinctly that we were given the assurance that we should have an opportunity-other hon. members will bear me out-to make any recommendations.
TMr. Bradette.]

Civilian War Pensions
from Wabana to Sydney which, if proven, would establish to the satisfaction of the commission that the ship was engaged in essential war work.
Nothing further was heard from the applicant although this decision was communicated to him on June 26, 1SM4, and nothing further has been heard from him since that time. He has the right to renew his claim and to present oral evidence to prove his claim. The commission would consider all such evidence. On the evidence before them they made this decision. He had all the rights left to him that are found in the Pension Act. To make an attack on the commission, based upon the first decision, when all these other rights were open to the person in question, and explained to him, is to give a wrong impression.
I would ask the hon. member and other hon. members that whenever a case like this comes up, they ask that the matter be looked into further, and the commission will only be too glad to hear the evidence. If the evidence in any way indicates that the person in question comes under the provisions of the order in council of that time, or the act as it is passed, I can guarantee he will receive every possible consideration from the pension commission.


Clarence Gillis: The statement just made by the parliamentary assistant does not alter my opinion or contention one iota. In the first place the accident arose out of this man's employment on a ship. The decision rendered by the commission in 1944, if sent to him, must have been vague, because in April 1946, as indicated by letters I read into the record this morning, he wrote to the director of merchant marine at Ottawa asking exactly why his claim had been turned down. The director of merchant marine in Ottawa got in touch with the commission, according to the letter I read this morning, and made an apology to the boy-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My good friend is referring to some observations made by a minister or an official of another department. The section before us deals entirely with the Department of Veterans Affairs. The parliamentary assistant has given the concise facts in the matter.


Clarence Gillis: What I am stating now is relevant to the statement made by the parliamentary assistant. The natural and logical person for a member of the merchant marine to approach would be the director of merchant marine service.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Again on a point of order, I say the decision was rendered in this case.


Clarence Gillis: That is not a point of order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, it is. This morning the hon. member said that this matter had been taken up in 1943 and no decision had been rendered. According to the statement now submitted a decision was rendered in 1944.


Clarence Gillis: I did not interrupt the parliamentary assistant when he made his statement. I listened attentively, and I am not now assessing its validity or otherwise. However I too read documentary evidence into the record this morning, upon which I based my opinion. I did not attack the commission. I did not say they were lax in rendering their decision. I simply pointed to the statement made by the director of the merchant marine service to the man affected, that the reason he did not answer more quickly was the delay on the part of the commission in answering him.
I am glad that matter has been discussed, because it focuses attention on the point. I have written the minister about it, and I hope the matter will be straightened out so that this boy may receive what I think he is legitimately entitled to, compensation for the loss of his leg.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The facts will speak for themselves, and if my hon. friend will look over the file I think he will agree with me.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: The parliamentary
assistant stated this morning that he did not want to list the benefits that had been extended to seamen, but for my information I should like him to do that.


William Ross Macdonald: If the hon. member replied he would not be in order, because the bill before the committee deals with pensions and allowances.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think the hon. member's request is a reasonable one, and we shall be glad to accede to it, but it would be out of order unless there were unanimous consent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is a matter of record; it is a matter known to every member of this committee, but if the hon. member has the unanimous consent of the committee he can have it now.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: It would take only two minutes to outline exactly what has been given them. I should like to have it on the record.


Mr. BRADETTE:: It is on the committee record already.
Civilian War Pensions


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not correct; they do not get the run-around from our department.


Walter Adam Tucker: He should not say that.


Clarence Gillis: I do not want to take up the time to give a lot of other cases.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We are prepared to meet you at every opportunity.


Clarence Gillis: In this particular case, as I pointed out earlier, I do not make these accusations. I ask the minister to check with the director of Canadian merchant seamen, because in the letter he definitely states that there was a delay and that the delay in answering this boy was occasioned by the fact that his checking with the commission was delayed. He says that they merely confirmed to him that the appeal for pension was duly considered but disallowed.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Chairman, on the point raised bv the hon. member for Cape Breton South, examination of the files he mentioned bears out what I had thought probably happened. A first decision was rendered and no further action taken.
Before dealing with this case may I have your permission, sir, to be out of order for a matter of only three or four sentences? During the consideration of this legislation I have had occasion to rise and suggest that certain other hon. members were out of order. It was for this reason that I did not at once, as I should have done, thank most sincerely those hon. members who were so kind as to welcome me back from my province of Saskatchewan, to say such kind words concerning me and to offer me their good wishes. My relationship with members of the House of Commons has been so friendly and pleasant that the thought of having to terminate that relationship at some time in the future and ceasing to be a member of parliament is a most unpleasant one. It will be one of the most difficult and painful things I shall ever have had to do.
I am glad the hon. member for Cape Breton South is in his seat, because I have before me the facts respecting the gentleman mentioned. I shall not give his name, because I should like to place on record the actual decision rendered in the matter. I do not think his name was given by the hon. member.
This gentleman was serving on a ship which was certified by the Department of Transport

to be a ship of Canadian registry. On June 2, 1943, he met with an accident on board ship which resulted in amputation of his leg. Following upon the accident he was admitted to hospital and apparently was discharged on January 27, 1944.
An official of the immigration branch at Halifax telephoned the commission's representative, the pension medical examiner, and asked if he was interested in the case. Doctor Henderson, the examiner, thought it would be wise to carry out an examination and so obviate the possibility of any delay. This examination took place on January 26. The seaman was supplied with the necessary application form and the provisions for merchant seamen with regard to pension were fully explained to him.
The completed application form was received by the commission on February 24, 1944. Five days later the commission wrote to the Department of Transport requesting official advice regarding the registry of the vessel, whether the applicant was a member of the crew, and particulars regarding the operating company. On the same day the commission wrote to the seaman acknowledging the application, advising that it was receiving attention and requesting advice from him as to whether his statement that the accident occurred during a blackout referred to a general blackout in the area or during one on board the ship. He was advised at that time that his eligibility would hinge on the question whether the disability resulted from extraordinary marine peril consequent upon the existence of a state of hostilities. On the same day the commission made further inquiries with regard to the treatment which had been carried out at the marine hospital at Halifax and as to the extent of his disability.
When the necessary details were before the commission they were very carefully reviewed, and on May 12, 1944, the following decision was rendered:
According to the information available to the commission this applicant fell and injured his right leg on June 2, 1943, and later the leg had to be amputated. He alleges that the injury was sustained when he fell down a stoke-hole during a blackout aboard the ship. This contention is not borne out by the extract from the official log book which states that he was the worse for liquor all during the evening of June 2 and had fallen over a settee on the deck, and about 11.30 p.m. was found on the floor of the stoke-hole-leg broken.
In the opinion of the commission it has not been established that the injury was due to enemy action as defined by the terms of order in council P.C. 104-3546 and. the application, therefore, is not granted.
In view of this decision the commission has not taken action to confirm the applicant's statement that the ship was convoying iron ore

Civilian War Pensions


Clarence Gillis: If there is an argument now it was not developed by me; it was developed by the minister and by the chairman of the veterans affairs committee. I was dealing specifically with the administration of the Pension Act with reference to Canadian seamen, and I put a particular case on the record. It is not my story at all, but the story of the director of the Canadian merchant seamen. In addition to that there is the fact that a seaman who suffered the loss of a leg has been endeavouring to get redress under the Pension Act since 1943.


Walter Adam Tucker: The letter which the hon. member read was not from the pension commission at all. It is most unfair to bring a charge of that kind against the pension commission when the letter is not from that commission. Section 3, which we have already passed, reads as follows:	-
All claims for pensions, allowances and compensation under this act shall be dealt with and adjudicated upon in like manner as claims under the Pension Act.
I would ask the hon. member whether this matter has been pursued and all advantages taken as provided by law. He does not know. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He does not know where the case rests.


Clarence Gillis: Yes, I do.


Walter Adam Tucker: He does not know how far it was taken.


Clarence Gillis: Yes, I do.


Walter Adam Tucker: Does the hon. member know whether it was taken to appeal as provided by the Pension Act?


Clarence Gillis: It took from 1943 to 1946 to get this far.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And a letter was written to the minister on August 7, and has not yet been received.


Clarence Gillis: True, but the minister is not the pension commission.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is a good thing he is not.


Clarence Gillis: It went there only as a last resort to see if the minister would not improve the machinery in this particular case.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: When was the application for pension made?


Clarence Gillis: -The application for pension was made when the boy was admitted to hospital with the loss of a leg.


Walter Adam Tucker: When?


Clarence Gillis: In 1943.


Walter Adam Tucker: Does the hon. member know?


Clarence Gillis: His leg was amputated on October 4, 1943, in a departmental hospital; he was admitted to the hospital on June 3 of that year.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: How soon after that did he make application for pension?


Frank Exton Lennard: Who made the application?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is the point.


Clarence Gillis: I am sure the hon. member-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is important to get the facts.


Clarence Gillis: Hon. members know that if I went into a departmental hospital there would be a file started immediately. My claim would be registered and my disability noted.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Was there such a claim?


Clarence Gillis: Certainly there was.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: When?


Clarence Gillis: When he entered hospital.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has my friend a copy of the claim?


Clarence Gillis: I assume that will be in the department's files. That is why I wrote the minister, to get it. The claim started when the boy's leg was amputated in the departmental hospital.


Walter Adam Tucker: I suggest the hon. member is drawing an inference from the letter he read which is not correct.


Clarence Gillis: I am stating the facts.


Walter Adam Tucker: Does the letter say that is was not due to his service? It may very well be that he did not make a claim until recently.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is the point.


Walter Adam Tucker: It may be that the claim is in its early stages.
'Mr. GILLIS: His claim, was disallowed.


Walter Adam Tucker: I say this with a great deal of reluctance, because the hon. member has been most cooperative in the committee. I do suggest that to rise and read a letter such as that, without any definite facts or anything else, and to suggest, as the hon. member did, that the merchant seamen get the run-around, is to do something which is not right.
Civilian War Pensions


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am told by the chairman of the pension commission that he has not yet had this case brought to his attention.


Clarence Gillis: The reason I put it on the record is that this boy lost his leg in 1943.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But I am afraid the inference is that there has been some delay in our department. That is the last thing we want to have happen and the first thing we wish to avoid. I wish to trace it to see when my hon. friend's letter came to my office. I am told by the chairman, who is most sympathetic to those cases, that he has not heard of the case yet.


Clarence Gillis: There is no inference that there was any delay on the part of the minister. There is an accusation of June 28 from the director of merchant seamen that the Canadian pension commission did delay. I might read the paragraph again:
I regret very much that there has been such a delay in replying to your letters but I have been daily expecting a reply to the inquiries I made regarding your case, to the Canadian pension board.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Was that done locally or from the national board, the Canadian pension commission?


Clarence Gillis: The commission here; this letter is from Ottawa and is signed by G. L. C. Johnson, director of merchant seamen.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I should like to check that, if the hon. member does not mind.


Clarence Gillis: There is no inference on my part. I merely read the letter to indicate that the man had an accident in 1943 and was put in hospital under pension regulations. He was then discharged. Really his case has been in the files of the commission since 1943.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In all fairness I want to say-and I am not speaking in a partial way at all-I have never seen such marvellous expedition of business as I have seen in the Canadian pension commission in the last two years.


Clarence Gillis: I am not saying there has not been; I am merely placing the facts on the record. I have a letter from the director of merchant seamen which indicates that there was delay on the part of the commission in answering correspondence. I have written the minister about it, but of course he has not had a chance to answer the letter or to take the matter up. The reason I do this is that I find in all phases which the merchant seamen have to go through to secure war bonus, based on wages, it takes weeks and weeks of
[Mr. Tucker. 1
writing and completing forms. My experience has been that there is a tendency to brush the merchant seamen off-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, we cannot accept that. I should like the committee on veterans affairs to review the benefits extended by Canada to merchant seamen and compare them with the statement of Right Hon. Winston Churchill on what England has done for the merchant seamen. We have done ten times more than the old country did for their seamen.


Clarence Gillis: I am not concerned about that-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am.


Clarence Gillis: -and the fact that South Africa and England-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is a credit to our own country.


Clarence Gillis: -are not doing something. I am concerned with this letter and the fact that if we in Canada have an obligation we should live up to it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We are ahead of every other country.


Walter Adam Tucker: The difficulty about this matter is that when an hon. member rises in his place and says all these things-


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Walter Adam Tucker: If I rose and answered the hon. member and recited all the things we have done for the merchant seamen outside of pensions I would be out of order. The practice of getting up and saying that we are not doing something in other directions, and saying it in such a way that it cannot be answered without being out of order, is improper. If the hon. member is going to debate what we are going to do for the merchant seamen, have done and will do, he is certainly outside the ambit of this bill, and I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman-


William Irvine: What is the point of order?


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. member is out of order; that is the point of order. He is discussing matters other than pensions, which is the only matter before the house. I could list the things which we have done for the merchant seamen. The hon. member has made a statement as to what has been done for merchant seamen, which is unfair to this committee. H I were to rise and recite all that has been done I would be distinctly out of order. I suggest the hon. member should not have done that.

Civilian War Pensions
compensation schemes that exist in all the provinces. It is really a civilian matter. The members of the veterans affairs committee- and this is the reason why these men were overlooked there-were under the impression that the Minister of Transport was preparing a bill that would cover these men.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We were told so.


Clarence Gillis: Yes, but unfortunately that-did not take place. I suppose it is too late at this session to do very much about it. It is a matter for the bouse to decide. Personally I think a special bill should be prepared covering Canadian merchant seamen, extending to [DOT]them the benefits of rehabilitation as in the case of the armed services and the auxiliary services. In my opinion no one who went through the war is more entitled to consideration than the merchant seamen, because they certainly took it on the chin. They had no glory, they had no uniforms, they got no medals, they spent a lot of time on rafts in the ocean and all that kind of thing, and at this stage of the game the least we can do for them is to give them the rights of rehabilitation as we have done for the armed and auxiliary services.
As to pensions, I have something specific to say. It is difficult for a Canadian merchant seaman to secure a pension. I have a case in point, and the best illustration is the way in which the act is being administered. I have here two letters which I think pretty well cover the point. They show the runaround that the merchant seaman gets in all these matters because he is not looked upon as one who had anything to do with the war. Here is a statement from a boy who has a disability. He suffered the loss of a leg. The letter reads:
Sydney Mines, N.S., 5 April, 1946.
Mr. G. L. C. Johnson,
Director of Merchant Seamen,
95 Rideau Street,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir:
On June 3, 1943, while serving as a merchant seaman aboard the steamship Phillip T. Dodge in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, I suffered an accident which later necessitated the amputation of my right leg. Particulars of the case are as listed hereunder:
On June 3, 1943, while the ship was in Sydney harbour, unloading, I accidentally fell into the stoke hole. I was admitted to Sydney City Hospital on June 3, 1943. Amputation was effected 4 October. 1943 and I was transferred to the Halifax Infirmary on November 8, 1943, where I remained under treatment for approximately four months. Later, on return to Sydney Mines it was necessary to be admitted to the
Sydney Merchant Marine Hospital and again to the Halifax Infirmary for checkup and further treatment.
The steamship Phillip T. Dodge is owned by the Waterman Steamship Company, registered in Saint John, New Brunswick, and at the time of my accident was chartered by the Dominion Steel and Coal Company.
Prior to this accident I was actively engaged as a merchant seaman, in dangerous waters aboard Canadian ships for several years.
He concludes by asking whether the director of merchant seamen would advise him of the procedure he should follow in order to qualify for a pension. The answer he received was written on June 28, 1946-and it will be remembered that this boy suffered his accident in 1943. This is what they say:
Ottawa, June 28, 1946.
Dear Sir:
I regret very much that there has been such a delay in replying to your letters but I have been daily expecting a reply to the inquiries I made regarding your case, to the Canadian pension board.
They have confirmed to me that your appeal for pension was duly considered but on full investigation of the circumstances surrounding your accident on board the Phillip T. Dodge it was found that it was not within their power to grant you a pension. Inasmuch as you are not pensionable it is also impossible for you to be considered for a vocational training grant.
It is indeed unfortunate that such an accident occurred to you but from the facts now ascertained it would appear that your accident resulted not through the line of duty but it was through your own personal liability that you suffered the loss of your limb.
I assure you that I greatly sympathize with you in your predicament but there seems to be absolutely no way in which assistance may be given to you.
I have written to the minister with reference to the case and I do not suppose he has had a chance to check it up. That was only on August 7. I have asked him to check with the commission and ascertain on what basis they made the decision.


Walter Adam Tucker: Does the hon. member know at what stage the application stands now? I hate to see these statements put on Hansard and the suggestion made that there has been a final decision, because the same steps are taken in this as in the case of an ordinary application for pension. First there is a ruling and then the matter goes to the pension appeal board. It might very well be that this man's application has not yet reached the last stage. If the hon. member will give the particulars to the minister or myself or the chairman-


Clarence Gillis: I have already given them.


Walter Adam Tucker: -it will be looked into right away.
Civilian War Pensions

Even yet, I suggest, some consideration should be given by the house to extending the rehabilitation regulations to the Canadian merchant seamen. I believe the education benefits should have been extended. I believe some form of gratuity should have been given them. I am of course aware of the fact that the Department of Transport has set up a bonus system which is considered as a gratuity, but the nature of the requirements, the form of application and the procedure which the seaman has to go through restrict the scheme, in my opinion, to the point where very few men are benefiting by it. Of course we shall examine that under the minister's estimates.


James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he is not in order. He knows perfectly well that it is against the rules to refer to former debates in this house, and I understand that the matter he is talking about was discussed here some time ago.


Clarence Gillis: Well, Mr. Speaker, on second reading of this bill we are discussing the principle, and I am objecting to the principle of the bill in leaving Canadian merchant seamen out of certain benefits which were granted to other auxiliary services under other bills. As I see it, this is the only opportunity I shall have to discuss the case for the merchant seamen, as part I of this bill deals specifically with Canadian merchant seamen.


James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he well understands that we have rules and I am obliged to call his attention to them. This subject was debated in the house some time ago. If, as he himself suggested, he wants to discuss this matter under part I or a specific section, that may be different, but he should wait until the house has resolved itself into committee. I think he is out of order in discussing this matter at present.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, if you make a ruling that I should discontinue discussing the matter now and take it up in committee I shall just have to abide by it.


Walter Adam Tucker: I hesitated to say anything, because the hon. member who spoke was very cooperative in committee; but the only difficulty about it is that if he makes a speech on this, several other hon. members, who feel just as strongly about it as he does, will want to make speeches on it, and if we do not apply the rule to the hon. member of course we shall be faced with the possibility that the whole house may want to debate this question. The question before the house is the giving of pensions to these various groups. My hon.

friend is of course discussing the question of other rights which he suggests should be given, and I submit that on the principle of giving pensions to these groups he is out of order in that discussion, especially since it has been dealt with by the Department of Transport in other legislation.


James Horace King: I would point out to the hon. member that the motion actually before the house is that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee on the bill. That motion is not debatable. When an hon. member of the official opposition rose to speak I was under the impression tha-t he intended to make simply a few brief remarks, and perhaps I should not have permitted him to go on. I must point out that the motion is not debatable.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Definitions: "Commission."


William Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I was not aware that this bill had been read the second time.


William Ross Macdonald: Yes. It was read the second time and there was a motion that the Speaker leave the chair for the house to go into committee of the whole. The house is now in committee on the bill. Shall section 1 carry ?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On section 5 - Definitions:	"Canadian
National."
Clarence Gillis: I am not going to repeat what I have already said with regard to benefits granted Canadian merchant seamen. I merely reiterate that in my opinion the. Canadian merchant seamen were overlooked by the veterans affairs committee in the matter of extending certain rehabilitation rights to them.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Only by some members of the committee.


Clarence Gillis: That is right. The idea
seemed to prevail that the Department of Transport was making the necessary provisions which would offset the complaint that these men have with regard to rehabilitation rights. That is not true. One bill presented to the house by the Minister of Transport had nothing whatever to do with the war. It was merely setting up a compensation scheme federally to take care of merchant seamen in the future, and it is equivalent to the regular

Civilian War Pensions
briefs and in evidence before the committee those who were sponsoring the cause of these different groups assured the committee of the valuable services which their particular group had rendered, told a thrilling story of the difficulties that they had experienced and the dangers they had run. The committee I am sure would join with me in saying that we marvelled at the heroism shown by these various civilian groups, and that we as soldiers, sailors and airmen would like to express our profound gratitude for what these civilian groups did to assist the armed forces and to assist this nation in winning the victory which she so well deserved.
Some of those who advocated the particular cause of a particular group with which they were associated may feel that they did not get for their group all the benefits that they would have like to have gained. If so I should like to assure the advocates of the group that it was not because they did not present their brief in an efficient and persuasive manner. But the committee on veterans affairs had to take a realistic and practical view of the situation. They assessed the dangers which had been run and the sacrifices which had been made, and then in committee they made the recommendations which are to-day embodied in this bill. I am not at all sure that practically every member of the committee might not feel that this or that group should have been given a few more benefits. But it is not my intention to-day to champion any lost causes. I feel personally that the members of these groups by and large will agree that the country has dealt generously with them, and in practically every case has given them benefits exceeding those which they expected to obtain when they offered their voluntary service in the first instance.
I want to refer only for a moment, first, to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I would ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs to investigate a little further the question of pensions to this gallant body of men, to see whether they are getting all that they are entitled to, in recognition both of their service in the mounted police and of the service which they continued when they went into the army, because they were the leaven which promoted the discipline of the whole of the Canadian corps. They were a well disciplined group, and they were responsible for insisting upon discipline being maintained. They did so from an efficient and broad point of view, and discipline came easy to a large number of civilian soldiers who had joined the army because of the example set and the method
of controlling their activities as exercised by the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who formed the personnel of No. 1 Provost Company overseas.
The other group I should like to refer to is the group of ladies who acted as VA.D.'s, I think the term is, with the Red Cross and St. John Ambulance. I am referring particularly to the girls who served with the Canadian Red Cross. It has been brought to my attention that in the evidence given before the committee by the chairman of their corps he inadvertently made the statement that those girls when they were discharged received an allowance of S150 to buy civilian clothes. That, I believe, is an incorrect statement, and has been recognized as such by the assistant national commissioner of the Canadian Red Cross.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say
a few words about one particular classification which I think was overlooked by the veterans affairs committee. Unfortunately I have not been able to be in the house and I missed the latter part of the discussions in the committee because of being a member of the industrial relations committee.
In looking over all the bills which came out of the veterans affairs committee I found only one which makes any mention of merchant seamen: it is this bill 335, and all that it does is to give the merchant seamen the benefits of pension rights under the Pension Act. My conception of that particular problem when it was discussed before the veterans affairs committee was that it was to be referred to a special committee on auxiliary services, and that these men would be included in the auxiliary services bill for certain rehabilitation rights. Evidently there was some misunderstanding in the committee with regard to the disposition of the case of the Canadian merchant seamen. Personally I am disappointed that something was not done by the veterans affairs committee to grant to merchant seamen some at least of the rehabilitation rights which were granted to the armed services. As has been stated here on many occasions from all sides of this house, had it not been for the Canadian merchant seamen and the struggle they put up during the years of the war in getting supplies, munitions and so forth to Britain, the war might have lasted much longer, and perhaps a different story would have had to be written. I myself think that they made the greatest contribution of any section of the service to the winning of the war.
Allied Veterans Benefits

training and then joined the Canadian army, they would come within the provisions of this bill.


Howard Charles Green: They cannot qualify unless they were domiciled here.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, just so that we may not waste time on this I would point out to my hon. friend that that is not the purpose of this bill at all. The person must be domiciled in Canada before he enlists in order to get the benefits of this bill, and for my hon. friend to think that the Polish troops coming over here who were not domiciled in Canada before they joined the forces of our allies will get the benefits of this bill indicates that he has not read it carefully. It does not apply to them at all.
I would also point out that the very principle he mentions has been accepted-that of not giving benefits to people who were not domiciled in Canada before they entered the armed forces. The civil service commission to-day does not give a preference in appointment to anyone unless he was domiciled in Canada at the time he entered our forces or those of the allies. So the very thing he mentions has been accepted by the government in this legislation.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, as a rule when you are in the chair a member is allowed to finish before another member rises to make observations. I would say to the parliamentary assistant that the acceptance of the principle is no evidence that the principle is right. I find the principle wrong, and that is why I object to it.
With regard to the Poles, I know very well that they do not come under this bill, but the policy with regard to them is similar to the policy proposed in this bill. I repeat, Canada is becoming the dumping ground for the nations of the world and I regret it. There should be some examination before immigrants are allowed to enter this country.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, speaking for this group here-they are not here now-I want to explain why nobody could expect them to stay here and listen to the utter nonsense we have listened to from my hon. friend who is opposing this bill, which is to do something for the soldiers. I am just as anxious as the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) to conclude the business of the session so that we can get out of this hot weather, and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you call any member to order if he talks nonsense on any bill for the veterans.


Jean-François Pouliot: We have no lesson to receive from the hon. member for Fraser Valley.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Last year the hon. member said I would not be elected, and I trebled my majority.


[Stage Direction]
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-Short title.
Jean-François Pouliot: Just one word in reply to the hon. member for Fraser Valley.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Let him go.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before the election I said he would be defeated, but he was not because he was called the Jean-Frangois Pouliot of British Columbia.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 9 inclusive 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. 335, respecting civilian war pensions and allowances.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.	[DOT]
Mr. MACKENZIE moved that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee on the bill.
Mr. G. . R. PEARKES (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, this bill covers a very wide group of persons who actively engaged in war work in various civilian capacities, ranging from merchant seamen and salt-water fishermen, personnel of the various auxiliary services which were helping the troops, members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, air raid precaution workers, members of civilian air crews and a large number of other groups.
Members of this house who were privileged to sit on the committee on veterans affairs listened to the briefs which were presented by the representatives of these various organizations. In every case their representatives told a story of high endeavour prompted solely by the loftiest of principles. The greatest reward which the individuals in these various groups expected to receive was the knowledge of a voluntary duty accepted and that duty efficiently and adequately performed. In their

Allied Veterans Benefits
It was of great value to the allied cause to have these different national units available when the liberation of Europe came about. Troops were identified as Polish, as Belgian, as French, as Norwegian, and as Dutch. It was a great thing for the nationals of those countries to feel that their own forces had been kept in being and that they had fought for freedom on the outside and were now coming to liberate their own countries. I understand that in a great many of these cases the government has endeavoured to arrange set-offs or reciprocal benefits with the countries with which we were allied. I hope the Canadian government and the Minister of Veterans Affairs will continue to arrange these reciprocal benefits.
It has been stated clearly that it is the government's intention that no man shall be included under these benefits who was not domiciled in Canada before going into the forces of an allied country, and that no man shall have these benefits if he does not indicate his intention to take up his domicile in Canada upon discharge from the forces. In other words, it takes into consideration only those members of the allied forces who were m Canada on September 10, 1939 and who have returned to Canada to make their homes here.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, this bill is another instance of the policy put into force by the Meighen government after the war to give preference to men who were not in the Canadian army and who were taking the place of good Canadians who were in the Canadian army. The definition of "allied veteran" is as follows:
"Allied veteran" means a person who, subsequent to the tenth day of September, 1939, served in the armed forces of any of the nations allied with His Majesty in active operations against the enemy in the war and who, at the time he joined any such forces, was domiciled in Canada.
This man may have come here simply to enlist. This thing was done in the first world war and it is being done in the second, on account of the promises that were made by the government. Sometimes men were not domiciled in Canada before the war, but were given the opportunity to come here and take advantage of all the benefits that were being offered to Canadians. One example is the
4,000	Polish soldiers who will be given benefits that are being refused to Canadians who were in the army.
I cannot understand why men who have fought under different colours, not even British colours, should be placed ahead of our own men who have worn the Canadian
uniform. I mentioned not long ago that some benefits are being given to complete strangers. It is admitted that these men fought in the same cause against Germany and Japan; they may have fought quite well, but that is no reason for making Canada the dumping ground for all the nations of the world. I said that in one of the committee rooms adjacent to Westminster Hall. Why should Canada be the dumping ground for all the nations of the world? Why should we do more than any other nation for outsiders? It is a strange thing.
I think of those Canadian boys, big and small; I think of those young men full of hope who came here but who met with such poor success because every place was occupied, there were no more vacancies, they had been given to outsiders. They were told, "You Canadians go away; there is no room for you." That is the policy that has been sponsored by the civil service commission. When the member for Temiscouata presided over that committee he got all that information from the civil service commission, about men who had come from all over the world to take positions that rightly belonged to red-blooded Canadians.
I have no objection to a well-balanced immigration policy, but I do not think any immigrant should take the place of a Canadian. I do not think any outsider should take the place of a man who has the right to get all the benefits that this country may offer. When I say "Canadian" I want it to be understood that I do not mean only those who were born here; not at all. That is precisely the reason why I have never joined the Native Sons of Canada. I mean also those who may have been born somewhere else in the world but who have made Canada their country of adoption, their country of love, the country they want for themselves and for their children, the country in which they intend to establish themselves permanently. These things should not apply to the migratory birds who came here just to get some advantages, just to get rich quick and then return to their country of origin. We do not need those people; they are not desirable immigrants.
James Horace King: I would direct the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the bill before us is not a bill dealing with immigration. It is an act respecting veterans of forces allied with Canada.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know that, but you know very well that if they came here simply to enlist and get the advantages of the Canadian army, if they were sent from overseas for
War Service Benefits


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If there is no objection to altering it, why not strike out the words "part I", and simply leave it to read "to bet a 'veteran' within the meaning and for the purposes of . . . the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946"? I am sure that it is limited by the inclusion of the words "part I".


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon, member
would use only the words "the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946"?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes, so that there would be no doubt about it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If my hon. friend will move that, I shall be pleased to accept it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Very well. I move in ' amendment:
That the words "part I" in subparagraph (iv) of section 3 (a) be stricken therefrom, so that the words "The War Veterans' Allowance Act, 1946. and" shall remain the only words in the subparagraph.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am prepared to
accept that amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 4-Discharge rank for purposes of the War Service Grants Act, 1944.
Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, before we proceed further I should like to add a few words to the gracious remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), who welcomed the hon. member for Rosthem and congratulated him upon his choice as leader of the Liberal party in the province of Saskatchewan. I know I am not strictly in order in making these observations on section 4 of the bill, but I believe I am more in order than some may think, because the act will be operated with the assistance of the hon. member, who has been the right arm of the minister for over a year.
I know the hon. member for Rosthern personally, and because of that I not only congratulate the hon. member but also the delegates upon their very good choice. The reason I am so well satisfied with the nomination of the hon. member to lead the Liberal party in Saskatchewan is that he is human, and understands the difficulties of the common man. He tries to redress wrongs when they are submitted to him. I shall not say that he always succeeds; I shall not call him a miracle man. But he is a man of good will, a man with deep convictions and a sincere desire to do his utmost, not only for his province but for the country as a whole.

Therefore it is with the utmost pleasure and with real joy that I congratulate him and wish him success.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. MACKENZIE moved that the bill be read a third time.
James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the house that the bill be now read a third time?


Jean-François Pouliot: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time, on division, and passed.



ALLIED VETERANS BENEFITS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved the second reading of bill No. 328, respecting veterans of forces allied with Canada.
Lawrence Wilton Skey: Mr. Speaker, I expect that the bill now before the house will prove uncontroversial, as the previous one did. If I may, for a moment or two, I should like to cover the reasons why I approve the introduction of this measure.
As I understand it, the bill is to make provision for the nationals of other countries who were allied with His Majesty and who joined the forces of the countries of their origin, being recruited in Canada with the permission and concurrence of the Canadian government, and-may I emphasize this-with the cooperation of the Department of National Defence. I see from the minutes of a previous meeting that it is designed to cover men who have been discharged from the Canadian active army as being unlikely to become efficient soldiers. I understand that in some cases that was owing to language difficulties. Some men of European origin had come to Canada only recently and understood little of our institutions, and it was thought that these men would feel more at home in the forces of their previous country. Actually some of these men were directed by the government and the Department of National Defence to join the forces of the country of their origin. According to the official government record this bill will cover 827 veterans. As I said, in most cases they were directed to those particular forces by army orders. In many respects the government is just honouring its obligation to these men because the Department of National Defence directed them to join up with those forces.

War Service Benefits


Mr. JAENICKE:: The "service comparable" refers to the work a man was doing.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Of course.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: It does not refer to the country in which he must be enrolled, which is the United Kingdom, according to section 2.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That makes no difference at all.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: As I say, I am not satisfied. I do not see what harm it would do to amend either section 2 or section 7 to cover the persons who were enrolled in Canada on behalf of some other ally.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I can assure my hon. friend that the intent of the bill is to cover them, and the effect of the regulations will be to cover them.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3

Deemed a veteran.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: I thought it was understood that these operators would get all the benefits that a veteran would have. I notice that paragraph (a) (iv) of this section reads as follows: "Part I of the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946." Why should they be included only in part I of the War Veterans Allowance Act? Why should they not have all the benefits of the act?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Because the other part referred to widows and orphans.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Should not the widows and orphans of these men have the same privileges as widows and orphans of other returned men?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They will.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They do not come under this act.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am informed that they are eared for in the Veterans Allowance Act.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest this should be checked again. I do not see how the widow of one of these men could possibly get a benefit under the War Veterans Allowance Act, in view of the restriction in this section. This section covers only part I. If it is the intention to cover widows, then surely we should refer to parts I and II.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are classified as veterans for the purposes of the act, and entitled to all the benefits therefrom. The widows automatically will then benefit. I am assured by my advisers that that is correct.


Howard Charles Green: The minister's advisers are not always right. We found that out in the veterans affairs committee. They did a good job, but they are not perfect.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Neither is the minister.


Howard Charles Green: Either the section should include parts I and II, or there should be no reference to part I, thereby simply making them subject to the provisions of the War Veterans Allowance Act. The very fact that part I is mentioned, with no mention of part II, prevents a widow getting the benefit of that part.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The widow inherits and possesses all the consequential benefits, I am informed.


Howard Charles Green: I would drawr the attention of the minister to the wording of the section where it refers to a special operator being a veteran within the meaning and for the purposes of these acts. It would not be so bad if the words "and -for the purposes of" were not included, but those words restrict the benefits of the section to part I of the War Veterans Allowance Act.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Which line is the hon, member referring to?


Howard Charles Green: I am referring to section 3(a).	v
While I have been speaking I have noticed the entrance to the chamber of the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) and I avail myself of this opportunity to welcome him back. He is to be congratulated upon the new task he has undertaken as leader of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan, and I believe perhaps also to be pitied. From the personal point of view I wish him the best of luck, but from the political point of view I would wish him just the opposite.
We shall now proceed to attempt to straighten this section out. I was pointing out that section 3(a) which reads "(a) to be a 'veteran' within the meaning and for the purposes of . . . means that a veteran, or rather his widow, could not get the benefits under part II. That is, the widow of a veteran could not get the allowance under part II of the War Veterans Allowance Act.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend may be right. It is probably a matter of technical and legalistic reasoning. But I am assured by those who drew this up, in conjunction with the Department of Justice, that widows are completely protected under the terminology of the bill as we have it. If there is any specific desire to alter it, I would: have no objection, but I am assured that it is ample as it is.
War Service Benefits

as it was theirs, and a cause in which we joined almost as they joined, are on a par with the Canadians who served in the Royal Air Force and in other branches of the British forces as well as in the United States and other allied forces. Why anyone should dare to assume that the taxpayers of Canada-we are all taxpayers, and in these days that includes practically everybody-would	desire that
Canadians who risked their lives in a more real sense than anyone in any other branch of the service did should not :be provided for, I do not know. The penalty of being caught was to be shot-some of them were- and we are not asking the Canadian people, for whom the hon. member for Temiscouata speaks so eloquently, to do anything for them.
This is a small bill, and as the minister said, the sum of money which is involved may be inconsequential. I take exception to blase suggestion that these men served their country in Britain. They served all the free people of the world. They served under extraordinary conditions, as the hon. member for Grey-Bruce has said. He has some knowledge of it because he served in the theatres of war. These people took the greatest risk. They did not have the trappings of uniforms; they did not even have the rank of a commissioned officer. They served with the rank of sergeant in the British army. They served voluntarily, having been selected by our own people to work with their allies and friends in the British and other armies. That is all that this bill amounts to. All this talk about the cost and that we are doing something for the British-God knows we should-is nonsense, when what we are doing is trying to give a decent deal to our own boys.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: I should like to say a few words with respect to the point raised by the hon. member for Royal. With great respect to the Minister of Veterans Affairs I cannot agree with him that section 7 covers the special operators who might have been enrolled in some other country, such as the United States, for service with the allies. Section 7 provides:
The governor in council may make regulations . . . may declare any other person, who has had war service of a kind comparable with that of a special operator, to be a special operator . . .
I submit that it refers to the United Kingdom; that a special operator must have been enrolled by the United Kingdom government. If it is intended to cover operators who have been enrolled by any other country which was allied to Canada during the war, we must amend the bill to cover such persons.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I tell my hon. friend that the intention was to cover precisely the point which has been raised. The matter was referred to the Department of Justice, which helped us to draft the section as it now stands. It is the intent, and I am sure it will be the effect, to guarantee what he desires.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Hon. members who are lawyers will agree with me that that is not the way in which the courts will interpret the act. Provision should be made either at the end of section 7 or in section 2, which we are now discussing, to cover the point I have raised. The section should be amended to read that it covers not only the United Kingdom but any other country with which Canada was allied during the war.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I refer my hon. friend to paragraph 3 of the explanatory note, which says:
It is understood that there are about fifty-one of these men now recorded with the Department of External Affairs, but as there is a possibility of some other persons of the kind or who saw similar service turning up later, it is deemed advisable that the governor in council be given power to provide for them in a similar way.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: The explanatory note will not be part of the law, nor will anything that the minister says in the house. The act will be interpreted as it is passed and assented to.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Section 7 empowers the governor in council to pass regulations, and I can assure him that all the reservations which he has in his mind will be amply protected in the regulations.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: The Minister of Veterans Affairs is a lawyer. Section 7 must be interpreted in the light of section 2. Section 2 refers to a special operator as one who has been enrolled in Canada by the United Kingdom authorities; therefore it does not cover any other country.


Jean-François Pouliot: In accordance with what has been said by the minister and by my hon. friend who has just spoken, the hon. member for Winnipeg South will have to redraft his speech by striking it from the record.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I doubt that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I say to my hon. friend that this is purely a legal argument. I hate to be technical in these things.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: I think you should be.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If my hon. friend will read section 7 again, he will find the words "service of a kind comparable with that of a special operator" which protects any others.

War Service Benefits
men who run the country. We are often told it is the province of Quebec, the minority of Quebec, that runs the country. It is that minority of bigoted fanatics who may be counted on the fingers of both hands who try to impress the government, as R. B. Hanson did during the war-who did more to impress the government than any other member of the house; so much so that he was praised to the limit by the Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberal party, and so much so that when the Tories made him a gift of a silver platter on his retirement they inscribed on it praise and eulogj^ from the Prime Minister.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I did not
interrupt the hon. member for Temiscouata because I thought he should be allowed to reply to interruptions, but now that he has replied may I remind him and all members of the committee that the principle of the bill was approved on second reading and all remarks now should be strictly relevant to the clause under consideration.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: These fifty-two men were all Canadians, all domiciled in Canada, some of them in the armed forces before they were selected for this special duty, and according to the laws of Canada for many years past Canadians who were domiciled in Canada before serving with the allied forces were entitled to all the benefits of other Canadians who served with our own forces. That is all this does. They are all Canadians, all among our own friends and comrades in the Dominion of Canada. That is all this bill seeks to do.


Jean-François Pouliot: The question is not so much that of domicile as that of service. If they were serving in the Canadian army, it would be all right, but they were not under Canadian command. They were under British command, and it is precisely because their service was for the United Kingdom that the United Kingdom should pay them, whether they were domiciled in Canada or not.
Now I know very well that the press will come out with headlines: "Quebec member opposes grants for heroes who were picked out by the United Kingdom to serve in most difficult jobs during the war." It will come out like that. I do not oppose it because I come from Quebec, but because I find it nonsensical, and I would oppose it anywhere. I would speak outside the province of Quebec, speaking only to audiences of other origins than French, and say the same. It is not a question of race; it is a question of dollars and cents-


An hon. MEMBER:: Publicity.


Jean-François Pouliot: -and it is not because it is only fifty-two who will enjoy it that I protest. I protest against the principle of always doing more and more for other countries-not only for the United Kingdom but for other countries. Canada should be symbolized by a squeezed lemon on a white square. That would be the proper flag for Canada-a squeezed lemon on a white piece of paper. As I said, I shall be described not as a member of parliament, but as a Quebec member opposing the measure. We shall again be told that Quebec people are not loyal to the king and to the traditions of good citizenship because we use that freedom of language which is considered to be the cornerstone of constitutional democratic government. I know that that will be done because it has been done in the past, and those who inspire and support legislation of this kind with the power of strong voices are those who impress the government and rule the country.
I should like to have a truly liberal government, a democratic government, and not a government which takes its inspiration, not from Quebec or any other province of Canada, including Ontario, but from a group of fanatics who are not interested in this country and whose Heart is overseas.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: As a member of the house who comes from a part of Canada which is not Quebec I should like to assure the hon. gentleman at once that the people of the other eight provinces are too intelligent to judge Quebec by .the kind of performance which he puts on in the house. I can say from knowledge that the gentlemen who are to be taken care of in this bill are Canadians domiciled in Canada and selected for duty which was exceedingly dangerous and highly confidential, and by the very nature of their work it was a question of win or die. The work which they were doing was such that no one could know where they were or who .they were.
I should like to point out to the hon. member for Temiscouata, and to any other Canadian if there is one who thinks as he does, which I doubt, that it was not a Canadian war, a United States war, or a British war. It was an allied nations war in which we all combined to defend those things in which we believe and in which my hon. friend, in his more lucid moments, himself believes. There is no point in rising in our places to answer that type of argument, beyond saying that this committee should know what the committee on veterans affairs knows, namely, that these Canadians, who were directed in their service by the British government in a cause which was ours as much
War Service Benefits


Mr. HARRIS (Grey-Bruee):: When this
bill was introduced to the veterans affairs committee I formed an opinion, which I expressed at that time, on very little information. Since that time my opinion has been confirmed by additional information and further thought. I think this bill should be amended in some respects, although I am perfectly prepared to support it as it is. It provides benefits for persons who in this country enlisted for special purposes and at that time took the rank and pay of sergeant. It is my proposal and it is my opinion that we should increase that benefit to the rank of commissioned officer. Those of us who were in the armed services know very well that if our luck ran out we had perhaps two chances in five of surviving. These gentlemen had no chance at all, or little, if their luck ran out. I know quite well that the contract of enlistment was a contract with the United Kingdom authorities, and these persons accepted the rank and pay which were theirs at that time. The Canadian government has gone to the extent of granting them practically all the privileges of the Canadian soldier so far as things in Canada might go, but I believe the government and people of this country should properly reward these persons by increasing at the same time, by way of grant or otherwise, the benefits they obtained during the enlistment period from the rank of sergeant to that of commissioned officer.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Mr. BROOKS': This clause gives the definition of special operator and says it means a person certified by the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs as having been enrolled in Canada by the United Kingdom authorities. There were men enrolled in Canada by the United States authorities, and I understood the bill was to be amended so as to-
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is not that covered by section 7? The suggestion was made by the hon. member for Nanaimo in the committee, and the point is covered by section 7.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: So long as it is understood that the section covers those men.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will the minister tell us how much the bill will cost each year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There are only fifty-two persons concerned, plus the three mentioned by the hon. member for Royal, who were engaged in special services through other agencies. Possibly there may be no cost at all, but the purpose of the bill is to give to

these men, who were the bravest of the brave, who went into enemy territory by means of parachutes, and who did wonderful service for the cause of freedom for which all the nations were fighting, the opportunity of qualifying for the same benefits as if they had been members of the armed forces as such. That is surely clear and definite. There may be no cost, there may be some; it is impossible at the moment to forecast.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is the same story. It is to give something to men who may have a very fine record-I do not discuss that-but who were not in the Canadian army. We paid the boys in the Canadian army when they were the only ones defending the shores of Great Britain after Dunkirk. We paid them, and we were the only dominion doing so. We did a lot for our boys when they were going all around and were under British command, and now we are paying men who have not been in the Canadian army but who should be fully rewarded by the United Kingdom government, especially because that government is much richer than we are now and because taxation is heavier in this country, all things considered, than it is in England.
Is it because men had a fine record that we should pay them? They must be paid by those for whom they were fighting; otherwise we could have a contest between the boys who have been fighting in all the united nations armies, in China as well as in Great Britain. This is not pay; this is an award for bravery. That is all right, but if the government is going to do something in that way, it has only to give them a decoration, and institute at last a Canadian decoration for these boys. I do not see why we should pay them. It is the same story. It is because they are not Canadians that they get something.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: They are Canadians.


Howard Charles Green: They are all Canadians. That is the point.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: May I interrupt the hon. gentleman to ask a question-


Jean-François Pouliot: Absolutely no. I do not want to be interrupted. If the hon. member has something to say, he can say it afterwards. I hear that clamour. I should like every taxpayer in Canada to hear that clamour-


James Arthur Ross: So would we.


Jean-François Pouliot: -when I protest on their behalf and when I say precisely what they are thinking. It is that small group of men, that small group of prejudiced and bigoted

War Service Benefits


Jean-François Pouliot: What?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: A nuisance.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not think much of what has been said. If I have been called a
demagogue it is because I have referred to the promise of a million jobs that has been given to the veterans. That is demagoguery. I remind the house of the demagogic appeals which have been made in the past, and I warn the house that all this legislation is to redeem a pledge which cannot be redeemed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, many of those fifty-two members were from the province of Quebec.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will ask the hon. member to keep quiet and still; and he may boil, and he may boil again, but it will not impress me at all. I am here to do my duty.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Where there is no sense there is no feeling.


Jean-François Pouliot: And if he speaks loud I can speak loud. I have a duty to do. I have a duty to try to awaken the members of the House of Commons to a sense of their responsibilities. It is a hard job, but I will try again to-day. I like my colleagues, I appreciate their good will-to use the words of the Prime Minister-and I do not despair of them. There is still a ray of hope for the future. I hope that some members will get away from racial prejudice-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: And will think of Canada as their own country.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: And that they will censure the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) for quoting those two lines from Canning and making them his own:
A statesman of the world alone,
A friend of every country but his own.
Incredible! It shows a mentality which has been deformed, the mentality of am intelligent and gifted man thinking of all other countries and forgetting his own. How many times must one repeat that, to put to shame the members of the House of Commons and make them see -those who were born in this country as well as those who were bom outside it and have made Canada their country of adoption; that they must love it; that they have patriotism; that they must not have that false internationalist deformation of mind which has been the error of the past fifteen years. The members of this house will have to render account to the Canadian people of what has been done in this country, and when the time comes to
vote, the vote will not be given by those outside of Canada, as was done in part during the war on account of our men and women being all over the world; the vote will be given by the Canadian people, who are suffering from taxation imposed to pay tc that extravagant extravaganza of parliament during these years. What was the expectation of the Canadian taxpayer during the war? It was that he would have some relief as soon as the war was over. But what relief will he have when he has to redeem the foolish pledges of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the pledge of a million jobs for the boys overseas who were to come here and find a horn of plenty in the great city of Ottawa, with a job for each of them, making them all civil servants, making them all bureaucrats, deforming their minds? Because the mind of the government was deformed, they wanted also to deform the minds of these enthusiastic boys who were coming, crowned with glory, from overseas and from all over the world.
I have nothing else to add on this, but I shall repeat the same thing on the other bills if I have the opportunity to do so; if it is not given to me I will take it.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish for two or three minutes to refer to the principle of this bill. I have just now seen the text of it which applies to those whom the former minister of national defence, Mr. Ralston, said would get credits and gratuities, men who enlisted in Britain and went overseas at their own expense as active combatant soldiers. But this bill opens the door and extends privileges to fifty-one people who are now recorded with the Department of External Affairs, actually only civilians. I think that is a very wrong principle, to extend to civilians connected with the Department of External Affairs grants and gratuities and other allowances to actual combatant veterans who served at the front. I know something about that department, and much of what it did was unnecessary during the period of the war-a policy of separatism and isolation from the mother country. A good deal of its work did not meet with the approval of a large number of members of this house. Bills which give allowances and gratuities to soldiers and veterans who served overseas are most commendable, but to extend these concessions to a lot of civilians is, I contend, all wrong.


[Stage Direction]
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-Short title.
War Service Benefits
[Stage Direction]
certain kinds of fruit from the United States. It was stated to me over the long-distance telephone that any duties operative, particularly on plums, have not been imposed quickly enough. I have not had time to check the details, but I am asking that the proper officials of the government be instructed to look into this matter at once, because it is urgent.
[ can give more details if required.
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Mr. Speaker, following up the representations of the hon. member for Lincoln, may I point out that hampers of peaches are being brought into Canada which are found to be full of worms. I think the minister should check that and stop these importations at once.
Mr. CRUICKSHANIv: Why don't you get some good ones from British Columbia?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is right.



SPECIAL OPERATORS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved the second reading of bill No. 330, respecting benefits to certain persons who were recruited in Canada by United Kingdom authorities for special duties in war areas.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in formally moving the second reading of this bill, which I understand was unanimously recommended by the veterans affairs committee, may I say that it extends to special operators to the number of fifty-two, who were engaged on very secret duties in enemy countries, all benefits awarded to the members of the armed forces.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, the minister is quite correct in stating that in the committee there was unanimous consent to this bill, but it was on the understanding that an amendment would be made to the bill to include others besides the fifty-two whom the minister mentioned. As the bill reads, it is limited to those with the United Kingdom forces, but there were others who were attached to the United States forces and possibly one or two who went to the east. On the understanding that these will be included by an amendment, there is no objection to the
bin.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCO IS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote two phrases from Canning as quoted by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) the other day:
A statesman of the world alone,
A friend of every country but his own.

It is applicable to this very piece of legislation. Why should we have this bill before us to-day to pay for obligations of Great Britain, selecting men for war areas? A friend of every country but his own! I will ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs which is his country? If it is Canada, if he gives me that answer, I will say that it is unfortunate that he ignores his own country. In view of the legislation that has been sponsored' in this house, not only on the recommendation of the veterans affairs committee but other legislation passed in the last fifteen years, I think that we should add to the letterhead of the note paper used by the members of the House of Commons precisely these two lines the minister quoted from Canning:
A statesman of the world alone,
A friend of every country but his own.
Those words should be written on every sheet of note paper that goes out through the mail from the House of Commons, in order to describe the mentality of those who have been framing and sponsoring legislation in this house for years.
If we read the title of this bill we see that it is "An act respecting benefits to certain persons who were recruited in Canada by United Kingdom authorities for special duties in war areas." They were not recruited by Canadian authorities. They were recruited by the United Kingdom.


James Arthur Ross: That is absolutely wrong.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, through the
Department of External Affairs.


Jean-François Pouliot: In other words, it was done for them, done on their behalf, and the Department of Veterans Affairs acted as their agent.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then how is it that the title of the bill is not different from what
it is?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are all Canadians-good Canadians-brave Canadians.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes; "every country but his own".


Leslie Alexander Mutch: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is another piece of legislation of that kind; and if I have suffered mental cruelty, if I have suffered abuse and humiliation-


Leslie Alexander Mutch: You are more than even.


Jean-François Pouliot: -and if I have been called a demagogue before-


Leslie Alexander Mutch: You are a nuisance.

Bacon Contract
members to work during the quiet, cool days of the year when they would have something like a chance to do the work that has to be done, the government insists on calling parliament every year at a time when we must face this almost unbearable situation; when members have to work themselves almost to death during the hottest part of the year in this city of Ottawa where the heat and moisture conditions are almost insufferable. We have to do it every year; and then we are called upon to add a burden to ourselves by working on Saturday as well. I heartily concur in what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). He was simply facing facts as they are, and we may as well face facts as they are. One thing I have never been able to understand is why it is that in the cool parts of the year, in February and March, we never sit on Friday night or on Wednesday night, and then at this time of the year we are asked to do this sort of thing.
Another thing to which we seriously object is that after it was agreed that we should speed up matters the government brought in a good many rather contentious measures and piled them on top of members of parliament right at a time when they were busy with committees and morning sittings, and when they had no chance to deal adequately with those measures.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I will repeat that we will fall in line, but we would ask the government if they cannot do something to end this absurd way in which the affairs of this country are now being carried on.


Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, in opposing this motion I want 'to point out that during the early part of the session, when the debate on the address is before us, this house sits exactly twenty-four hours a week, at a time when there is no other business that the members can do, no committees meeting; and we carry on in that way month after month-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is not right.


George Hugh Castleden: We do not sit on Wednesday nights, and often not on Friday nights in the early part of the session, so that at that stage of the session we sit only from twenty-four to twenty-seven hours a week. Later in the session when four or five committees are at work the house starts sitting at eleven o'clock in the morning and carries on until eleven at night. That is when the strain is great. If we want to be consistent when we talk about expediting the business of the house, we should start to 63260-28U
expedite it in the early part of the session. I am sure that would lead to more speed and efficiency.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If my hon. friend will look over the Votes and Proceedings for the present session he will find out that what I am about to say is true. Never in any previous session was the work of government advanced so rapidly as it has been during this session, even when the debate on the address was being carried on.


George Hugh Castleden: I doubt it very much.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. CHARLTON (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the announcement yesterday in the Ottawa Journal concerning British bacon contracts with Denmark at $5 a hundredweight higher than our price, would it not seem fair to the hog producers of Canada that the government should make some statement in that regard?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this is a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
I cannot say definitely that he will be back to-morrow but I am told that he may be. I shall bring the question to his notice, and he will no doubt deal with it immediately upon his return.


John Alpheus Charlton: In view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture is absent I would direct the question to the Acting Minister of Agriculture or to the Acting Prime Minister.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Prime Minister): The Minister of Trade and Commerce has said that he will bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture, and I am sure that an answer will be forthcoming just as soon as a proper one can be prepared.



IMPORTS FROM THE UNITED STATES-PLUMS AND PEACHES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. NORMAN J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln) : Mr. Speaker, arising out of information which reached me just twenty minutes ago I should like to direct a question to the appropriate minister. It would appear that the Canadian market is now being flooded with
Saturday Sittings
[Stage Direction]
opportunity as a party to consider it, but if I may speak as one member, I am quite agreeable to the minister's proposal. Is it the minister's thought that we should meet Saturday night as well as Saturday morning and Saturday afternoon?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The motion was framed in such a way as to leave that decision to be arrived at on Saturday. We would sit on Saturday morning and proceed at least until six o'clock. At that time, or earlier, if hon. members express any special wishes about it we can determine whether we should adjourn at six o'clock or go on in the evening. I think hon. members will admit that it is as inconvenient for the government as it may be for any other hon. members to have such frequent sittings, because of the other work to which they have to attend, but the government wishes to meet the desires of the majority of hon. members in that regard. I do not think it necessary to determine now whether we should sit Saturday evening or not; that might be left to be determined on Saturday.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I agree fully with the proposal made by the Minister of Justice, and I rise now to commend the persuasive and gracious manner in which he has sponsored the motion. It has not been considered a contentious matter, probably because of his skill in moving it.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: I hope the fine example of the right hon. gentleman will be followed by his colleagues, and also by my own who said "carried" just a moment ago.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I think the house is appreciative of the way in which the Acting Prime Minister has put this question before us. This group has had an opportunity to consider the matter and we are opposed to Saturday sittings. We are opposed to them for several reasons. First, we are not the people who take the long week-ends. The people who take the long week-ends and prevent anything being done on Fridays and Mondays throughout the whole session should not be talking now.


James Angus MacKinnon: You have no comer on that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You are not members of the government. We are here on Saturdays, I can tell you that.


Angus MacInnis: There are twenty items, most of them important, on the order paper.

Another one was introduced this morning which also may be important. We do not know whether that is the last of the items that are to come before us. The great bulk of the estimates have yet to be passed. We do not believe that there should be unseemly haste in dealing with the business that is before this house, particularly when we are urging other people to assume their responsibilities in regard to matters pertaining to the welfare of the country.
With committees sitting, and with the house sitting from eleven o'clock in the morning until eleven o'clock at night, members have no opportunity to prepare themselves to deal properly with matters that come before us. It is only on Saturday and Sunday that we have an opportunity to catch up with our correspondence.


An hon. MEMBER:: Do you work on Sunday's?


Angus MacInnis: Yes, I work on Sundays.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame.


Clarence Gillis: Why do you not pass an order in council and wind it up?


Angus MacInnis: There is one further
matter. About two weeks ago we appointed a committee of this house to investigate a crisis which had developed in our economy. That committee should have an opportunity to hear all the evidence there is to hear, and make its report. Then I think there should be an opportunity for discussion of the matter in the house, because it is one of the most important matters before the people of this country to-day. I would say to those who want to get away that we have been here only from March 14.


James Arthur Ross: Where is your leader? What is he doing to-day?


Angus MacInnis: Therfe have been only 147 days since the session began, which is a mighty short session for people who have been, so generous to themselves.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think after the most courteous and gracious submission of this resolution to the house it might be left to the free and unfettered judgment of the house, without whips and without pairs.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, the members of our group are not going to take sides one way or another on this matter, but we would like to draw the attention of the government to something which rankles in our being. Instead of calling parliament in October and allowing hon.

Questions
It is also necessary to amend the rules regarding the retention of domicile to prevent duplication of registration by Canadian citizens who remain absent from Canada for extended periods. These rules have been recast and minor changes made in two sections for the purpose of clarification and to meet the present administrative machinery.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN AGRICULTURE-* VANCOUVER AREA

Mr. McGARRY:: 1.	Has the survey on the proposed construction of a causeway, bridge or tunnel over the strait of Canso been completed?
2.	If so, has the location of this proposed structure been determined?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned:
1. No. Work on the borings in the central section of a possible site of a causeway is progressing.
2. No decision can be made with regard to the project or the location until the engineering survey and borings have been completed.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
INDIANS
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	What land was sold since the 24th July, 1902, (a) on Indian reserve No. 100 being the reserve of the James Smith band of Indians at Fort a la Corne, Saskatchewan, and on Indian reserve No. 10OA being the reserve for the Cumberland band of Indians; (b) on the Chacastapasin Indian reserve No. 98?
2.	Of the total amount of the sale, how much is owing to-day, and what amount thereof has been placed to the credit of these Indian bands?
3.	flow many acres of the lands so surrendered still remain unsold?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Prime Minister) moved:
That on Saturday, the 10th August, 1946, and every Saturday thereafter until the end of the present session, the house shall meet at 11 o'clock, a.m., and the order of business and procedure shall be the same as on Fridays.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the government in placing this notice of motion upon the order paper is not to force its acceptance upon the house but to provide an opportunity for members of the house to express their views as to whether or not it would be desirable to begin Saturday sittings on Saturday of this week.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Several have expressed the view that as a large number of members remain in Ottawa over the week-end, it would expedite the business of the session if we began Saturday sittings this week. On the other hand, there is no desire on the part of the government to rush the work of the house. There is still some very important work to be considered and dealt with. I say again that the reason for placing this motion on the order paper to-day and presenting it to you, sir, is to give members of the house an opportunity of expressing their own views, because it would be the wish of the government to meet the views of the majority of members of the house in that regard.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, judging from the reception of the minister's remarks I gather that there are some at least who favour the proposal. We on this side have had no

Privilege-Mr. St. Laurent

Amendment negatived: yeas, 22; nays, 38.


William Ross Macdonald: I declare the amendment lost. Shall section 25 carry?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: On section 25 the minister advanced the reason-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Six o'clock.
Progress reported.



LORD ADDISON


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, if I may have the unanimous consent of the house I should like to make a brief statement on behalf of the Prime Minister.
When in London at a meeting of Prime Ministers in May last, the Prime Minister extended an invitation to the Right Honourable Viscount Addison, Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs and Leader of the House of Lords, to visit Canada as a guest of our government at a time convenient to him. I am pleased to inform the house that I have received from the Prime Minister word that Lord Addison will visit Canada during the parliamentary recess. It is expected that Lord Addison will reach Halifax early in September and that he will spend the month of September in Canada. Lord Addison will be accompanied by Lady Addison.
As hon. members are doubtless aware, Lord Addison is a leading British statesman of great experience. He assumed his present office on the formation of the Labour government a year ago and he has held high cabinet posts in various governments during the last thirty years. These include service as Minister of Munitions and as the first Minister of Health in Mr. Lloyd George's cabinet during and after the first world war and as Minister of Agriculture in 1930-1931. On his visit to Canada I am sure that he will receive a most-cordial welcome from the Canadian people.
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, August 8, 1946