1946-06-26

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House
Ottawa, June 26, 1946.
Sir,-I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Thibaudeau Rinfret, Chief Justice of of Canada, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber on Thursday, June 27, at 5.50 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Minister of National Defence for Air):: I should like to make a statement concerning an article which ap-

Questions
peared in the Montreal Herald yesterday morning with a front page headline which said: "Bodies Looted in Air Crash."
Yesterday I arranged a press conference at 10.30 a.m., at which the search party which had just returned from the scene of the crash gave full details to the press as to what they had found. Squadron Leader Cobb, the leader of the party, denied the reports that the wreck had been looted, and said he was positive that he and his party were the first to reach the wreck. In spite of that statement last night the Evening Citizen published on the front page a report from the Montreal Herald, and beside it the accurate report from the press conference. The heading for both articles was "Bodies Looted After Crash," followed by a question mark. I do not want to give my opinion of this type of journalism, but I must say it appears to me that the feelings of the relatives of those who lost their lives received little consideration.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	What was the total dominion government outlay on account of Malton airplane factory?
2.	What types of planes and how many planes were built at the said factory?
3.	What was the total cost of such planes?
4.	How many have since been disposed of and how much has been realized from the sales?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	$7,243,410.75.
2.	197 Lysander aircraft; 422 Lancaster bomber aircraft; 8 Lancaster transport aircraft; 1 York transport aircraft; 736 Avro Anson aircraft; total-1364. (Together with spare parts).
3.	*153,681,723.67.
4.	All aircraft produced were delivered on completion to the R.A.E., R.C.A.F. or T.C.A. at cost.
workmen's COMPENSATION-WINDOW CLEANERS


Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	Are employees of the Public Works Department obliged to protect themselves when employed at dangerous tasks, and if so, what are the regulations respecting the same?
2.	What are the regulations governing window cleaners at work on the outside of buildings?
3.	Are belts provided for these workers to prevent them from falling, if so, at whose expense?
4.	Are there any schemes of accident insurance for these workers beyond those offered by regular insurance companies?
5.	Does workmen's compensation apply to these workers in provinces where there are workmen's compensation laws?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1.	Employees of the Department of Public
Works, when employed at dangerous work, are required to use safety equipment which is provided by the department where considered necessary. '	-	.
2.	Window cleaners are provided with suitable safety equipment when at work on outside of buildings.
3.	The Department of Public Works provides belts for window cleaners employed by them. When work is done by contract the contractor is required to provide suitable safety equipment for his workmen.
4.	No.
5.	Yes.


R.C.A.F. BENEVOLENT FUND
Mr. McKAY:: 1.	What w-as the amount of the Royal Canadian Air Force benevolent fund as at (1) September 1, 1939; (2) May 31, 1946?
2.	What plans have been completed for disposition of the fund?
3.	How much of this fund has been used for travelling or other expenses of benevolent fund officials or other persons?
4.	What officials have received amounts exceeding $100 in expenses from this fund?


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: 1.	(1) $15,802.58. (2) $2,311,028.34.
2.	The. R.C.A.F. benevolent fund is incorporated under part II of the Dominion Companies Act "to relieve distress and promote the well-being of members or ex-members of the Royal Canadian Air Force or their dependents." All funds must be invested in Dominion of Canada bonds. The accounts are audited by the auditor general.
3.	From inception of fund on 14th July, 1934, to 31st May, 1946, *3,069.57.
4.	From inception of fund on 14th July, 1934, to 31st May, 1946:
(Expenses of attending directors' and annual meetings)
Director	*471	30Director	
159	65Director	
110	55Director	
219	70Director	
225	00Director	
107	25Director	
154	25Director	
230	00
(Expenses travelling on behalf of fund 1945-46)
Director	 433	37
*2,111 07
Questions


VETERANS LAND ACT-PURCHASE OF FARMS IN HASTINGS COUNTY, ONTARIO
Mr. STOKES:: 1.	How many farms were purchased in Hastings county, Ontario, by the Soldier Settlement Board?
2.	Where were they situated and what was the acreage in each case?
3.	From whom were they purchased and what was the price paid in each case?


Mr. TUCKER:: The hon. member indicated that he wished an answer in regard to the lands purchased under the Veterans Land Act instead of the soldier settlement board. There is no answer to the question as to the prices paid, in accordance with the principle set out at page 951 of Hansard of April 17, 1946. Subject to that reservation the answers are as follows:
1.	Nine farms in Hastings county have been purchased under the Veterans Land Act.
2 and 3. Location-Acreage-Vendor:
S.E. i lot 14, lot 13, S. i of N. i lot 12 and N. i lot 14, Con. 11, Twp. Elzevier, 329, Giles W. Shields.
Lot 10, Con. 4, Twp. Madoc, 200, Ben Miller.
Pt. lot 20, Con. 1, Twp. Rawdon, 65, H. C. Martin.
N.W. ^ lot 24, Con. 4, Twp. Rawdon, 50, R. I. and E. C. Clancey.
E. i lot 21, Con. 6, Twp. Rawdon, 100, Geo. D. Watson.
N. i lot 8, Twp. Thurlow, 98, Samuel E. Townsend.
Pt. lot 13, Con. 9, Twp. Thurlow, 90, Mrs. Leah Easson.
N. pt. iot 3, Con. 4, Twp. Tyendinaga, 79, John A. Ross.
Pt. lot 11, Con. 8, Twp. Tyendinaga, 100, Wesley Crawford.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION- JOHN FISHER
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Is Mr. John Fisher of Toronto employed there by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
2.	If so, what is his salary and other allowances ?
3.	How long has he resided in Toronto?
4.	What various offices has he held in the corporation and what experience or knowledge had he before appointment?
5.	Is he employed by any other broadcasting system or programme? If so, in what capacity?


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	It is not the policy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to make public individual salaries.

He receives no allowances, but is reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses.
3.	Since January, 1943.
4.	Mr. Fisher is an LL.B. of Dalhousie university. Before joining the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation he had been engaged in legal research for the Rowell Sirois commission in public relations work for the Halifax Herald (four years) and for the wartime prices and trade board. Some broadcasting experience in Halifax.
5.	Mr. Fisher has a weekly commercial programme for Purity flour.


LABOUR CONDITIONS-TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION AND SOUTHAM NEWSPAPERS
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Have any contracts between the International Typographical Union and Canadian newspaper publishers, prior to November. 1945, contained a clause providing in any way for the excepting of the union's laws, not relating to hours, wages and working conditions, from arbitration?
2.	If so. with what newspapers and dating back how long?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.
Nova Scotia
Halifax:
Halifax Chronicle, Local 130, January 1, 1931, in effect 1945.
Halifax Herald, Local 130, January 1, 1931, in effect 1945.
New Brunswick
Saint John:
Telegraph Journal, Local 85, May 1, 1923, in effect 1945.
Evening Times Globe, Local 85, May 1, 1923, in effect 1945.
Quebec
Montreal:
The Gazette, Local 176, February 1, 1915, in effect 1945.
The Star, Local 176, February 1, 1915, no agreement now.
The Herald, Local 176, February 1, 1915, no agreement now.
Quebec:
Le Soleil, Local 302, August 22, 1943, in effect 1945.
Ontario
Brantford:
Brantford Expositor, Local 378, September 30, 1928, in effect 1945.
Fort William:
Daily Times Journal, Local 417, November 1, 1943, in effect 1945.

Questions
Galt:
Galt Reporter, Local 414, December 1, 1923, in effect 1945.
Guelph:
Guelph Daily Mercury, Local 391, November 26, 1945.
Hamilton:
Hamilton Spectator, Local 129, January 1, 1944, in effect 1945.
Ottawa:
The Journal, Local 102, October, 1926, in effect 1945.
The Citizen, Local 102, October 1926, in effect 1945.
Port Arthur:
News Chronicle, Local 575, November 1, 1943, in effect, 1945.
St. Catharines:
Standard, Local 416, March 1, 1939, still in effect 1944.
Sarnia:
Canadian Observer, Local 837. February 1, 1923, in effect 1945.
Sault Ste Marie:
Daily Star, Local 702, May 17, 1930, in effect 1945.
Stratford:
Beacon Herald, Local 139, August 1, 1930, in effect 1945.
Toronto:
Globe and Mail, Local 91, April 1, 1925, in effect 1945.
Evening Telegram, Local 91, April 1, 1925, in effect 1945.
Star, Local 91, April 1, 1925, in effect 1945. Windsor:
Daily Star, Local 553, January 1, 1925, in effect 1945.
Manitoba
Winnipeg:
Manitoba Free Press, Local 191, November 1, 1925, in effect 1945.
Tribune, Local 191, November 1, 1925, in effect 1945.
Saskatchewan
Moose Jaw:
Times (later Times-Herald), Local 627, November 1, 1924, in effect 1945.
Prince Albert:
Daily Herald, Local 705, October 31, 1923, in effect, 1945.
Regina:
Leader Post, Local 657, May 1, 1928, in effect 1945.
Saskatoon:
Star Phoenix, Local 663, November 1, 1928, no agreement now.
Alberta
Calgary:
Herald, Local 449, April 1, 1927, agreements from 1935 with. Canadian Union.
Albertan, Local 449, April 1, 1927, agreements from 1935 with Canadian Union, Edmonton:
Journal, Local 604, April 1, 1927, in effect 1945.
Bulletin. Local 604, April 1, 1927, still in effect 1943.
British Columbia
Nanaimo:
Free Press, Local 337, March 1, 1939, in effect 1945.
New Westminster:
British Columbian, Local 632, January 1, 1926, in effect 1945.
Prince Rupert:
Daily News, Local 413, March 1, 1940, in effect 1945.
Evening Telegram, Local 413, March 1, 1940, in effect 1945.
Vancouver:
Daily Province, Local 226, March 1, 1933, in effect 1945.
Sun, Local 226, March 1, 1933, in effect 1945.
Star, Local 226, March 1, 1933, in effect 1945.
Victoria:
Times, Local 201, October 1, 1945.
Colonist, Local 201, October 1, 1945.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. FLEMING:: What quantities of men's (1) shirts; (2) underwear; (3) socks; (4) suits; (5) overcoats, were (a) produced in Canada; (b) imported into Canada; (c) exported from Canada, during the last 12 months for which the figures are available, excluding clothing intended for the Canadian armed services?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. JOHNSTON:: 1. For a copy of the final and/or last inspection report on each of the following properties: C. G. Ingram, 448 25th avenue, N.E.; C. Jesson, 441 27th avenue, N.E.; W. A. Dick, 445 27th avenue, X.E.; R. T. Carlson, 606 25th avenue, N.E.; E. Snyder, 443 25th avenue, N.E.; R. J. Arldey, 447 25th avenue, N.E.; D. Murdock, 630 25th avenue, N.E.; E. S. Dunn, 625 25th avenue, N.E.; C. M. Huget, 425 25th avenue. N.E.; D. Downie, 605 25th avenue, N.E.- D. Sutherland, 444 25th avenue, N.E.; H. S. Moore, 416 25th avenue, N.E.; R. Derbyshire, 539 25th avenue,
Motions for Papers

N.E.; D. Moss, 535 25th avenue, N.E.; E. K. Elton, 419 27th avenue, X.E.; D. Dahl, 602 25th avenue, N.E., Calgary, Alberta.
2.	A statement -with respect to each of the above, showing (a) total expenditure to date; (b) further expenditures committed to; (c) contractors bid according to plans and specifications; (d) purchase price charged veteran.
3.	A copy of the inspection report made by Mr. W. D. Mackay, member of the Calgary regional advisory committee on March 29, 1946, on veterans homes in Calgary, Alberta, in the Tuxedo park area.


Walter Adam Tucker: Paragraph 1 of this motion has to do with the report of the building inspector to the district construction engineer of the province under the Veterans Land Act administration. These are reports of an officer of the department to his superiors, and I understand that such reports have always been considered privileged. With the exception of paragraph 1, however, there is no objection to the motion being adopted.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: I do not desire to get any secret documents that have passed between departments of the government, but I take it this is not a confidential report at all. It is the mere acceptance of the buildings on behalf of the government, and I do not think that would be betraying any confidence at all. It is a straight business contract, a question whether or not the houses have been accepted by the government.


James Horace King: Order. These motions are not debatable. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion, subject to the reservation mentioned?	.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. ZAPLITNY:: For a return showing (a) the number of feet of lumber and/or other timber products taken by the individuals and firms listed below, from their respective timber berths, to date; (b) the amount of money received by the government from each firm or individual for such products; (e) area of each berth; (d) amount of ground rent; (e) royalties or other fees paid annually by each of the following:
Wilfred Davidson. Sturgeon Falls, Ontario; Rudolph-McChesney Lumber Company, Limited, Timmins, Ontario; Bloedel, Stewart & Welsh, Limited, Vancouver, British Columbia; R. D. & K. R. Brooks, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan; Howard W. Brown. Flagstone, British Columbia; S. S. Clapperton, Port Loring, Ontario; Standard Logging Company. Nanaimo, British Cplumbia; The Imperial Lumber Company, Limited, Edmonton,_ Alberta; Cranbrook Sash & Door Company Limited, Cranbrook, British Columbia; A. H. Brunne & Company, Port Loring, Ontario; Pacific Mills Limited, Ocean Falls, British Columbia; Brown Corporation, Bersimis, Quebec; T. L. Garner, Westholme, British Columbia; Charles Q. Cox, Port Arthur, Ontario; The London and Western Trusts Company Limited, London, Ontario; The Ontario-Minne-
(Mr. Johnston.]
sota Pulp & Paper Company Limited, Kenora, Ontario; P. H. Barnett & T. B. Barnett, Vancouver, British Columbia; Kishan Singh Parhar, Ladysmith, British Columbia; Fred W. Kirkland, Vancouver, British Columbia.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) moved;
That when the house adjourns on Friday, June 28 instant, it stand adjourned until Tuesday, July 2 next.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Last evening at the conclusion of the sitting I asked the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance whether he would furnish further information than he had given at that time in regard to the forged coupons that had passed through La Banque Pro-vinciale du Canada. Is he in a position today to say to what extent these false or forged coupons were circulated through the bank, particularly in view of the fact that the administrator of consumer rationing of the wartime prices and trade board, speaking in Montreal yesterday, said it had been ascertained that a million and a half pounds of butter-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -were covered by false coupons?


Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: I do not think it would be advisable for me to say anything more on this subject than I said yesterday. There will be ample opportunity for further discussion when the estimates of the Minister of Justice, particularly those dealing with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, are under consideration. Any information it is considered advisable to give can be given on that occasion.



PACIFIC COAST COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):: I
should like to address a question to the Minister of Reconstruction, notice of which I have

Soldier Settlement
sent him, dealing with a matter of immediate and urgent importance to a large number of citizens of British Columbia. What arrangements have been agreed upon to make available the telegraph and telephone services in rural British Columbia recently disposed of to private interests? The services to which I refer are those formerly operated under the dominion government, known as the Pacific coast communications system.


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: I received notice of the question by my hon. friend. It has been necessary to send a teletype to Montreal to obtain the information, and the reply has not come to hand. If I may accept this as notice of the question I shall be glad to answer it to-morrow.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: In reply to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) about arrangements for the return to the lake ships of crews recently on strike, I will outline the instructions given in this connection covering both those who previously manned the ships and new men the companies might require.
The order issued by the government requires every unlicensed man, that is a man below officer rank, who was a member of the crew of a boat at the time of the stoppage of work quoted, to return to his boat and duties. If the master of the ship finds it necessary to increase his crew he is required to obtain men from the nearest national employment office. If and when an employment office obtains a request for men from the master of a ship the staff shall follow the normal procedure, and in respect to union membership that procedure is to check to see if the shipping company has an agreement with the union and to comply with the terms of the agreement. If, for example, as is the case with some of the companies, the agreement requires that only members of a certain organization shall be employed, it is the duty of the employment office to assist in seeing that the agreement is carried out. This is customary practice and one which is well understood by our officials and others concerned.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY EMPLOYEES- PENSION RIGHTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Humphrey Mitchell: I desire to lay on the table copy of a letter received from Mr. W. Manson, vice president personnel, Canadian Pacific Railway company, dated May 26,	1946,
together with copy of Mr. Manson's memorandum commenting on Mr. H. S. Johnstone's report to the Minister of Labour on pension rights of certain employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway and associated express and steamship companies. I promised to do this for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Mr. COLDWELL:: Have you the comments also of the men affected?


Humphrey Mitchell: I think that is pretty well covered.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, June 25, consideration of the motion of Hon. Ian A. Mackenzie (Minister of Veterans Affairs) that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Soldier Settlement Act to provide that a soldier settler within the provisions of the act who served in world war II who has not abandoned his land and whose agreement has not been terminated, rescinded or assigned, and a soldier settler who did not serve in world war II who has not abandoned his land and whose agreement has not been terminated, rescinded or assigned, shall be charged in the case of the soldier settler of world war II a rate of interest of three and one-half per centum per annum in respect of his agreement made under the act after the standard date in the year 1942 or the date of his enlistment whichever is the earlier and in the case of a soldier settler who did not serve in world vrar II a rate of interest of three and one-half per centum per annum after the standard date in the year 1944.
George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, certain remarks were made last evening by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) which I feel should not be permitted to pass without being elaborated upon or explained and the other side of the picture presented to this house. I regret there was not time to do this last evening, when we were all in the mood to continue the discussion. The hon. member for Rosthern mentioned that if we were going to discuss all the details of veterans affairs upon which agreement had not been reached in the veterans affairs committee, we might be here until next September; in fact he suggested that the whole time of this house might be taken up with veterans affairs
Soldier Settlement

from now until September. I should like to point out that the house has had very few opportunities during this session to discuss the affairs of the returned men and women. Many of us on both sides are here because at the time of the last election we were interested in trying to do something for our comrades, and I am quite certain that was the main motive which prompted many new members to seek election. I do not think I am exaggerating if I say that the reestablishment of our ex-service men and women, both of this war and of world war I, is one of the main issues of the day. I pine for the cool breezes of the Pacific coast and I am anxious to get home, just as are the majority of members here. But if it is necessary for us to stay here until next September in order that we may get well-deserved benefits for old soldiers, what of it?


Mr. REID:: Why September? We will go to Christmas. I am willing to go to Christmas. I am here to stay, to the last shot.


George Randolph Pearkes: If that is the only interruption to-day, I shall not mind.
Reference was made to the method of conducting the business in the committee of veterans affairs. I wish to have the record straight in this respect. While the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) gave his impressions and his interpretation of how the business of that committee is being conducted, I do not think all members see that business being conducted in quite the same way as he did.
I hold in my hand an article written by Mr. Walter A. Tucker, the chairman of the parliamentary committee-who, of course, is the hon. member for Rosthern-published in Veterans Affairs, which is a publication under the authority of the Hon. Ian A. Mackenzie. This copy, dated December 15 of last year, contains the following:
Throughout its proceedings the committee has adopted a purely non-partisan approach to all questions.


Walter Adam Tucker: In effect, I said the same thing last night.


George Randolph Pearkes: This was an article explaining the purpose of the committee on veterans affairs. It gave the same impression as the one I had received up to last Christmas. On numerous occasions I quoted that same paragraph. I quoted it, and with pride, when I was speaking to the various branches of the Canadian Legion in my own constituency at Christmas time, because I believed it reflected the true attitude of the committee on veterans affairs up to that time. But there has come a change in the attitude adopted in the com-

mittee-or perhaps I should say by certain members of the committee-during this session. I think one might divide the committee into two parts. There are what I would call the regular attendants, those who are able to put to one side their other parliamentary business in order to devote their main attention to the matters affecting the veterans whose affairs are being discussed by the committee. I say that those regular attendants are still adopting a strictly non-partisan attitude. Liberal members have spoken against other Liberal members. C.C.P., Social Creditors and members of the Progressive Conservative party have not been afraid to express views different from those held by other members of their own particular political persuasions. I believe each man has spoken in the light of his experience. I believe each has voted, when votes have been called, in accordance with his own good, sound judgment.
Those regular attendants have listened to briefs presented by various veteran organizations throughout Canada. They have heard hours and hours of evidence given by officials of the different departments. They have listened to speeches by their chairman which have been both tense and sincere. If at times they have been rather long and perhaps a little difficult to follow because of repetition, we have always credited our chairman with great sincerity and earnestness of purpose.
After serious discussion, various recommendations have been made, not always unanimously but always with the vote of the majority of those attending that committee. Then, on some occasions the committee has gone into camera sittings, when the attitude of the government has been explained.


Walter Adam Tucker: I dislike rising on a point of order, but I do suggest to my hon. friend that a discussion of what the committee has done, in general, is out of order in the debate on this particular resolution. If we are to get this work done, then I submit-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: The hon. member is
speaking to a point of order, and I would ask other hon. members to hear him state it.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: You talked all over the show last night for forty-five minutes.


Walter Adam Tucker: I would say, Mr. Speaker, that if we are to debate the general proceedings of the committee, every member has the same right to go into it as the hon. member who is now speaking.


James Arthur Ross: You did last night.

Soldier Settlement


Walter Adam Tucker: There is no question that if we are going into this at great length, we shall not be dealing with the resolution now before the house, which has as its purpose a reduction of the interest rate from five per cent to three and one-half per cent. I just bring this matter to your attention, sir. If it is the desire of the house to debate the proceedings of the committee in a general way, without relationship to the business now before the house, then personally I have no objection. It is just a matter of observing the rules.


Mr. STIRLING:: If that be the point of order I have a remark to make. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We listened to the chairman of the committee at considerable length, and he most certainly dealt with what had happened in the committee.


Walter Adam Tucker: Only, if I may say so, in reference to this resolution.


James Horace King: I asked hon. members last night to discuss only the principle of the resolution, because afterwards the house will go into committee. There will be opportunity to discuss the matter in detail in committee on the resolution and on the bill. Therefore I would ask hon. members to be kind enough to confine their remarks to the principle of the resolution before the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


George Randolph Pearkes: In order to make clear my attitude respecting the principle involved in the resolution, I should like to point out that after these camera sittings of the committee to which I have just referred, and the proceedings of which I pass over without comment, the government came down and explained its attitude. The committee then reassembled and conferred with the idea of seeing whether it was possible to come to an agreement, because the Minister of Veterans Affairs repeatedly asked the committee if at all possible to reach a unanimous opinion. There was a desire in the committee to cooperate. Unfortunately some of the later conferences reminded me of conferences I held when I was in the army, which were more on the type of an order group than what is generally meant by a conference in which discussions are held. At those meetings I would adopt the attitude and say, "Gentlemen, I have told you my plan, are there any questions? If not, thank you very much, that is all." In other words, take it or leave it. If, however, the committee was not prepared to accept all the recommendations of the government, then there would be
whining and bellowing much the same as there was last night. Questions which had been settled would be reopened. The Liberal whip would appear at the door, heads would be counted, and back-benchers and cabinet ministers would slide into their places. New recommendations were made. I realize that some hon. gentlemen could not give as much time to the work of the committee as others, but they still remained on the committee. They came forward. The only thing that really counted was their vote; it did not matter whether they had heard any of the previous arguments. Their votes were urgently required. Last night an hon. member said something about their voting against their conscience. I do not think he meant that, and I certainly would not go as far, but I must admit it was a source of amazement to me that their conscience allowed them to vote at all.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am surprised


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Walter Adam Tucker: On a point of order; the procedure referred to by the hon. member was not adopted in regard to this particular bill in any way, shape or form and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what conceivable connection it can have with this resolution? My hon. friends opposite can applaud and defend a breach of the rules if they wish, but I again ask you, sir, to apply the rules to the hon. member the same as to any one else.


James Horace King: Last night when this resolution was discussed it was said that it had been prepared with the unanimous consent of the committee. I understand that the hon. member was answering some of the questions that have been asked. I have permitted some hon. members on both sides of the house to discuss what happened in the committee before the resolution was introduced in the house, and I think I should allow the hon. member for Nanaimo to do the same.


George Randolph Pearkes: I do not intend to take much more of the time of the house on this argument, because I think I have already made my point. It is idle and futile to say that the decision made by the committee after the mobile reserve had been called in was the unanimous opinion of that committee. I suggest that the government is attempting to use the committee on veterans affairs as a shock absorber, just as it attempted to use the dominion convention of the Canadian legion.


James Horace King: I have permitted the hon. gentleman to answer other hon. members who spoke about what happened in the committee,
2S54
Soldier Settlement

but I believe now he should confine his remarks to the principle of the resolution before the house.


George Randolph Pearkes: I shall come definitely to the principle of the resolution. We were asked repeatedly last night whether we were in favour of the resolution. I am not in favour of the resolution. We were asked last night whether we would accept the responsibility of asking to have the resolution withdrawn. I accept the responsibility of asking to have the resolution withdrawn, provided that the government will give an honourable understanding that before the close of this session it will bring down a new bill giving more generous terms to these old soldiers whom we are now considering. I am not in favour of any bill that is only a half measure.
I ask the parliamentary assistant to notice the words I used, " giving more generous terms." I do not know how far he and the government are prepared to go in that respect. It has been suggested that these old soldiers be given clear title after twenty or twenty-five years to the land they obtained through the soldier settlement board. All the arguments in favour of granting such free title have been presented, such as the age that these men have reached, their inability to find a place in the labour market and the fact that many of them left their farms to serve in home defence units, such as the veterans guard and security guard and so forth, and rendered valuable service during world war II, but suffered additional infirmities because of the exposure they underwent. All these have been advanced.
It has been pointed out also that partly because their service was in Canada only, partly because they have already received some consideration from the soldier settlement board, and partly because of their age, they are not entitled to receive all the benefits of the Veterans Land Act. The attitude of the government in this connection is having an effect upon young veterans of this war who are considering going on the land. That statement is borne out by the figures which were tabled last March showing that up to March 31 only
5,000	out of hundreds of thousands of returned men had actually taken out the full farm benefits under the Veterans Land Act. This is attributable to many causes, one of which is the feeling that their fathers did not get a square deal from the soldier settlement board.
I take it the government is anxious to establish on the land as many veterans as possible. Let us give them encouragement. It has been suggested that these young men will prefer to wait for twenty-five years knowing that they will receive something for

nothing, and because they have the example of some poor old soldier of the first great war who lived in hardship for that length of time and who had some of his indebtedness remitted by a generous government I do not believe that those who advance that type of argument are in touch with young Canada at all. I think they have failed entirely to interpret the determination of the veteran of this war to get reestablished and to continue to do something for the service of his country.
The government may not feel inclined to give clear title. The government may feel that it cannot write off all the soldier settler's indebtedness. We are having examples of t'he government writing off very considerable sums, examples of government moneys being spent to buy equipment which afterwards was sold for a song. Be that as it may there are other ways in which more generous treatment could be accorded to these old soldiers. Their indebtedness might be reduced. There is plenty of time yet to reconsider during this session the bill which is to be placed before the house. Other bills far more complicated than this one have been withdrawn at the eleventh hour of the session, rewritten, brought down again and passed. Therefore I ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs whether he is prepared now to withdraw the resolution, on the understanding that it will be brought down again this session in such form as to give more generous terms to these old soldier settlers. If he is not prepared to give that undertaking, then it may be that I shall be forced' to vote for the resolution, because I do not want to stand in the way of any soldier getting even the small additional advantage that this meagre resolution offers to him.


Mr. L. A. MUTCH (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I fancy that I am in a unique position in rising to speak on this resolution, not because of my attitude toward the resolution itself, but because of the fact that so far the discussion has had little or nothing to do with the subject matter of the resolution.
I am one of those who in this house a year ago advocated the granting of clear title, for reasons which I gave at the time. I think it is uneconomic to send good money after bad. If we are not going to leave it to the house and the people of this country to read the proceedings of the committee, I am entitled to say on my own behalf that when a member of the committee brought forward a resolution to grant clear title I supported it. I think that was the only recorded vote that has taken place in the veterans committee in the last two parliaments. My word on that can-

Soldier Settlement
not be questioned. While I lost my vote on that resolution, I was one of those who, in spite of all the whining and bellowing which the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) mentioned, and now the braying which has followed it, accepted unanimously this much, that we have in the resolution now before us.
I have been a member of the veterans' committee since it was first established after the elections of 1935, except for a few breaks during 1941 and 1942. I have boasted across this country to the legionnaires of Canada and their families and friends that the veterans' committee was one committee in which members drawn from every corner of the house had sat together and done their best to interpret the generosity and good w'ill of the people of Canada to the veterans of Canada without any resort to politics. I will say that with certain lamentable exceptions we have been singularly free from party politics in the veterans' committee, and I am proud of that.
I have to agree with the hon. member for Nanaimo when he says that party lines have frequently been cut across in the veterans committee with respect to soldier legislation. Why in heaven's name, when we have before us now a resolution embodying a concession to the soldier settlers which I admit is less than on two occasions I advocated in the veterans committee, there should be an attempt, as there has been in the last fifteen minutes, to play politics, a bald-faced attempt to play the cheapest electioneering kind of politics, is something I cannot understand. I have no hesitation in saying that. I invite anybody to read the record. This is my thirteenth session; I have been completely free from personalities in this house, and I want to keep my record that way. I have given most of my time outside of the chamber to the veterans committee, and I have been proud of the associations I have had with the friends of the soldiers who have been members of that committee.
This resolution, unsatisfactory as it was to some of us, was adopted unanimously. Why should a resolution adopted unanimously by the committee be used as an opportunity to bring on a political Donnybrook in this house at the expense of the people to whom we owe so much? That is not good enough, and I protest against it with all the sincerity of which I am capable. I understand the game of politics, and I am perfectly free to meet my hon. friends opposite on any committee dealing with any subject other than soldiers affairs, but in the veterans committee politics has been excluded and we have made a contribution that has been worth while to the
welfare of the soldiers. I resent most keenly, as most members of the committee will resent and the veterans themselves who understand what is being done for them in this resolution will resent, the tone and tenor of this whole debate.


Mr. J. S. SINNOTT (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, not being a veteran I think you should hear a word from me on this subject. I am amazed at the attempt of members on the other side of the house to shift the responsibility on to the shoulders of others when they themselves were responsible for giving these settlers the worst soldier rehabilitation legislation this country ever had. They placed these soldier settlers on land that was growing nothing but jack-pine. The soldier settlers had to cut the jack-pine for a living, and when the jack-pine ran out they had to snare rabbits. Placing the veterans on such poor land, with such poor machinery, and under such poor conditions we could not expect them to be in any other position than the one they are in now. I feel that the government is doing everything possible for these veterans in the circumstances in which others have placed them; therefore I resent the attempt at this time to infringe on the right of the government to accept the responsibiliy which has been placed upon them by the people of this country.
It just shows you the difference. It shows you the advantages which the boys of this war have, and proves that the government of to-day has the war veterans at heart in every respect. Care has been taken in the purchase of the farms with which these men have been provided, to see that they are productive. Throughout the neighbourhood in which I live they have been bought at prices not exceeding S30 an acre; in the last war, on the other hand, prices were paid all the way up to $50 and $60 an acre. Now the boys have not had to pay as much, and their circumstances are altogether different. It has also been provided that out-of-work benefits shall be given the men so that they may not have to spend their gratuities, and those who were obliged to suspend their education are now enabled to resume it.
' Once more, to cut the matter short, I would say that this matter has been dealt with in the committee; therefore it would be advisable for us to refrain from threshing old straw so that we shall not be here until Christmas.


Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: Since this matter has been brought up, I should like to make plain the position of a number of members in this group in regard to the resolution. As one who is a veteran of the first
Soldier Settlement

world war, I took a great interest in the soldier settlement scheme. I have lived among, and on occasions I have lived with, members of the fighting forces who took up land under the old soldier settlement board scheme, and resolution after resolution has appeared on the order paper of this house asking the government to grant free title to the soldiers of the last war who are still on the land. Now, in order that the house may get a proper picture of the success or failure of that scheme, I would ask the parliamentary assistant, who is now piloting this resolution through the house, to put on the record the number of men, originally 25,000, who under the old soldier settlement board scheme have lost their farms through foreclosure, or deserted them entirely, or were compelled to sign quit claim deeds. The fact that a very small percentage, about twenty per cent, now remain on the land, many of them still in debt, is an indictment from which no government can escape by argument. It is the failure to make that old soldier board settlement scheme work that we protest against.
I know that since this war started these men, who are now approaching the last years of their lives, when they can do little actual hard labour on the farm, have done a remarkable job, and the little group who are left are paying off what they can with the returns they receive, which have been somewhat increased as a result of the war situation.
Let me give some actual cases from my own constituency. First I will take the case of a man near the town- of Raymore. These are his cash returns over a period of years. According to the contract he had, he was supposed to pay to the board every year the sum of $225. In 1935 his gross receipts were $350. His harvesting and threshing expenses and taxes amounted to $150, leaving him, for the maintenance of his home and to carry on, the sum of $200. In 1936 his gross receipts were $396, and his expenses were $150, which left him $240 for maintenance of the home. In 1937 his total receipts for the whole farm amounted to just $33, while taxes and repairs -there was no threshing bill because the crop was so small-left him with a loss of $50 on the year's operations. In 1938 he had an income of $274 and expenses of $150, so that he had $124 for the year to keep his family. In 1939 his gross receipts were $620, and he was repaying relief obtained during the years when he tried to carry on with practically no farm income. After paying for repairs to barn and so on he had net proceeds of $354. Imagine that man trying to carry on over the years on less than $1,000 a year! And the next year we find the soldier settlement board

clamping down on him, sending inspectors to investigate. I took the matter up because this man was in despair. They were advertising his land for sale because he had not paid the $225 every year.


Walter Adam Tucker: Did he apply under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act or under P.C. 10472?


George Hugh Castleden: What good does that do? He is losing his land.


Walter Adam Tucker: Others who did apply were given a very good adjustment. I wondered whether the hon. member had advised this gentleman to take advantage of the assistance provided either by legislation or by order in council.


George Hugh Castleden: If I had thought he could maintain control of his land and have an equity in it with any future hope of getting title to it, I would so advise him.


Walter Adam Tucker: Did you?


George Hugh Castleden: Yes, I did.


Walter Adam Tucker: And did he get a satisfactory settlement?


George Hugh Castleden: He got a partial settlement, but not before his land was offered for sale. I have another case before me. Apparently the records got twisted in the central office in Saskatoon, and they sent a letter to this man on January 16, 1941, pointing out to him that the amount of his arrears in taxes was $458. But he had cash receipts for taxes or had worked them out in labour; nevertheless they concluded their letter as follows:
We are definitely notifying you now that if this quit claim deed is not completed and returned to this office prior to the 13th of February that you will leave us no option but to recommend to our head office the immediate rescission of your contract. We are, therefore, hoping that you will return quit claim deed as soon as possible.
Another man encountered difficulties, after doing the best he could. He received particularly embarrassing instructions when he had the sum of $130 left from the year's operations and found it necessary to take his wife to hospital because she was suffering from cancer. She had to receive treatment every month, and this used up practically all the resources he had; then he received from the soldier settlement board notification to the effect that he must try to make further payments. Going back to the year 1925, this man has had gross receipts of $1,491 and payments to the soldier settlement board of $237 each year. His average income has been $783, while he has made payments in other respects each year amounting to $170 from

Soldier Settlement
the very small crops that he has had. Having a family to support, he found it almost impossible to carry on the year's operations, and yet the soldier settlement board hounded him from day to day, taking advantage, as it appeared to him, of the situation in which he found himself, to press him when he was least able to pay, thus humiliating him and putting him in a position where he nearly lost- his land.
Near the town of Togo one man took up land with two other veterans of the last war. The boys on either side of him gave up in despair because they could not make a go of it, but this man carried on. His wife stayed on the farm, and he filed on another homestead in the north. He operated his little farm as best he could. He went out and proved the other land in the northern part of the country. He finally sold that and took all the money he had and put it in the quarter-section which he had near Togo. He still found himself terrifically in arrears. The administrative office must know that the men who are left on the land cannot now carry on the necessary work and make their proposition pay. To give a reduction of interest rates under the new contract for twenty years is not giving very much to men who are sixty-five years old. Surely for the remainder of the veterans it is not asking for a hand-out; it is asking only for justice that these men be granted a free title to their land. After all, these men have suffered much. I have talked to men who were turned off their land in the bad years by the soldier settlement board. The bitterness in their hearts about the treatment they received from governments over the years when income was small is something which will live long in their memory and in that of their children and their children's children. They will never forget the treatment which has been handed out by this board.
If this scheme is as successful as the parliamentary assistant seems to imply, where are the 15.000 men who started out on it? They gave to it the best years of their work, and they have nothing. Of the 25,000 who started out. 5.000 are left, but I am talking of the
15,000	to whom this scheme was nothing but complete failure. What they think of the treatment accorded to them by the governments of this country is something which one would hate to express. These men gave the best of their lives in the last war; they worked through years when there was no possibility of anyone making a sufficient income even to maintain himself, to say nothing of being held responsible for large payments on the land. I know that reductions were made; I know that certain adjustments were also made.
Although the burden was lifted, there was still too much left upon them to make it possible for them to carry on, and the failure of the vast majority is the thing to which we must give our attention.
I am suggesting that you cannot always take the decisions of one particular province. The parliamentary assistant made some reference to the representatives of the British Empire Service League and what conclusions they had arrived at in one particular province. I have found on examining these things that very often in the smaller centres the soldier settler could not make his voice heard. He did not have the opportunity to go to 'his veterans' meeting or to carry his story to the central organization. In the larger centres it often happened that government officials took charge of the work and gained control of many of the official positions in the British Empire Service League; therefore government policy was always protected. But the boys in the remote areas had no means of making their voices heard, and in a good many cases the problems of the soldier settlers have not been heard. Many of these boys are now scattered and employed in various parts of Canada, and they have no voice in the decisions of the British Empire Service League. The British Empire Service League may pass resolutions at provincial convention which do not take into account the representations of these men who suffered and are now passing out of the picture. I had one case drawn to my attention of a soldier who had bought one of the soldier settler farms. He was receiving a pension on account of an amputation or disability incurred during the war. This pension could not be touched in any way so far as payments were concerned, but he was asked to assign a part of his pension to take care of the rent for his farm, since he had not been able to make the ordinary payments. That is the kind of treatment which makes the opposition in the house demand that the government recognize the failure of the scheme and grant these burnt-out men clear titles to their land, so that in the few remaining years of their lives they may live in peace and without worry.


Mr. BROOKS:: I rise to a point of order. On several occasions last evening the hon. member for Rosthem (Mr. Tucker) said that the committee was unanimous in reporting this resolution. The hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch) made the same statement to-day. I should like to call the attention of the house to the fact that this resolution has been on the order paper since April 12, which is over two and a half months ago. I
Soldier Settlement

understand that the reason it was not brought before the house sooner was that the committee had hoped to include other recommendations in this resolution. As the parliamentary assistant knows, two or three other proposals were made in the committee, and the committee had hoped they would be included in the resolution. After two and a half months we find that the resolution now appears before the house in the form in which it was presented on April 12, in spite of the fact that considerable discussion has since taken place in the committee, and in spite of the fact that hon. members made certain motions to have other principles included in the resolution. That, I am sure, is a clear indication to the house that the committee was not unanimous as far as this resolution is concerned. We wanted more included. I make this statement to keep the record straight. We are in favour of the two matters which are raised in the resolution, but we did want and we insisted in the committee that other matters be included. I do not think it is fair to hon. members of the committee who fought to have other principles included to say now that we were unanimous on this resolution.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: On the point of order, since the hon. member has quoted me with respect to this resolution, I was careful to say that this resolution did not embody all that some members of the committee, including myself, wanted. But having failed to achieve that, I said, and I repeat, that having decided in the committee that we were not going to get all that we asked for, the committee unanimously agreed to request that which this resolution asks for.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The hon. member cannot put that on the record-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. There is no point of order before the house.


John George Diefenbaker: I wish to place before the house my views on this matter, because I happen to be the sole Progressive Conservative member for Saskatchewan. The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) has given the government's point of view, and other members have expressed the views of the C.C.F. party. The stand taken by the Progressive Conservative party in Saskatchewan is that there should be a discharge of the indebtedness of all soldier settlers holding contracts since the first great war.
Some hon. members say that the Canadian Legion in Saskatchewan is not in favour of that. I realize that the provincial association

did not support it, but individual branches all over the province have supported it. The branch in Prince Albert, to which I belong, supported it, and the president of the provincial command is Mr. Walter Whalen, one time president of the Prince Albert branch, and latterly the representative there.
I can see no argument against granting this right to men who have suffered as few others have suffered under similar circumstances during the last twenty-five years. I have visited with them, as have other hon. members. They have gone through difficulties the like of which those who are not acquainted with the circumstances under which they live do not appreciate. There can be no argument against it on the ground of repudiation of debt, because we have the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act which regularly reduces and often entirely discharges debt.
So far as any saving to the country is concerned, last evening the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) stated that the director had said in evidence that the cost of administering the soldier settlement indebtedness amounted to some 8100,000 a year. Certainly it must have decreased recently, because in a return brought down in 1944 the cost of administration of the soldier settlement indebtedness in the preceding year was given as $646,000. If the remaining indebtedness is amortized over a period of twenty-five years under the order in council pertinent to this matter is will cost to collect the balance of the indebtedness three times as much as is actually owing to-day, on the basis of the figures given in 1943.
There is one other matter I want to mention. I may be in disagreement with other hon. members on this side of the house, but I do not believe the Veterans Land Act is being administered as it should be in the province of Saskatchewan.


James Arthur Ross: Or any other province.


John George Diefenbaker: Or any other province. I hear more criticism of this department than of any other department. It seems to be paralysed by red tape. I know in my own province those who administer it are discriminating as against certain productive sections. It is impossible to get any action-and any criticism I have to offer I express when the person concerned is present. I have often said to the minister, "You accept the recommendations we make. You give them every consideration. You turn them over to the administrator of the Veterans Land Act, and there they die." Let me give an example. In my constituency, areas that have been pro-

Soldier Settlement
ductive ever since the C.P.R. came to western Canada are denied the privilege of having soldier settlers.


Walter Adam Tucker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not like to bring this point of order up again, but I put it to you that if you permit the hon. gentleman to proceed I shall be in the dilemma of either undertaking to answer the allegations of the hon. member as to the administration of the Veterans Land Act, which has nothing to do with this resolution, and which would put me out of order, or of letting them go unanswered rather than be out of order myself in speaking to them. In any case it would mean entering upon a debate for which I did not come prepared. I do suggest that the rules of this house are laid down in order that debate may be carried on in an orderly way, and that in debating the administration of the Veterans Land Act on a resolution which has to do with the Soldier Settlement Act the hon. member is out of order.


John George Diefenbaker: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have followed the lead of my hon. friend. I thought he understood the rules, and last evening he covered the whole ground. Apparently the situation is different to-day.


Walter Adam Tucker: I did not mention the
Veterans Land Act.


John George Diefenbaker: Through you, Mr. Speaker, may I say to the hon. gentleman that he mentioned everything he could possibly bring in. To-day, however, he objects when we on this side of the house endeavour to answer the charge he made indirectly, and that was made directly this afternoon, that because we want to see certain things changed in regard to veterans affairs we should be charged with partisanship. We are placed in a certain position before the house and the country, and we are answering any suggestion that we who are not members of the committee should be bound by its findings, though to our surprise, as members of the house, that committee apparently did not come to the unanimous decisions that my hon. friend the parliamentary assistant would have us believe. If we are to be bound by a committee-


Walter Adam Tucker: Now my hon. friend is suggesting that I made a mistake.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Walter Adam Tucker: On the point of order-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Ross Macdonald: I undertsood
the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) was speaking to a point of order, but I think I have heard enough on this point. Last evening I drew the attention of hon. members to the fact that the house was considering a certain resolution to amend the Soldier Settlement Act, and requested hon. members to make their remarks relevant to that act. All I can do is repeat that request this afternoon.


John George Diefenbaker: With the greatest deference, Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling. I was trying to show that if the same people are administering the present act who administered the Soldier Settlement Act, one can well understand the difficulties some of these soldier settlers have experienced in recent years; and I was just trying to discuss the principle before the house at the moment.
So far as the resolution is concerned, I advocated this in the house in 1941. It is not something new. I believe the first person to interest himself in behalf of the old settlers, in securing a reduction in the interest rate from 5 per cent to 3^ per cent in order to place them on the same basis as those coming under the Veterans Land Act, was Mr. Campbell of the Edmonton Bulletin, who urged this action over a very considerable period of time. We are in favour of this resolution as it stands, but surely we are permitted to say that it does not go far enough.
There is just one other point in that connection. In your experience, sir, have you ever heard a responsible administrator on the government side of the house say that when the opposition says, "We support this as far as it goes but it does not go far enough," they then should be told that the government might take away the resolution because we ask for more than it covers? That is a denial of the independence of parliament and of the rights of members of parliament.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes; my hon. friends have used threats like that before; that is why they are so jocular about it, but we are not one bit frightened by threats like that. So far as we are concerned we believe this is a proper resolution. We feel that it does not go far enough, and we are not going to be intimidated by any suggestion that if we ask that it go farther, the resolution will be withdrawn.


Mr T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I have not taken part in the discussion of these matters for some years, be-
Soldier Settlement

cause we now have in the house a large number of returned men who have been overseas and who know something about the condition of those who went on the land after the first war, as well as those who have gone on the land since the end of the last war. I have received a large number of letters, however, from soldiers who were told wonderful things about what the dominion and provincial governments were going to do for those who went on the land. I thought the committee would have brought in a report which would be much more liberal toward those concerned, because as you know, Mr. Speaker, between the two wars there was continuous complaint about the difficulties and hardships of those who had gone on the land.
This idea of granting land was first carried out, I think, after the northwest rebellion, and was continued after the Fenian raid, *when grants of land were given by the dominion and the provinces. Some of those people, however, never saw the land and got shabby treatment, though in Ontario I understand they were given 160 acres. As everyone knows, the soldier who goes on the land has a hard job. Many of them had not been farmers; many had to put up with conditions which no individual should have to endure. I used to visit this committee once in a while, and in other years it was one committee which left out politics and thought first, last and always of how the returned men could be helped. These people suffered greatly through the lack of transportation and the lack of proper appliances and conveniences with which to work, though this condition has been helped through the rural electrification movement in one or two of the provinces. I was in hopes that the committee would cut out all this red tape and the technicalities which we have seen since the debate started, and that the matter might be referred back to the committee so that it could make a more liberal appropriation.
True, some help has been given by way of a reduced rate of interest. I have had letters from some who wanted to go on the land but who, after they had written and taken the matter up. declined to go any further.
I hope we shall have better success in putting men back on the land1 after the second war than we did after the first one, because conditions have been growing worse, in geometrical progression, ever since the first war. Complaints	have been made by one
and all who	went	on	the	land.	We hear talkabout going	back	to	the	land;	well, who isgoing to go	back	to	the	land,	after serving
in the second world war, if he has to put

up with the intolerable conditions suffered by those who went back to the land after the first war?
While undoubtedly the chairman of the committee is most active, I suggest he is too technical; and if he wishes to have this resolution passed he is going the wrong way about it. I can tell you this, that I receive as many letters from soldiers as any other member and many of them refer to this particular matter. These men have come back from the second world war. I do hope the committee will consider much more liberal treatment of those who wish to go back on the land after fighting a second world war.


Mr. WILLIAM BRYCE (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take any considerable time in what I have to say, because I shall subscribe to what other hon. members have said. I am a member of the legion, and also have been on a soldier settlement farm, so I know something about it.
I do wish to go on record, however, in support of what the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair), the hon. member for Mel-fort (Mr. Wright) and other hon. members have said. I have letters from members of the legion in Manitoba complaining repeatedly about the Veterans Land Act. There seems to be something wrong there. Men who wish to come under the settlement scheme have difficulty in buying farms in communities where they have lived all their days. Surely there must be something wrong with that. If anyone knows conditions in a community, surely it must be the man who was born and raised there.
When a man reaches the age of twenty-four or twenty-five he finds that he wants to buy a farm, but the administrators of the Veterans Land Act say, "No, you cannot settle here." Surely the young man himself should be the best judge of that. I do not wish to take further time, but desire only to support what other hon. members from Manitoba have said.


Mr. D. S. HARKNESS (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, despite the numerous occasions upon which attention has been drawn to the terms of the resolution, the fact remains that the debate has hinged on the question of free titles being given to veterans of the war of 1914-18, who settled under soldier settlement legislation of that time. The debate has revolved almost completely around the refusal of the government to accede to that request. The government, apparently having decided definitely against that course, I would ask them at least to give to these old soldiers some better treatment, some better reward than that

Soldier Settlement
provided in the resolution before the house. Requests from a considerable number of these veterans that they be given free title to their lands have originated, I believe, from the fact that many parcels of land after being taken back from settlers by the soldier settlement board were then resold to civilians on much better terms than -were given the soldier settler. I believe that has been the cause of much of the trouble.
In my view most soldier settlers would be reasonably well satisfied if the Soldier Settlement Act were amended in such fashion as to give them as good treatment respecting their debts on their farms as ordinary civilians have received after those farms have been taken away from the soldier settlers.
I have here from a soldier settler in Alberta a letter which, I believe, illustrates extremely well what has been going on and the reasons for discontent which now exist. This letter is dated March 7, 1946, and states:
During the month of April, 1943, the soldier settlement board sold the above parcel of land to Mr. X of Lougheed, Alta., for $160 cash and Mr. X assumed the outstanding taxes which amounted to $70. In other words he receives a clear title to this quarter section for $230 or 17 per cent of its assessed value. Below is a general description of this quarter, and also a few facts concerning this ease.
1.	It contains 160 acres assessed at $1,340.
By the municipal assessors.
2.	Of this amount there is from 110 to 115 acres of fairly level medium black sand loam with a clay subsoil. There is also another 15 to 20 acres of very heavy rolling land of the same type in the north and east portion, making a total of at least 125 acres of arable land.
3.	The balance is classed as pasture land of varying contour; but for the most part low-lying land of mixed soil furnishing a good natural pasture.
4.	There is also a spring on this quarter, an unfailing source of fresh water.
5.	At present there is .about 45 acres cultivated, but the balance of the arable land can be easily broken as it is practically free of rock and contains only about 15 acres of light willow and poplar brush which can also be easily broken up.
6.	This quarter is situated in the municipal district of Asquith, about 125 miles southeast of Edmonton. It is five and one-half miles from a village with six grain elevators and a full grade 12 high school, three and one-half miles off of provincial gravelled highway No. 13, two and one-half miles from a rural school.
7.	It is fully fenced and is bounded on the south and east by rural telephone line.
This farm was originally under contract by a veteran of the first great war, who together with one of his sons, served overseas on active service, in this second war. I've inquired of the board if he or any of his family was given the chance to repurchase this farm at this price. From their reply they have a quit claim from him and so far as he was concerned the incident was closed. No other vet of either the first or
present war was given an opportunity to purchase this farm at this price. I have also asked the board if the same reduction in value would be given the soldier settlers.
That, I think, would solve this whole question in a fairly satisfactory way, namely, if in cases of this kind the same reduction in land value were given as is given when the land is subsequently sold to an ordinary civilian. Then, to continue with the letter:
From their reply this can't be done. They can't lower the valuation to a settler, but once they receive a quit claim they have the power to revalue and can sell it to some other party for any price they mutually agree upon.


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. member knows, of course, that under P.C. 10472 that is incorrect.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is not the case. I took up this matter with the director of the soldier settlement board, Mr. Murchison and was informed by him that this statement is correct when it states that the soldier settlement board is not able to lower the valuation to a settler, although once they have obtained a quit claim from the settler they can sell the land for any figure they please.
In this particular case I made a further request that Mr. Murchison look into the matter, and the application of P.C. 10472, to which the parliamentary assistant has just referred, in order to have a revaluation and a reduction in this man's indebtedness. I have not the figure here, but I believe it stands at about $2,000. This was done, and the reply from the board was that it was impossible to make any reduction other than that which had already been made. At the same time this man offered the board $500 as a settlement of the amount owing them. That was more than twice the amount that the neighbouring quarter-section had been sold for, after it was taken away from another veteran.


Mr. HARRIS (Grey-Bruce):: Will the hon. member tell me when the quit claim was given in the first place, and the name of the writer of the letter?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I shall be glad to give all the names, if you wish. The writer of the letter is Mr. E. M. Petersen. The first paragraph of the letter stated that the land was sold in April, 1943. If the hon. member had been listening a little more closely he would not have needed to ask the question. To continue with the letter:
This is certainly a ridiculous state of affairs and leaves everything open to graft and favouritism. Now, who is the purchaser to receive a plum of this kind? The party in question came to this country about 25 years ago. He is considered to be a good farmer, a good neighbour and has a good eye for bargains. If he is naturalized it wouldn't be until 1935, at which
Soldier Settlement

time many were debating whether to qualify for the $25 per month or retain the status of citizenship of the country of their origin.
He goes on to tell more about this man which I do not think is of any particular interest; then he says:
The S.S.B. sells him this farm at a time of guaranteed prices for farm products. Any of the following items gave him a clear title to this land: two two-year old steers, nine hogs, 250 bushels of wheat, 400 bushels of barley or 500 bushels of oats which gives him an ideal mixed farming half section. It will be hard to convince him that there isn't a Santa Claus from now on as long as there is a S.S.B. in Edmonton and especially since he has resold this quarter for $1,350 cash. This deal was also negotiated at a time when the government was proposing various plans for rehabilitation of vets of this last war. From any report I have been able to get they are asking the present vets more for one or two acres of land adjoining some city or fifteen times as much for a quarter section as what the S.S.B. asked and received from this party, while they were away fighting for this country of which it is doubtful if he has become a citizen.


Walter Adam Tucker: Has the hon. member
looked into th*e facts alleged in this letter, and does he say on his own responsibility as a member they are correct, or is he just reading something that has been written to him?


James Arthur Ross: I can give you one exactly the same.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have looked into the facts, and I have had a solicitor in Calgary look into the facts, and I am prepared to state on my responsibility as a member that they are correct. I took this matter up with Mr. Murchison some six weeks ago, and he did not dispute the facts which I have given. I am not blaming Mr. Murchison in the slightest, and I want that understood. Mr. Murchison's position is that he must administer the act under the provisions as laid down. The provisions of the act do not permit the soldier settlement board to write off a man's indebtedness to the figure which his land would bring in the open market. They just cannot do that, and that is what is required. This man goes on to say:
Personally, I'm taking the stand that if the government can afford to take a loss of several thousand dollars to supply Mr. X with a quarter section. I feel that we, the old settlers, should be dealt with on the same terms and do not intend making any further payments until I get a satisfactory answer on how these values were arrived at not only in this case but also in regards to the sale by the S.S.B. of S.W. quarter of Section 11-43-11 west of the 4th which took place about the same time only in this case, the party purchasing same while he also was military exempt in both wars, buys this land, 187 acres with buildings and a well, for $200 or for about one-sixth of the assessed value which in this case was $1,158, as in the previous instance the board took a loss of several thousand dollars.
[Mr. Harkness.l
Mr. Petersen, who writes this letter, is not asking to have his debt forgiven. He says that most of the soldier settlers in his area and other men whom he knows are not asking to have their debts completely forgiven. What they want is a reasonable deal. What they want is a deal as good as that given to the ordinary civilian, as good as that given, according to information, the corrections of which I do not know, to men who actually fought against them in the last war, members of the German army. Those men came to Canada and are able to buy land from the soldier settlement board at a much lower figure than a soldier settler can buy it for himself. That is what these men want. In most cases they are not asking for the total obliteration of debt; they just want a square deal, which they have not had.
I call upon the government, as the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) has done, to write into the Soldier Settlement Act provisions which will enable a soldier settler to obtain land held by him for an amount equal to what the land would sell for if taken away and sold to an ordinary civilian.


Walter Edward Harris: I rise simply to apologize to the hon. member for interrupting. I thought the crux of this particular case was the length of time the land was in
the hands of the board, and I asked for the date of the quit claim.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.


Walter Adam Tucker: I could not answer the questions asked by the hon. member for Yorkton until we were in committee. I have a statement, it is not as complete as I would like. However, I think it will be of interest to the committee.
There were originally 24,793 soldier settlers with contracts. Of that number, 6,635 contracts were terminated either by voluntary abandonment, by notice of rescission by death, or because of domestic difficulties, up to January 1, 1926. From that date until January 1, 1932, there were another 6,244 terminations. Of the original 24,793, there were therefore 12,879 whose contracts were terminated by January 1, 1932. From that date to the present, that is during the past fourteen years, there have been 946 terminations of contracts. Of the 946 terminations, five took place during 1945 and 1946. My hon. friend is interested to know how many of them were voluntary, how many were actually based on rescission, and so on. I am told by the board that it is utterly impossible to provide that information, that during the difficult thirties, parti-

Soldier Settlement
cularly the early thirties, there were so many settlers who could not possibly make a living on some of these farms that they left them and they could not be found to ascertain whether they were willing to give a quit-claim or not, and so to clear up the situation formal notice of rescission had to be given. I understand that many of these were actual cases of abandonment and that a good proportion were quit-claims.


George Hugh Castleden: Does that include the number who gave a quit-claim and then returned and rented the farm?


Walter Adam Tucker: It includes the entire number who signed quit-claims. If they entered into a new agreement I could not- say for certain whether they are included in the number of those who actually threw up their land. The figures that were most interesting to me were those which showed that during the last fourteen years actually less than one thousand gave up their lands. These figures were quite a surprise to me, that such a large proportion of the rescissions and cancellations took place in the first twelve years of the administration of the Soldier Settlement Act.


John George Diefenbaker: Were those rescissions? *


Walter Adam Tucker: 
Douglas Scott Harkness: If I might say a word or two, it is all very well for a general statement to be made, but when you come to a particular district you find out what is actually being done and how the thing is working out. In the particular district that I have mentioned there are three farms, close to one another. Their assessed value by the municipal assessor was comparable. The assessment of the man I mentioned this afternoon

2S64
Soldier Settlement

was higher, but not very much higher, than that of the other two, chiefly because at his own expense he had put up considerably better buildings. As the thing actually worked out, this land was sold in 1943, when land values should have been higher than in 194041, at the figure which I mentioned, as nearly as I could determine, and which was not disputed by Mr. Murchison. I think that is evidence in itself that the soldier settler has not been given the deal which you and I and probably many others thought he was being given under the order in council. The land is only worth what it can be sold for in the district on the open market, and apparently all that could be got for these two quarter-sections, according to the director's statement, was $200 and $230 respectively. At the same time the other man's assessment was reduced $600. As I understand it, he owed less than either of the other two men, who had been induced to sign quit-claims and had left the land.


George Hugh Castleden: I want to thank the parliamentary assistant for giving me those figures. In 1942 there was placed on the records of this house, in reply to a question of mine, the following facts with regard to Saskatchewan. I believe there were 6,164 settlers settled in Saskatchewan under the Soldier Settlement Act and at that time they incurred an indebtedness of $25,576,000 in rough thousands. In 1942 there were 2,308 still on the land. I asked for the original indebtedness of the 2,308 still on the land and was advised that the information could not be obtained but that they could give it for the accounts from one office, namely, 730. The figures regarding these are interesting. For the 730 accounts they gave me, the original indebtedness was roughly $2,839,000. Then I asked how much in the form of payments these men had given up to date. For these 730 accounts referred to, the information was that they had made payments of $1,508,000. I asked what was the present indebtedness of these men, and I found that in spite of the fact that they owed only $2,830,000 and they had paid $1,508,000, their indebtedness as at January 1, 1942, was $3,864,000. They were indebted originally in the sum of $2,800,000, had paid $1,500,000 or a little oyer half, and now they were $1,000,000 more in debt than when they started.
I put these figures on the record so that people can see the type of burden under which these men have been carrying on and the reason why they lost hope, and therefore why special consideration should be given to such people, in view of all the hardships

they have gone through. It must have been because of the burden imposed upon them that they found it impossible to carry on. Had they been given an opportunity of paying the debt which they had incurred, and which they wanted to repay during those years from 1936 to 1940, it is quite evident that, if they could pay $1,500,000 up to 1942, they would have paid off the whole thing. What they are now asked to pay represents a burden of $1,000,000 more than that with which they started; that is, speaking of the 730. That is an example of what I mean when I say that this sort of thing requires special consideration at this time. Had they been paying off in ordinary times, their indebtedness would have been more than paid.


Walter Adam Tucker: What page is the hon. gentleman referring to?


George Hugh Castleden: I will send a copy to the minister. It was tabled in 1942. That is the basis on which we make our request. It is not a matter of political pressure, as the hon. member tried to imply last night. It is a matter of seeing that justice is done. These men do not ask for a hand-out; they are asking for a square deal. Certainly, after what they have done, they are entitled to such a deal and their case should be taken into consideration.


Mr. FAIR:: Last evening my time had expired before I was able to conclude my presentation of the subject and I should like now to continue it. I wish to refer to page 1007 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the special committee on veterans affairs of Tuesday, June 18, when the following resolution was proposed by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. McKay):
That all soldier settlers who took up land under the soldier settlement hoard be granted clear title to such lands as of March 31, 1944; that clear title be also granted to the widows, children, or dependents of such soldier settlers; and that in the case of veteran settlers who have been dispossessed of their lands during the period between September 3, 1939 and March 31, 1944, either by quit claim or by eviction, such lands be restored and clear title granted to the settler, or adequate compensation made to him.
Immediately after this the Minister of Veterans Affairs had this to say, as reported at page 1009:
Mr. Chairman, I should like an opportunity to say a word. Speaking on behalf of the government, we are definitely opposed to this clear title suggestion for several reasons, and I will state them very briefly and very succinctly. In the first place, the concession of $2,320 given the settlers under the present act is not equal to the various repeated concessions that were given to the old soldier settlers after 1919.

Soldier Settlement
My reply to that argument is that the concessions given to the settlers under the soldier settlement board can never compensate for the disadvantages under which they were placed. By that I mean that when the settlers bought the land, live stock and equipment, wheat was worth from $2.50 to $3 a bushel, milch cows from $125 to $150 apiece, and work horses, which most of the settlers used at that time, were worth from $350 to $400 a team. Shortly after that, however, the price of wheat had dropped away below the dollar mark; the price of milch cows was $25 each, and you could get all the horses you wanted at $25 each. At the same time the interest of five per cent on current accounts and seven per cent on arrears went on and was carried on the books against these farmer's. So that the concessions which were granted would not compensate for the differences in valuation, over which the government had complete control if they wanted to exercise it. Going on, the minister said:
I admit with my friend that prices were too high. I admit that the interest rates were too high. But concessions were made, and I think that the suggestion contained in the amendment is absolutely unfair and inequitable. It is not fair to the boys who have paid up and who are paying up to-day in advance. They are paying up hundreds of thousands of dollars in advance, the old soldier settlers, the men who have really worked and are working upon their farms.
That statement, I suggest, is too small for a big man like the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I find in it the insinuation that the fellows who have not yet paid their debts are not working as hard as they should. Well, as one who has lived under similar conditions and who has pleaded before for these men, I can say that they work from twelve to sixteen hours a day, work harder than any of us around here have ever worked in our lives and under worse conditions, and they were much more poorly fed than a number of us who are here. Continuing, the minister said:
If you give clear title to the men who have not worked so hard, you are working an injustice upon the fellows who worked hard upon their farms.
In answer to that, I would say that you are imposing just a little less injustice upon the fellows who would receive clear title than those who have already paid. By giving clear titles as of March 31, 1944, you will be easing up a little on the hardship that has been inflicted upon them during the past twenty-seven years. To continue with the minister's statement:
Secondly, you are wrecking the whole system of administration under the present Veterans Land Act if you are going to give clear title to the old soldier settlers.
Mr. McKay:	Oh, no.
Hon. Mr. Mackenzie:	Oh, yes, you are.
Mr. McKay:	In what respect?
Hon. Mr. Mackenzie: You are held up in this case because they may not struggle so hard upon their farms with the hope that the same tiling will be done for them that you are suggesting to-day should be done for the old soldier settlers, or a few of them who did not do so well upon their farms, possibly not through any fault of their own. I am not suggesting that for one second.
Thirdly, in your own province, sir, the legion last year at the provincial convention turned this proposal down cold in Saskatoon; and they, I think, are friends of the soldier settlers. For these reasons I think this committee should turn down the suggestion.
I was not at the Saskatoon convention. I do not know the officers of the legion in the Saskatoon area, but I happen to know personally some of the men who belong to that organization, and I feel quite satisfied that if they were given the true picture which we have given here from this side of the house and the other side of the picture from the government side, the men would be in a position to come to a fair decision. If that were done I am sure it would be entirely different from that given by the minister.
A little further down the minister had this to say:
Mr. Chairman, I should hate to intrude upon the discussion unduly, and I appreciate very strongly, as much as anyone in this committee, the sentimental appeal of those who have advocated this principle. But this principle will destroy the administration of the land settlement of veterans of the present war. I am convinced of that, and I am charged with a certain amount of responsibility in that. In the first place, there was a revaluation of the land prices mentioned by my friend, Mr. Wright. There was a revaluation time after time of the stock and equipment of the soldiers of the old war. The old soldier settlers are paying up to-day not only their actual debts but they are paying up by prepayments, hundreds of thousands of dollars, upon their settlement. There are only three hundred settlers in Canada who have asked for this concession, which means the destruction of a principle. I will not, as long as I am in charge of the administration, stand for the destruction of that principle; that is fair and clear.
I think that argument can be easily taken care of. On different occasions I have pointed out, particularly since the last war broke out, that much pressure has been brought to bear on the settlers. I also pointed out that the sons and daughters of many of these settlers have gone overseas and sent home part of their pay, and in some cases dependents^ allowances have been awarded to parents. In many cases children of the veteran settlers went to work in war factories and collected: good pay, and in order that their old folk might be protected in their declining years- and many of them have only a few to enjoy
Soldier Settlement

anyway-they sent home their money with which, along with all the pennies which the old folk could scrape together, the settlers have made these payments and prepayments. Many of us do not realize the anxiety facing these old people. Many of them are afraid of having the sheriff at the door. Quite a number of them have had that experience. They have had the experience of collectors coming around year after year, and in some cases the sheriff as well.
These people had money to spare because they were not able to buy machinery; they were not able to hire the help they needed; they could not buy materials which they should have had for their buildings. If one went around their farms and looked at their buildings, their homes, their farm equipment and their live stock he would see what I mean. I think he would agree that much of the money which has been paid in as advance payments, and which was advanced by the minister in his argument that clear titles should not be granted, should have been spent in building up the homes, farms and equipment of these old settlers.
The minister said that only three hundred settlers in Canada have asked for this concession. I pointed out last night that the petition was circulated, and I believe the minister obtained his figures from that petition. Incidentally I should like to know what it cost the soldier settlement board to get that information, to peruse the petition, to look over the names and find out who was asking for it. I wonder whether it did not cost more than $2,000 to obtain that information for the minister. We have not heard anything in the press about that. That may be worth while investigating in the Department of Veterans Affairs when they have the time to spare.
The petition was not circulated through all sections of the prairie provinces where most of these settlers are located. I pointed out that no pay was given to anybody; that those civilians and veterans carried the petition around over snow-blocked roads during the winter months and did not have the time thoroughly to cover the country. Had they had that time, I am quite satisfied there would have been a large number of settlers' names on the petition than the three hundred mentioned by the minister.
Later on, the minister said:
It is my duty to point out to the committee that the equity granted in varying ways at varying times to the old soldier settlers is $2,800 up to $4,000, and in some cases up to $6,000 instead of $2,320 under the present act.
If these amounts had been granted, then I say shame to any administration which

would stick any settler with debts of that kind, if it was necessary to make up the
S6.000	reduction.
It would appear that no opportunity was given to the committee to vote on whether or not clear titles would be granted, because we find the following at the bottom of page 1006:
Mr. Harris:	Mr. Chairman, there seems to
be a certain reluctance on the part of members present who have spoken in favour of this cancellation of the indebtedness to speak up at the moment.
If that remark did not appear I might have suggested that perhaps the members did not feel that they had full opportunity to vote; but Mr. Harris pleasantly took care of that for me. He went on to say:
My own views on the subject are well known. Therefore I move that this committee recommend that the period for applying for a writedown be extended to 1st September and that otherwise the committee take no action.
That had a negative effect on the motion. Before that amendment was carried a subamendment was moved by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), which reads as follows:
Mr. Wright: I wish to move a subamendment to the last amendment that the words "that otherwise no other action be taken" be struck out and that it read that an equity equal to that granted to the soldiers of the present war be granted to those applying for a write-down.
That subamendment was seconded by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch). When the vote was taken we find that the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch) was the only member on the government side who voted in favour of the subamendment. However, because of the mustering of the reserves the motion was voted down. The recorded vote can be found on page IV of the minutes of proceedings of that day. I am not going to take the time and trouble to place on record the names of the members who voted for or against the subamendment as I have already placed on record the names of those who attended the meeting, and all government members except the hon. member for Winnipeg south voted against.
May I now deal with the request of the delegation of the soldier settlers? These men left here on May 7 with the expectation of having some favourable word sent to them either by wire or by air mail that something worth while was being done. I know they felt disappointed when the result of the committee's vote was transmitted to them. Personally I am disappointed and I believe that many hon. members, including members on the government side of the house, are also disappointed.

Soldier Settlement
For some time I have had a resolution on the order paper, and I may say that at the next session I intend to place on the order paper another resolution which will have the same effect. I had intended to place this resolution back on the order paper, but because it contains certain statements which perhaps are not agreeable to the government T am not permitted to do so. However, I shall have another one prepared which will have the same effect. The resolution which I had on the order paper reads as follows:
Whereas veterans of great war I who settled on land under the soldier settlement scheme as well as their wives and families, have in many instances suffered severe hardships because of purchase of land, live stock and equipment at inflationary prices, and low prices received for farm products brought about by lack of adequate policy for agriculture;
And whereas we are now embarking on another land scheme for veterans of the present war, under a government policy that does not guarantee cost of production, the success of which scheme may be jeopardized by the apparent failure of the former soldier settlement board scheme.
Therefore be it resolved,-that, in the opinion ot this house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of giving clear titles to all soldier settlers who on March 31, 1944, held land under contract with the soldier settlement board.
This resolution was discussed on October 1, last, the first time we had a private members' day since the outbreak of the war. By means of a prolonged argument, including family allowances and other matters, the debate on the resolution continued until eleven o'clock and then it was sent to the committee. I am disappointed in the findings of that committee.
In conclusion, I wish to say that I, and the old veterans, do not ask for one cent of charity. I believe Canada owes those men a debt of gratitude as well as a square deal in connection with the land, live stock and equipment they have bought. They have asked for simple justice, nothing more and nothing less, and I believe they are entitled to it. Simple justice should be placed before monetary values or anything of that kind. There were 25,017 settlers placed on the land, and the average credit extended was $4,358.40. As of March 31, 1944, some 6,153 settlers, or 25 per cent of the original number, were still on the land with an average debt of $1,254, which represented 29 per cent of the average loan, after twenty-five years of heart-breaking work which would not have been necessary if a proper economic system had been organized and the affairs of the country properly managed. After twenty-five years some 4,130 settlers, or 16 per cent, have secured title. That is quite a record. The rate of interest of five per cent on current account and seven per cent on
arrears should never have been charged anyone in this country. If we would only take the trouble to study the source of money and the backing of money I think we would agree that these things should not be allowed. Some day sooner or later, perhaps too late, this will have to be changed.
Under the Veterans Land Act the maximum loan available for full-time farming is $6,000 at 3| per cent. Here again, I believe the rate of interest is too high, particularly when we consider the fact that only a short time ago we made a loan to Great Britain on which no interest is to be paid until 1951, after which the interest is at the rate of only two per cent. Do we owe our own men as much as we owe Great Britain? I am not opposed to the loan to Great Britain, but I say we should extend to our own war veterans the same rate or an even better rate. Again, many of the men coming under the Veterans Land Act are sons of veterans of the first great war. Why should they receive preferred treatment? Why should the old veterans not receive treatment as good as that being given their sons at the . present time? If a settler takes full advantage of the credit extended under the Veterans Land Act he may get a clear grant of $2,320 on certain conditions, which is equal to 39 per cent of the total credit extended. At the end of March, 1944, the average debt of the old settlers was 29 per cent of the original amount. I do not think we are asking anything out of the way when we ask that this be wiped out. These men are all Canadians.
I am not dealing with them as Liberals or Conservatives or supporters of any political party. I am dealing with them as Canadians, men who went overseas to save Canada.
Some of these men failed because they were entirely unsuited to farm life. They paid far too much for their land, live stock and implements. In some cases they were given land in dry or frost areas. At the time they bought their land prices of agricultural products were high. They paid high prices for the land and implements, which in many cases deteriorated until they were worth only ten per cent of what they cost when the deals were made. It has been admitted by the former minister of mines and resources that this was a hastily improvised scheme. From the information we have obtained and from the results we have seen, I do not think we could disagree with that statement by Hon. T. A. Crerar. It was intended as a rehabilitation measure, but actually it turned out to be a way of persecuting our old soldiers. At present the average age of the settlers is nearly sixty, and we find some still operating at eighty years of age and over. Take any
Soldier Settlement

member of this or the other house sixty or seventy years of age; put him on a poor farm, with poor equipment, with some debt to carry and an uncertain market for his products. He will find out just how he feels about it. I think we can use our imagination a little along that line. If these men could not pay off their debts in twenty-five years, covering the prime of their lives, how can we expect them to pay up now? Again let us use our imagination. Some of these old fellows will be over a hundred years old by the time the twenty-year extension of their contracts will expire, and I do not think we are going to have very many of them around at that time. As I have pointed out already, they are in need of better homes, better buildings, better equipment and some of the comforts of life, as well as medical and dental care.
As I pointed out earlier, the treatment we are giving the old veterans will have a detrimental effect on the settling of young men under the Veterans Land Act, because any man who sees his father threatened with eviction will wonder whether he should undertake a contract and also run the risk of being kicked out on the road after a certain time. Again-and this is a point I brought up on another occasion-we sold land to the old soldier settlers at values based upon prices of farm products at that time. When those contracts were made no clause was written into them providing that prices of farm products would remain at that level until these debts were paid off. This is one reason why the present Veterans Land Act may also fail; and when the proper time comes to discuss that matter I am going to suggest again that a clause be written into the contracts guaranteeing these men the same prices for the products they raise, whatever they may be-wheat, live stock or whatever it is-until the contracts are cleared up. The settler is bound by contract, and I think the government should be bound in exactly the same manner. Surely that is not asking too much.
There is one more reason why we might claim this write-off, or adjustment or settlement, call it w'hat you will as long as we get the result. Only yesterday we were told that a million dollars or more would be written off homes now being built for veterans of the last war, even before they have moved in. That is one more argument to support our claim. The cost of collection has been given as $100,000 a year. I should like to see audited figures bearing out that statement, because I do not believe it is correct. If it is accurate, why did it cost an average of $1,100,000 a year during the first twenty-five

years this scheme was in operation? Where did the waste come in, and where is it coming in at the present time?
We believe the resolution on the order paper at the present time precedes a bill that will be final as far as the old settlers are concerned. We are not satisfied with it, I do not think many hon. members on the government side are satisfied1 with it, and I am sure all the members of the opposition are dissatisfied. As I suggested in beginning my presentation yesterday, I should like to see this resolution withdrawn and another brought forward preceding a bill that would give clear title to all the old settlers who had contracts with the board at the end of March, 1944. I am sure that would receive the unanimous support of the house. If there is some influence outside parliament opposing this, I think we should be able to dispose of it. In my opinion we owe a debt of gratitude to the men with whom we are dealing at the present time. The government should certainly see to it that the promise made by the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden in 1917 to the Canadian expeditionary force should not be dishonoured, even though this government is not of the same political stripe as was that right hon. gentleman.


Mr. LENNARD:: I do not propose to hold up matters this afternoon; but, following the debate, one might be led to believe that this hardship was experienced only in western Canada. I wish to dispel that thought, because I know of many cases in Ontario. I have one in mind particularly respecting a young man who was buying a piece of property for $2,800, but who fell behind in his payments, with the result that a quit-claim was executed. Later, that land was sold by the department to a private individual for $1,400, just half the amount the veteran was supposed to have paid for it.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr Mackenzie thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 199, to amend the Soldier Settlement Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first
time.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to provide that the members of the women's royal naval services and the South African military

Veterans Affairs-Women's Services
nursing service shall be entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits enjoyed by Canadians serving in His Majesty's forces other than Canadian forces during world war II under the Veterans Land Act, 1942, the Veterans Insurance Act, the Veterans Rehabilitation Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946, the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, 1942, the Civil Service Act, the Pension Act, the Income War Tax Act, the Department of Veterans Affairs Act and the War Service Grants Act.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Would the parliamentary assistant give an explanation?


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this measure is something with which I am sure all hon. members will be in agreement. It was found that Canadian girls who went into the women's royal naval services actually had not the same rights as if they had gone into the branch of the air service in Great Britain, or the branch of the army. By some ruling of British law the women's royal naval services were not actually part of the military forces of Great Britain, and for that reason they did not get the benefit of the act which conferred rights on Canadians who went into His Majesty's forces, other than Canadian forces.
The purpose of this measure is to give to Canadian girls who were domiciled in Canada at the time they entered the women's royal naval services the same rights as if they had gone into a similar branch of the army or air force, namely all the rights of anyone who went into His Majesty's forces, other than Canadian. Those rights are set out in the resolution. Any rights which are given to them by British law will be supplemented up to the level they would have had, had they been in the Canadian forces. That is set out in the resolution as rights which they will have under the Veterans Land Act, 1942, the Veterans Insurance Act, the Veterans Rehabilitation Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946, the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, 1942, the Civil Service Act, the Pension Act, the Income War Tax Act, the Department of Veterans Affairs Act and the War Service Grants Act.
The same is true in regard to Canadian girls who went into the South African military nursing service. It was found that under South African law they were not members of His Majesty's forces of South Africa; so that they did not get the benefit of our legislation which conferred these rights on those who went into His Majesty's forces, other than Canadian forces.
The purpose of this bill is to give Canadian girls domiciled in Canada, who went into the South African military nursing service, or who went into the women's royal naval services the
same rights as if they had gone into an actual branch of His Majesty's forces, other than Canadian forces. It will put them in that position. The matter has already been covered by order in council, so far as the South African military nursing service is concerned. It was passed after a resolution recommending it by the veterans committee of the house.
The provision respecting the women's royal naval services has not been brought into effect, and will become effective only after this bill has been passed by parliament, and becomes law.
Might I emphasize that the order in council respecting the South African military service requires domicile and residence in Canada at the time of going into this service. The bill will require only domicile at the time of entering the service. In order to get the rights they must have domicile and residence at the time of applying for these rights. In other words, they must come back to Canada.
The only other matter which perhaps I should mention would have reference to Canadian girls who went into the voluntary aid detachment, who served in Red Cross work overseas or who served in the St. John Ambulance Corps overseas. The problem of what should be done in connection with these people was referred by our committee to a subcommittee of that committee. A study is being made, and the recommendation by the subcommittee will be considered shortly, I hope, by the main committee, at least when an opportunity presents itself. I can say, too, that the matter is receiving the active study of the government. It has not been overlooked, but is a matter the solution of which requires some time.
I hope that this bill which gives these rights to Canadian girls will meet with such unanimity of support that perhaps we might advance the measure some considerable distance this afternoon.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I agree with what has been said by the parliamentary assistant, namely that this bill simply carries out a matter of justice to these two branches of the services, namely the Wrens and the South African nurses.
It does not concern very many people; I believe there were only about fifty Wrens concerned, and about 298 South African nurses. Had it not been for a technicality, both the Wrens and the nurses would have been members of His Majesty's forces. The South African nurses were recruited in Canada at the request of the Canadian government and sent to South Africa to assist our sister dominion. The report from South Africa is

Veterans Affairs-Women's Services
that they did splendid work, and there is no reason why they should not be treated the same as nursing sisters who served in other parts of the world.
There is one matter I should like to raise in connection with the Pension Act. I should like to know if it is intended to amend this act in order to extend the insurance principle to the South African nurses? Perhaps the parliamentary assistant can give me my answer later on. I brought up this matter in the committee and at that time the minister said that he thought it would be looked after. However, we did not have a definite answer. There was also considerable anxiety among committee members as to whether the Red Cross, the V.A.D., the St. John Ambulance Corps, the merchant marine, the firefighters, the auxiliary services and others would receive consideration. The committee did not feel like recommending this bill until they had some assurance that these other people would be looked after. As the parliamentary assistant has said, bills are being prepared to cover the firefighters and, I believe, the auxiliary services, while the V.A.D., the Red Cross, the St. John Ambulance Corps, the merchant marine and others are being considered by a subcommittee of the veterans affairs committee and we have the assurance of the minister that their cases will be given every consideration.


Walter Adam Tucker: That is correct.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That being the case, we are in accord with this bill which will follow this resolution now being presented by the parliamentary assistant.
Mr. D. K. HAZE.N (St. John-Albert): Mr. Speaker, I should like to inquire about Canadian nurses who enlisted for service in South Africa. Some of these nurses have complained to me that they did not receive the remuneration they were told they would receive when they enlisted for service in South Africa. After they had entered into the agreement, and even while some of them were on the boat, they were told that while they would receive the amount they were told they would receive, it would be subject to certain deductions. The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) has said that these nurses were recruited by the Canadian government.


Mr. ABBOTT:: That is not accurate. These nurses were not recruited by the Canadian government; they were recruited by the South African government, and the Department of National Defence acted as agent for the South African government in presenting the conditions of service and in arranging for the enlistment of these young ladies.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Indirectly.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It was not indirectly. The Canadian government did not recruit them and their enlistment was neither at the desire nor request of nor on conditions laid down by the Canadian government.


Mr. HAZEN:: I understand from the minister that the Canadian government acted as agent for the South African government?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.


Douglas King Hazen: To put it mildly, there was a misunderstanding about the matter and these Canadian nurses did not receive the payments that they understood they would receive. It seems to me that as a matter of equity they are entitled to receive what the South African government agreed to pay them and what they expected to receive. No doubt some of these complaints have come to the attention of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and I should like to ask his parliamentary assistant if they are being considered and if the bill that is to be brought in will remedy what these people think is an injustice.


James Horace King: I would call the attention of hon. members to the rules which state that the proper place to ask questions of the parliamentary assistant is in committee.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.


Mr. KIDD:: If no legislation is to be brought down this session to take care of the Red Cross workers, then I want to impress upon the committee the importance of giving consideration to these people. The question of Red Cross nurses was brought up last fall, and I brought it up in the committee on veterans affairs on April 5. This resolution was introduced on April 12. The hon. member for Vancouver North followed me and he tried to impress upon the committee the importance of giving consideration to the members of the St. John Ambulance Corps.
I do not think this resolution goes far enough. Will these people be considered this session? I would emphasize the fact that these girls signed attestation papers and they were discharged in the regular way. Girls who attended universities and schools last fall and finished the term are being denied the recognition that is given to others.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Royal asked whether girls who entered the South African nursing service would have the benefit of the insurance principle. I think everybody in the committee wanted them to have that benefit, but the question that arises in connection with this

Veterans Affairs-Women's Services
matter can be placed quite easily before this committee. The purpose of this legislation is to bring the benefits up to a level of those given to people who served in the Canadian forces. For example, a person who served in the forces of the United Kingdom would, if his entitlement were approved by the United Kingdom, have his pension rights brought up to the same level as though he had served in the Canadian forces. In the first instance, because the service documents and everything else that has to do with the matter are in the possession of the United Kingdom government, the matter is left to them for a ruling whether there is entitlement or not. After they have made a ruling for entitlement, we supplement the payments. It has been brought home to us that the system has worked satisfactorily. Since the first great war there has been great harmony and cooperation between the representative of the British pension ministry in Canada and our own pension commission. They point out that that is probably the only way to handle it, because the British pension people have to rule on entitlement in the first place.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: This has to do with South Africa.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am coming to that. If the British authorities gave a ruling which did not satisfy the applicant and a separate application to the commission was possible, our pension commission would become a sort of appeal board from the British pension authorities. They say that if we do not follow the same principle in regard to the South African nursing service, namely, leave it in the first place to South Africa for a ruling, the same difficulties will arise. They further point out that if we did not leave it in the first instance for a ruling by the South African authorities we would be introducing a precedent that might cause difficulty in carrying on as satisfactorily as we have done in connection with those who served in the United Kingdom forces. The matter can be further discussed in committee on the civilian pensions bill. I must say that it looked to me as if it would be a difficult thing to do otherwise than as suggested. However, the door is not closed. But it is a matter of difficulty.
The hon. member for St. John-Albert brought up the question of the benefits the South African nurses expected to have received while serving. Of course this bill deals with them only at and after their discharge, so that I hope he will not mind if I suggest to him that he direct his shafts in some other direction.


Douglas King Hazen: I was asking if it had been brought to the attention of your department.


Walter Adam Tucker: It may have been. There are so many things come in that I would not want to say that it has not, but I have not it very clearly in my mind that it has. At any rate, if it did come in, I would pass it on probably to the Department of National Defence.
In regard to what the hon. member for Kingston City has mentioned, I can only repeat to him what I said at the start. The veterans affairs committee has still eleven bills to consider. It has a very heavy task ahead of it. For that reason we referred the question of the Red Cross nurses, the V.A.D.'s and the St. John Ambulance workers and other people who were not actually in the armed services, including the fire fighters and supervisors to a subcommittee of our committee for study. They are studying it and are, I understand, on the verge of making a report. I think I can say to him, and he will bear me out in this, that the committee will try to get through all the work it possibly can before prorogation. That is all I can say about the matter. The order in which the work will be taken will be decided by the committee itself. If we can get through all the work we shall certainly make some recommendation in regard to these Red Cross nurses, V.A.D's and St. John Ambulance people. It is just a matter of what we can physically do. If we can possibly do it, I can assure him that the committee will consider the matter and make a recommendation.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: I hope the parliamentary assistant will realize that there is a hardship on these nurses who have attended schools and universities on the understanding that they will be granted the same conditions. The fall term is coming along and they have to pay their own fees. I hope the minister realizes the seriousness and importance of the matter to these girls.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Everyone seems to be in favour of the principle. May I ask how many girls are involved?


Walter Adam Tucker: There is no certainty as to the exact figures, but I think there are approximately 300 in the South African nurses group and from fifty to sixty in the women's royal naval services group.


George Hugh Castleden: I think the lack of debate reveals general agreement on this resolution. I would point out, however, that it includes only the women's royal naval services and the South African military nursing service. It has been intimated that later on



Veterans Affairs-Women's Services
other groups will be brought in. There is already on the order paper a resolution to bring in a bill for the benefit of the fire fighters, but the acts under which these groups are going to benefit are not set out on the order paper. Will there be some difference between the treatment of the firefighters and these other auxiliary services?


Walter Adam Tucker: The committee made a recommendation in regard to the firefighters and supervisors. Then the government decided to introduce legislation in regard to these two groups. Various members of the committee then pointed out that in their opinion the nurses who served in the Red Cross and in the St. John Ambulance Association were just as much entitled to consideration as the firefighters and supervisors, and that if we went ahead with legislation for the firefighters and supervisors it would lead to a debate as to why these other groups should not be included. So that the whole matter was referred to a special committee for study and report to the main committee. The understanding was that in the meantime, until a decision was arrived at in the light of the report of the subcommittee by our main committee, the government would not proceed with its bill for the firefighters and supervisors. That is why they are not being proceeded with although they are on the order paper for the resolution stage of course.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Tucker thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 200, respecting benefits for those serving in the women's royal naval services and the South African military nursing service.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, May 20, consideration in committee of bill No. 57, to amend the Royal Canadian Air Force Act- Mr. Gibson (Hamilton West)-Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Colin William George Gibson: This bill was considered on May 20 and a good deal of discussion took place on that occasion. Since that time, a similar bill has been passed to provide for the naval cadets, and this contains much the same provisions in relation to the Royal Canadian Air Force. It is a very similar measure, providing for air cadets, and I hope that it will be possible to get it through to-day. [Mr. Castleden.3


John Ritchie MacNicol: Will the ages be the same as in the bill introduced by the minister's colleague?


Colin William George Gibson: The age limit is from fifteen to eighteen inclusive.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I believe the other was from sixteen to nineteen.


Douglas Charles Abbott: From twelve to nineteen.


Mr. SKEY:: I wish to ask the minister one or two questions. The first has to do with the administration or direction of air cadets. I understand that the sea cadets are directed almost entirely by the sea cadet league and supervised by the naval service, but that the air cadets are directed to a large extent by the R.C.A.F.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was not paying attention. Did I understand the hon. member to be addressing his remarks to me? If so, will he repeat what he said as to the manner of handling sea cadets.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I was speaking of the direction of the sea cadet movement, I believe the navy league have greater power and authority than the air cadet league. From my own knowledge of the subject, I believe this to be the case. I feel that if the air cadets are to progress, as we all want them to progress, and to be a strong and thriving body in peace as they were in war, they are faced with a problem of direction that calls for solution. I refer particularly to the dual authority from which they have suffered during the war years, one authority originating in the service with air cadet league liaison officers and the second authority originating with the provincial governments and their departments of education, which should have a certain amount of jurisdiction over air cadets in school squadrons. I would ask the minister to define for us the powers of the service, the R.C.A.F., the air cadet league and the provincial departments of education with regard to the cadet squadrons we propose to continue in peace.


Colin William George Gibson: The distribution of authority as between the R.C.A.F. and the air cadet league was set out in the various letters written by the Minister of National Defence for Air in 1942, dealing with the division of authority between the two bodies. The Minister of National Defence for Air approves the formation of air cadet units, prescribes qualifications as to medical fitness, and appoints such persons as may be necessary or desirable to commissions in the Royal Canadian Air Force for the purpose of serving as air cadet instructors. He prescribes the terms and conditions under which air cadets may be

Royal Canadian Air Force
provided uniforms, provides for medical care and hospitalization for air cadets undergoing training at camps, prescribes a course of training for air cadets and for instructors and officers.
The league is responsible for maintaining headquarters at Ottawa to assist the air force and encourage, by publicity and other means, the formation of air cadet units, subject to the concurrence of the minister, and makes such recommendations of suitable persons to serve as officers in the units and for appointment to His Majesty's commission, also as to promotions or retirements, and to enrol as air cadets such lads as are desirable for the units which have alreads^ been authorized. The air cadet league also looks after the award of trophies, badges and other awards considered suitable, and administers all funds received by the league.


Mr. McKAY:: What provision is made for uniforms and for equipment for the air cadet squadrons?


Colin William George Gibson: Up to the present the cadet squadrons have received a clothing allowance and also maintenance allowance of $1.25 a year to maintain uniforms. Consideration is being given at the present time, in negotiations with the league, for changing that provision and having the uniforms provided by the R.C.A.F., the units to be responsible for maintaining them.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I have no desire to hold up the passage of this measure, but I thought we should hear from the minister regarding one or two points and perhaps the committee might sit a few minutes after six o'clock. I wish to repeat my question because I feel that the very survival of the air cadet corps depends on the manner of direction, and if authority is to be divided between the R.C.A.F. the air cadet league and the provincial departments of education there is this difficulty, that they have to agree with everybody and there will be confusion. There will be no singleness of command. I suggest that a clear chain of command is most essential to the survival of the air cadet league and the squadrons in the way in which we wish them to continue.
I would also put to the minister a question which I asked the Minister of National Defence. That question was: Is the interservice cadet committee considering standardization of pay and allowances and uniform conditions of service and commission for all three cadet corps, or are they all handling their own organizations and conducting them by different- means?
63260-182^	.


Colin William George Gibson: At present they are all operating separately under the guidance of the three defence departments, but the inter-service cadet committee was asked recently to make recommendations as to the conditions of service and regulations applying to the various cadet corps so as to provide as far as possible for the same treatment as between the army cadets, the navy cadets and the air force cadets, but all will receive approximately the same support as far as that can be arranged.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I attended the annual meeting of the navy league which was held some time ago, and the matter was mentioned up there. I have forgotten what was said on that occasion. I have a friendly feeling for the proposed air cadet corps, but my memory is-and I am not clear on just what was said-that there should be no rivalry between the sea cadets and the air cadets. Is the minister able to tell us the number of air cadets in Toronto and at other similar points? Without passing judgment on this matter, because I have nothing tangible in front of me, will there be any conflict in the method of organization of the air brigade or corps, or whatever it may be called? Will there be a voluntary band of men and women behind this organization, such as is behind the navy league?


Colin William George Gibson: It is
already in being; this is not new. The air cadets were formed in 1940, but they were operating under the War Measures Act. It is now necessary to provide a bill in order that their future may be assured. At the present time the air cadets have about 289 squadrons throughout Canada. They plan to maintain a strength of about 15,000 air cadets in time of peace. That is about the same number as the navy has under contemplation.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am not going to oppose this bill, because I realize that a development along this line would likely have the same beneficial effect on the young people as the navy league has had. It would train them to love the air service, to be young gentlemen, to be civil and courteous, to be active and to attain the other characteristics which go with the training in any well organized youth organization.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Questions
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 27, 1946.