1948-03-08

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): On Friday I cited two paragraphs of a letter written by the Under Secretary of State for External Affairs to the charge d'affaires of the Polish legation in Ottawa. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked that the letter be tabled, and I now wish to table this letter which is dated February 13 last.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I should like to say just a word about the Geneva agreement, which has been before the house for consideration. Hon. members will recall that some time ago I introduced a motion respecting this agreement. The motion appears as item No. 3 under government orders:
That it is expedient that parliament do approve the general agreement on tariffs and trade, including the protocol of provisional application thereof . . .
In the course of the debate the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) moved an amendment with a view to separating the part of the resolution which referred to the British preference from the rest of the motion so that there would be two resolutions instead of one, in order that these matters could be debated separately. The idea was that the part relating to the Geneva agreement would go to a committee. I indicated at the time that the government would be prepared to facilitate the agreement going before a committee.
The matter has been gone into carefully and there has been some conference with hon. gentlemen opposite who lead the different parties. As a result of what has been considered it seems that the best means to bring about what is desired would be to have an amendment moved to the amendment which
the hon. member for Vancouver South has moved to the original motion. The amendment would have as its purpose to divide the original resolution into two parts and have them appear on the order paper as two separate resolutions. This is a matter of procedure.
Perhaps the best course would be for me to leave the matter at the moment as I have explained it and to say that tomorrow, if the house is agreeable, I shall ask that we proceed to divide the original resolution in the manner I have directed. In order to do that I will ask one of my colleagues to move an amendment to the amendment of my hon. friend in the following words:
That the amendment be amended-
(a)	by deleting the words "referred to the committee of the whole house with instruction to divide" and substituting therefor the words "divided as to"; and
(b)	by adding at the end of the said amendment the following:
"the said resolutions to be expressed as follows:-"
The first resolution would read:
That is is expedient that parliament do approve the general agreement on tariffs and trade, including the protocol of provisional application thereof, annexed to the final act of the second session of the preparatory committee of the united nations conference on trade and employment held at Geneva from April 10 to October 30, 1947, together with the complementary agreement of October 30, 1947, between Canada and the United States of America; that the house do approve the same, subject to the legislation required in order to give effect to the provisions thereof;
The second resolution would read:
That it is expedient that parliament do approve the complementary agreement of October 30, 1947, between Canada and the United Kingdom relating to the general agreement on tariffs and trade, and that the house do approve the same, subject to the legislation required in order to give effect to the provisions thereof.
I give this as a notice at the moment. If hon. members would look carefully at what I have said between now and tomorrow, if it is then agreeable to the house we could proceed tomorrow with the suggested amendment to the amendment. This would facilitate having the Geneva agreement referred forthwith to a committee. The government would be glad to facilitate that procedure and would wish to take it. I might say that I understand
Tariffs and Trade

the committee to which hon. gentlemen opposite would wish to have the Geneva agreement referred is not a special committee of the house or a joint committee of the two houses; it is the standing committee on banking and commerce. That would be quite agreeable to the government if that is what is desired.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: What the Prime Minister has said involves two points. One is a question of procedure and the other is a question of content. As to procedure, he proposes that the government will proceed tomorrow with the discussion of the resolution relating to the Geneva agreement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Only to allow the division I have suggested' to be made. That seems to be the only way in which it could be proceeded with, to secure the objective I have mentioned.


John Bracken: Yes, only in order that the resolution, which as we think includes two matters, shall be divided into those two; then both come back to the house for discussion later.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is it.


John Bracken: The Prime Minister has been good enough to indicate the exact form in which the two resolutions will come back to the house and speaking for the opposition we have no objection to that procedure.
Mr. HOWARD C. GREEN (Vancouver South):	May I ask the Prime Minister
whether it is the intention of the government also to refer to the banking and commerce committee the second resolution which will deal with the imperial preference?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The first resolution regarding the Geneva treaties is the only one it has been decided to have referred to the banking and commerce committee. As to the other the government has reached no decision. I would have to consider that further.
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Big-gar)1:	Mr. Speaker, we can give general
approval to the procedure suggested. All it seems to do is what the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) suggested, to cut out the reference to the committee of the whole house. That procedure seems more expeditious and, if I may say so, less cumbersome, and is probably more satisfactory.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): We are prepared, Mr. Speaker, to facilitate the division suggested by the Prime Minister. I

have already indicated to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) that we prefer to have the one resolution covering the Geneva agreements sent to the banking and commerce committee.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Are the peace treaties with Canada now of no effect, since Hungary and Roumania are only Russian satellite countries and Finland and Italy are also in turmoil through Russian demands upon them? Will the proposed treaties with these countries not now be obsolete?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are not on the orders of the day as yet. The question my hon. friend has asked might be more appropriately asked at that time.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. MILTON F. GREGG (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That a select committee be appointed to consider the legislation relating to pensions, treatment and re-establishment of former members of His Majesty's armed forces and of other persons who have been otherwise engaged in pursuits closely related to war, and to make recommendations from time to time in respect thereto.
That the committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee.
That the committee shall have leave to sit while the house is sitting.
That eighteen members of the committee shall constitute a quorum.
That the committee shall consist of Messrs. Baker, Belzile, Benidickson. Bentley, Blair, Blanchette, Brooks, Croll, Cruickshank, Dickey, Dion. Emmerson, Gauthier (Portneuf), Gregg, Green, Harris (Grey-Bruee), Harkness, Her-rid'ge, Isnor, Jutras, Langlois, Leonard, Mac-Naught, McKay, Marshall, Moore, Mutch, Pearkes, Quelch, Ross (Souris), Skey, Tucker, Viau, White (Hastings-Peterborough), Wright, and that paragraph li of standing order 65 be suspended in relation thereto.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, in presenting this
resolution it is not my purpose to enter into a full report of the work of my department since last year. I shall be very glad to submit all matters affecting that work to this committee and at appropriate times to the house. By setting aside today to discuss this resolution the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has already indicated the desire of the government to have this committee set up, and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I shall
*953

Veterans Affairs Committee
not kill the hope I have that it may be set up today by entering into a long discussion at this stage.
First I should like to say a word about the former parliamentary committees dealing with veterans matters. During the twenty years between the great wars a good deal of ground was broken relating to questions arising out of the old war. Some hon. members will recall that during the period when the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) was my predecessor in this department certain advances were made, but even so, when the committee appointed during and immediately after this last war came into being, hon. members who sat on the committee were faced with a, task of great importance. The new situation introduced many new features, and I think, Mr. Speaker, a word of tribute might well be paid to those committees for the way in which they approached those problems, for the evidence they sifted and the non-partisan manner in which they went at their task, and lastly that they were able to bring in the foundation for a comprehensive program for the veterans.
I think it was important that that program was comprehensive from the very start and did not come in piecemeal after demobilization had begun. It was also important that it was ready in good time, and for that result the committee which sat during the war deserves credit. Being ready in good time, the information arising out of the committee s report and the legislation of this house, in liaison with the Department of National Defence, was carried to service people in all parts of the world, and in that way a receptive spirit was built up before service personnel came out of uniform. When they did come back, as soon as their demobilization was completed the plans were there ready for them to enter into.
There is another fact worth mentioning, and that is the relation of the work of the committee to the whole Canadian population. At the end of this war the people as a whole throughout Canada were determined that this time nothing should be left undone to make rehabilitation and re-establishment work. A good many old veterans of the first world war looked with a good deal of concern on their past experience and wondered whether the fervour at the end of this war would have as short a life and become swallowed up in materialism as it was in the early twenties. The work of the committee carried forward to parliament and interpreted to the people in Canada did much to crystallize that desire on the part of the Canadian people, and1 I am
glad to say that that co-operation on their part has been sustained down to the present time.
I should like also to pay tribute to the happy relations that existed between these committees, during the war and after, and my department. The department, under the vigorous and able leadership of my predecessor, had a terrific task with which to cope. Hon. members will recall that in 1945 the tempo of demobilization was greatly accelerated when compared with that which was anticipated. This afternoon we are proposing a new committee. In that committee there will be the opportunity to find out how this plan has been working. I am free to state that as minister I shall welcome any well-conceived and constructive suggestions on how to improve on the plan administratively.
The committee may also want to hear and consider representations regarding the plan from persons and bodies in various parts of Canada.
May I say a word or two on points of detail. Following the resolution a bill will be introduced reflecting the announced increase in pensions. The government will be very glad to have that bill pass through all stages as early as possible. Whether all hon. members agree with all the details of the bill as forecast, I am sure that that would be their wish. I have looked into the' matter, and if it is possible for this bill to pass through all its stages in a short time it will be possible administratively for the approximately 200,000 files to be checked and brought up to date for the mechanism to be carried out to convert them into cheques and for those cheques to be received by veterans in the early part of April, if authority can be given by Easter. If we could obtain unanimous consent I would be prepared to recommend the approval of the bill this afternoon, and then submit it to the committee on veterans affairs for study or adopt any other procedure to make it possible. The other legislation forecast will move forward without delay. So far as the increases in the allowances to the dependents of student veterans in training is concerned I should like to state that these increases will be reflected in the cheques going out at the end of this month.
I am quite certain that this committee will approach its task with earnestness of purpose and energy, and I commend it to the favourable consideration of this house.
Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, may I first offer my congratulations to the minister on his maiden speech on veterans affairs. We have now been sitting foT three
Veterans Affairs Committee

months. We had hoped, of course, that this very important matter would have been before the house long ago. I am glad that we are now taking steps to see that the veterans of this country receive in some measure the rights to which they are entitled. I do regret, as I know other hon members in this house have regretted, the long time it has taken to set up this committee. When the house met last December it was recommended by myself, and by many other hon. members on this side of the house, that a veterans committee be immediately set up. We are anxious that the veterans of this country should receive the benefits to which they are entitled and which we all know they need.
I mentioned some few weeks ago that the great rise in the cost of living had imposed many hardships on the veterans, and as I said a moment ago, we had hoped that a veterans committee would be set up and that these bills would be passed through the house and that the veterans would have received this relief which I know they are all waiting for.
The minister has said that it is his intention to submit all matters of the department to the veterans committee. That is as it should be. The veterans committee has worked on veterans affairs for a great many years. I join with the minister in congratulating the committees which have worked in the past. His tribute to them today is well merited. He said there had been happy relations between the different parties. As a member of a number of veterans committees I can state with a clear conscience that so far as I am concerned there have been very happy relations between the different parties that worked on the different veterans committees.
The minister also mentioned a bill having to do with increases in pensions and said that he hoped it would be passed as quickly as possible.
I would point out to him that his hurry now does not seem altogether in keeping with the actions which the government has taken during the past three months. Today, after three months of delay, the minister tells us that they are very anxious to rush through legislation. I would point out to him and to the government that this could have been done, and should have been done, many weeks ago. The minister has also emphasized the great change in veterans legislation. Year after year we note that veterans legislation is never finished. Something is always coming up; new situations arise which make it necessary to make changes in veterans legislation. I suggest now-it has been suggested by many hon. members on different occasions-that there should be a standing committee of the house on veterans affairs. If a standing committee had been 
appointed last year when it was suggested, we would not be waiting until almost the middle of March, although the house met in December, to deal with veterans affairs. Instead of receiving these cheques, which the minister mentioned, in April, they would be receiving them now. I do impress upon the minister and upon the house the great necessity of setting up a standing committee on veterans affairs.
The minister reviewed somewhat the history of veterans committees. We all remember that the first committee was set up in 1916, I think. This committee started from scratch. They had no precedent to follow so far as their work was concerned, but we all agree that they did splendid work. Many committees have been set up since. That is another point which bears out my argument that we should have a standing committee. Since the first committee was set up in 1916 to the outbreak of this war there have been sixteen committees. There have been four committees since, making some twenty in all, which only emphasizes the fact that a standing committee is a necessary committee in this necessary work.
I need only mention the names of the men who headed the first committee to show the prominence that has been given to veterans affairs. We had such men as the Hon. W. F. Nickle, the Hon. Newton Wesley Rowell, Hon. Hume Cronyn, the Hon. Sir Herbert Marler, the Hon. Cyrus Macmillan, the Hon. C. G. Power, and last, but not least,
I am sure, the hon. member for Rosthem (Mr. Tucker), the present leader of the opposition in Saskatchewan and who, I am sure, will attain to that honourable position of leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition in that province after the next election.


Mr. TUCKER:: I hope to do better than that.


Mr. GREEN:: What a hopel


An hon. MEMBER:: Hope springs eternal.


Walter Adam Tucker: It is up to the people to say.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If such a committee had been set up it would not have been necessary to go through all this red tape in setting it up at the present time. Had it been set up last year it would have been operating before Christmas and pensioners would now have had their increase, war veterans would have had their increase in allowance, and many other benefits would already have been received by veterans.
This committee is smaller than the committee we had in 1945 and 1946. I feel that

Veterans Affairs Committee
in setting up a committee again the men who worked so hard in those years to prepare the so-called veterans charter should have been the same men on the committee at this time. I feel that the house and the committee are losing the valuable experience of many men who are very well versed in veterans affairs and who are extremely anxious to help in this work.
I know that these men were very anxious to be on the committee. As far as the terms of reference are concerned, the minister said a moment ago that all matters pertaining to veterans would be referred to the committee. The resolution reads:
That a select committee be appointed to consider the legislation relating to pensions, treatment and re-establishment of former members of His Majesty's armed forces and of other persons who have been otherwise engaged in pursuits closely related to war, and to make recommendations from time to time in respect thereto.
I would call the minister's attention to the fact that, besides making recommendations, the resolution in 1945 gave the committee the opportunity and the right to submit draft bills to the house, and I am wondering why that was left out of the present resolution.
Another matter which I think deserves our attention is the fact that in mentioning the armed forces the merchant marine has not been included as such. We on this side of the house have advocated time and again, and we have argued, that men of the merchant marine should be included in the armed forces. Men of the merchant marine were told during the last war, by men of high standing in the government, that they were the fourth arm as far as service is concerned. It is not necessary for me to enlarge upon that; the facts are too well known to the house. We do feel, however, that the merchant marine, the men of the merchant navy, have not received and are not today receiving the justice they are entitled to from this Canadian house of parliament.
Having this in view, I should like to offer an amendment to the resolution, as follows, moved by myself and seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South:
That the motion be amended by inserting, after the word "forces" in the third line thereof, the following, "including the merchant navy."
The resolution will then read:
That a select committee be appointed to consider the legislation relating to pensions, treatment and re-establishment of former members of His Majesty's armed forces, including the merchant navy, and of other persons who have been otherwise engaged in pursuits closely related to war, and to make recommendations from time to time in respect thereto.
And so on.
Like the minister I do not intend this afternoon to go into all phases of veterans affairs, but there are a few matters I should like to refer to. We often hear a comparison made in this house with other nations, and we are told, when we ask for benefits for our men, that our veterans legislation is the best in the world. That is a very general statement, Mr. Speaker, and one which I do not think will always bear very close scrutiny. I am not saying that our veterans legislation is not good. It is good. But in some points we feel it could be improved, and I do not agree, as has been stated, that the veterans legislation in Canada is, on balance, the best legislation in the world. I took the trouble not long ago to write to Washington to get reports on veterans legislation in that country, and I was amazed at some of the benefits which the veterans of the United States receive in comparison with our Canadian veterans.
I will not take time this afternoon to give a detailed list, but among some of those benefits I would mention that the student who goes to a university receives free textbooks, which is a great benefit to the man attending university. That is besides free tuition, which we of course give in Canada. The veteran there also receives one extra year besides the time of service. Here in Canada our veterans receive 860 a month for every month they served in the army. In the United States they receive $75 a month, but they not only receive that for the time they served in the army; they also receive a year's bonus. That is, if a man served in the army 18 months he would get 30 months' tuition at the university at the rate of pay I have mentioned. Again, the veteran who is disabled, who has lost a leg or an arm, is given a free car up to $1,600 a year. A man who is blind has provision made for him. He is given a seeing-eye dog. There are other advantages which I think the blind man should have. There is also a helplessness allowance. In Canada our men receive $750 a year. The Americans pay up to $360 a month for helpless pensioners. I might also say that, going over this list, besides what is received from the central government in the United States, every state in the American union has passed laws granting benefits to their returned men. When this is all considered, when it is all added up, it is not a fact to say that Canadian legislation provides more than any other country in the world.
I should like to mention another matter which appeals to me very strongly and that is the question of preference in employment. I am not going to discuss civil service employment; so far as the civil service is concerned, taking it in general, with some exceptions of
Veterans Affairs Committee

course, the civil service preference has been fairly well carried out. But there are many other preferences in employment besides those under the civil service.
From the very highest to the lowest in this country, there are positions which do not come under the civil service. I would mention, for instance, the matter of appointments to senatorships and judgeships. After the last war, as we all know, men, who were very prominent in the war were appointed to the senate irrespective of political affiliations. The same applied to judgeships. Taking my own province as an example, I know that during the last three or four years, in appointments, as far as judgeships and senatorships are concerned, the veterans preference has never been taken into consideration. At the present time we have a situation in the province of New Brunswick to which I should like to call attention. Chief Justice Baxter, who was one of the most learned jurists, I suppose, in the dominion, passed away nearly a year ago. Mr. Justice Harrison, who has since been acting as chief justice, is a judge of very high standing; I suppose few judges in Canada have a higher standing than he has. He was a veteran of the first world war, but he has not been appointed chief justice. Mr. Justice Harrison would make a splendid chief justice, but because he did not belong to the right political party we have to wait for the time to come when a political appointment can be made. I say that these things are not right. It is the duty of the federal government to set an example in matters of this kind. We complain of discrimination in some of the lower appointments, but if there is discrimination in the higher appointments we cannot very well complain of it when we meet it in some of the minor appointments.
There is a matter to which I wish to refer, Mr. Speaker, and it is something that has been called to my attention on numerous occasions. I have received a number of letters about it and have been asked to place it before the House of Commons. It has to do with this question of political discrimination.
I quote from the Halifax Mail of Wednesday, November 19, 1947. The heading of this article is "Political discrimination against vets charged", and it reads as follows:
Discrimination against war veterans in flavour of political workers was condemned at a meeting of the executive council of the provincial command, Canadian Legion, during an all-day session at Halifax on Monday. Following heated discussion which arose over a letteT by a Halifax county Liberal party chairman, the executive committee released a statement and the [DOT]text of the letter, with a request that both be published.

I might point out that the executive council of the provincial command, Canadian, Legion, in Nova Scotia-as in every other part of this dominion-is a non-political organization. These men are not politicians. They belong to all parties. The membership is made up of members of every party there is in this country. The only object they have is to see that the veterans get what they consider a square deal. The article continues:
The Legion's statement with the names omitted from the letter quoted is published herewith. Canadian Legion, officers said they have the names on file.
"There was a heated discussion in the meeting of the executive council of the Nova Scotia command of the Canadian Legion over apparent discrimination against war veterans in favour of political workers in Nova Scotia government projects. Particular indignation was voiced against an attitude which was considered all too prevalent"-
I should like to emphasize those words, "against an attitude which was considered all too prevalent."
-expressed in a letter which frankly stated that a war veteran to hold a government job must vote for the Liberal party. The full text of this letter from the chairman of a patronage committee to the secretary of a Canadian Legion branch, follows.
If I may comment on that expression "all too prevalent", this indicates that it is not an isolated case. If it were, I would say nothing about it. But where one man has the temerity and is stupid and foolish enough to put his thoughts on paper, there are hundreds of cases in which the facts are not published. I might say in this connection that I know of many similar cases in my own province of New Brunswick. I will not read all of the letter. The chairman sets out what his position is, then he goes on to say:
From the general theme of your letter-
That is the letter he received from the chairman of the provincial command of the Canadian Legion in that district.
-one would gather that only a veteran need be protected in this land of ours. What about the men on the home front who made it possible before, during and now since the war is over, for such people as the veteran to be taken cate of?
That shows the mental attitude of this man. To continue:
One would think some political scheme was being endorsed an, laying Mr. Blank-
I have the name here.
-off the road now under construction. Since you speak a great deal of the Liberal committee, Mr. Blank, being a veteran and not being asked his political views when enlisting; well, I think if you probe a little deeper into the

Veterans Affairs Committee
matter you'll find that when he went to enlist for a job on the road he wasn't asked that particular question either, but we did' think, and I think you'll quite readily agree also, that after being employed since early spring under a Liberal government project, plus having the polling station on his premises on election dtay, he would cast a vote in our favour. Now if that isn't protecting the veteran, I do not know what other terms it could come under, to give a man such a chance as this, then in return only ask the marking of an insignificant little "x" for John Dickey when election day came. But no, he would not consider,, and it is perfectly right that the truck that filled the gap was a non-veteran, but not a non-worker for the Liberal government.
That is the attitude, Mr. Speaker, of this particular man. He goes on to say:
May I acquaint you with the fact that these orders were from under the same jurisdiction that passed the legislation for Legion protection. We do absolutely nothing on our own.
He does not say he is doing it on his own. He says it is done by the orders of the same people who passed the legislation for Legion protection. They do it on the suggestion of someone else. He goes to say:
They are back of us 100 per cent all the way. In other words the Liberal government is running this affair and not the Canadian Legion, so if you want to take steps in any way, take them to further co-opeTation of the servicemen, for some of them want all in all. I consider they are being greatly taken care of, so much so that they should support us when election time comes if they had to crawl on hand and knee to the polling booth to cast a Liberal vote.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not think we ever heard) such a political philosophy as that, to the effect that the veteran, the working man, besides giving an honest day's work for an honest day's pay which he receives from public money paid1 to the government by all parties in this country, must give his vote to the government party. Surely the working man is entitled to his share whether he votes for the Liberal party or whether he votes for some other party. To ask that he sacrifice his rights as a citizen of this country, and to give up his right to vote as he pleases-a right won for him by great sacrifices over a long period of time-is to me, Mr. Speaker, a philosophy of nazism, a philosophy which these men fought to destroy in Europe; it is a philosophy which is eating at the very heart of this world today in connection with communism.
This, as I say, was not even an isolated1 case in that particular district, because the writer of this letter goes on to say:
I may say in passing that we dealt with a case similar to this already this summer, when
a so-called veteran boasted very highly of putting his truck on the road without consulting me. He told Mr. Blank as much as that in my presence, but right then and there Mr. Blank brought the lad down to earth and forced him to eat humble pie or else.
There is more to this letter but I do not think I will take the time of the house to read further. I do believe this indicates the attitude of this particular man, and as I have said it is quite a general attitude in many parts of the maritime provinces at the present time. The article states:
The Legion is pressing for the principle followed by the federal government in granting a preference in employment in all government projects to war veterans. They cannot recognize as valid the principle that workers for a political party have a claim on the people of this province superior to that of the veteran who served his country in the hours of her greatest need.
Someone may ask why I bring this matter before the House of Commons. As I stated a short time ago, in the first place I brought it up here because it had been called to my attention by a great many people; and in the second place because I think it represents a very unjust principle which is being practised in many parts of this country. I had another reason for bringing it up here. A few weeks ago in moving for the appointment of a committee to inquire into price increases the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said publicity was the greatest weapon that could be used against any person guilty of meanness toward his fellow men. These were his words, to be found at page 747 of Hansard for February 2:
Whatever men may be in their individual lives, there is nothing they abhor more, if they have been guilty of any meanness or taken any undue advantage of their fellow men, than to have that meanness exposed in public.
That, was one of the more important reasons that impelled me to raise this matter today. The Prime Minister went on to say:
I for one firmly believe dn the power of publicity when based on facts. Public opinion plays a very large part in determining the course of events and the conduct of human beings.
I do not think it necessary to comment further on that point. I am not accusing the Premier of Nova Scotia of being guilty of this act. I do not think he is; but, we all know it is not always the men at the top who do the mean things as far as politics is concerned. Throughout the country we have men in smaller positions, chairmen of committees or men holding small jobs which they wish to protect. They are not so much interested, perhaps, in having the premier elected as in seeing that their own jobs are protected,

Veterans Affairs Committee
and they do everything possible to this end. I think it is more necessary now than ever before that we jealously preserve our democratic principles. It may be said that this has happened on other occasions. I can neither deny nor affirm that; but today we are living under conditions very different from those which obtained years ago. Today we have thousands of men employed by the government whereas years ago there were very few such jobs, in comparison. Today some say half our people are receiving cheques from the government. I do not know whether that is altogether true, but there is no doubt we have millions of people in receipt of benefits from the government. This being so, as I said a moment ago it is more important than ever before that in matters of this kind we exercise the greatest possible care. It is not good for a country that the party in power should be able to fortify themselves by these methods and perpetuate their tenure of office. I believe it calls for a greater fight on behalf of the plain citizen, the little man in the country district who pays his taxes, who is willing and anxious to work. He should be given the same protection, and should enjoy the same benefits from the taxes he and his friends pay, as the man who votes for a certain party. These job holders have become arrogant and arbitrary. They are the little dictators, the little tyrants of the political party in their own districts. As I said before, their main idea is to keep their government in power so they may protect their jobs. I should like to read what Musquodoboit harbour branch No. 82 of the Canadian Legion had to say about this letter:
The incredibly offensive tone of that letter is an almost unbelievable insult to every ex-service man. For an agent of a political party to make such a statement that veterans should be willing to crawl on their hands and knees to the polling booth to vote Liberal-presumably in gratitude for the benefits of D.V.A.-is a dangerous, tactless provocation of the cheapest kind . . .
If there is any point of gratitude involved in veterans' affairs it should surely be gratitude on the part of people like the patronage chairman that they are not now having the hide whipped off them in an SS concentration camp.
I have made inquiries, Mr. Speaker, and it would seem to me that this man in particular should have been dismissed. That is one of the things which should have been done immediately this was made public. My understanding is that it has not been done. An example should be made of this man and others guilty of such offences; that is the only way to clear up a situation which I

know is becoming more prevalent all the time, at least in the maritime provinces.
A few weeks ago I discussed veterans affairs in some detail. The minister says all such matters are to be sent to the committee, and as a member of that committee I will have an opportunity to discuss them there. Therefore I have no further remarks to make this afternoon.


Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be brief in my remarks. I believe I speak at least for the members from my province on this side of the house when I say that we have approximately one hundred veteran members of the House of Commons, and we desire that such legislation as has been brought down, or is to be brought down, should be put into effect as soon as possible. I also believe it is our desire to get the committee set up in an endeavour to help the veterans of Canada. If each of the one hundred veteran members of this house makes a forty minute speech dealing with individual political cases, however, when will the veterans of Canada get any justice?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Not individual cases.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I agree with the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) in his opening remarks; but if each of us brings up individual cases, however just they may be, of veterans being fired or not getting certain jobs, we will never do anything for the veterans as a whole. I am perfectly sure that the members from British Columbia sitting on this side of the house will not adopt that approach. We do not believe in that in British Columbia.
I am not quite sure what my hon. friend's amendment was. If I understood it perhaps I could support it, though I think it is covered in the resolution itself. However, I am very glad to see that the hon. member for Royal has adopted my stand in connection with the merchant marine. Last year I was given a verbal spanking by my own minister for what I said in this connection.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I have always advocated that.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I did not interrupt you when you read your essay about the unemployed veterans in the maritime provinces, so don't interrupt me.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I did not make any mistakes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No, and you did not do anything for the merchant marine last session. As I understand it, I do not see why

Veterans Affairs Committee
I cannot support the amendment, though I believe it is covered in the resolution, in these words:
, . . and of other persons who have been otherwise engaged in pursuits closely related to war, and to make recommendations from time to time in respect thereto.
If that does not cover it, then I shall be glad to support the hon. member's amendment. I was pleased with the new minister's statement in this connection. However, I should like to give credit to the former minister. I did not always agree with him, and in fact at one time last year he undertook to spank me verbally in connection with the merchant marine. But I got five favourable editorials in the newspapers and he got none. I want to pay a tribute to the work he did for many years as minister. I know he was not always popular with my own branch of the Legion, but I want to tell the members of my own branch of the Legion and the members of his party and the House that in so far as he could influence the government he did his utmost at all times for the veterans of Canada.
There is one thing which I am sorry the hon. member for Royal did not mention. I think we should get this committee set up in order to deal with war veterans allowances. If there is any group in Canada in need of immediate attention it is those in receipt of veterans allowances. Their allowances are totally inadequate. I think also the new scale of pensions as recommended is inadequate. For goodness' sake let us get this committee set up and not have each one of us making a forty minute political speech. Let us get this committee set up so that we can help the veterans.
Reference was made to the fact that veterans were not given preference in making appointments to the other place. If there is any class of veteran in the whole Dominon of Canada that is being ill treated, in my opinion it is the totally disabled. With all due respect to those who are totally disabled I can think of no better place to send them than to the other place. That might solve one problem.
There is one point I should like to refer to. Apparently the whole history of veterans in the maritimes is that of men who did not get jobs. There have been only three appointments made in my riding since 1940. The organizer for the C.C.F. got one and Conservatives got the other two. Let us get away from this penny-ante stuff; let us get this committee set up. I know we can work with the opposition members on that veterans committee. As the hon. member for Royal said, we got on quite well in the two previous veterans committees. We had our little disputes, but on the whole we worked quite well together.
I cannot speak for all hon. members, but I know I speak for British Columbia members when I say that we are desirous of getting into committee immediately and getting this legislation, such as it is, placed on the statute book in order that these men may get their cheques. Then we can do our utmost in the committee to see that the veterans receive a more adequate pension than is provided by the amendment, and also that those in receipt of veterans allowance are taken care of.


Mr. E. B. McKAY (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, I desire at this time to make a few observations with regard to the resolution to set up a select committee on veterans affairs. This committee is to consider legislation relating to pensions, treatment and re-establishment of former members of His Majesty's armed forces and of other persons who have been otherwise engaged in pursuits closely related to war. That seems to me to be a very large order. There are in this country 800,000 veterans of the last world war. When one adds to that number the veterans of world war I and their dependents, as well as the dependents of the second world war veterans and all the groups related to the various pursuits that were close to war such as the merchant marine, the nursing services, the men who flew in ferry command and the fire fighters, the total of those we have to deal with assumes staggering proportions.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is one of the heavy departments dealing with national welfare, and it certainly is one of the most important. When the estimates of this department are brought before the house they are subjected to the closest scrutiny. They are frequently held up, however, by the discussion of special cases. These special cases have to be dealt with but I do not consider the floor of the house is the place to do it. These special cases, or perhaps they might be called marginal cases, have to be considered by some person or some group in authority. I suggest that in order to facilitate the passage of the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs a permanent parliamentary committee be set up. There is no doubt in my mind that weeks could be lopped off every parliamentary session if a permanent committee on veterans affairs was functioning throughout the session. There was no committee last session, and the passage of the estimates of this particular
Veterans Affairs Committee

department was slow and tedious, despite the fact that we had a minister who was genial and co-operative. I submit that in the best interests of the veterans at large and of the proper conduct of the work of this house it would be wise to set up a permanent parliamentary committee to deal1 with veterans problems.
There are a great many problems to be considered by the suggested committee. I shall refer to only a few of them because I do not want to be accused of holding up this resolution. I believe the whole schedule of pensions and the schedule of allowances referred to by the previous speaker should be revised. Pensions and allowances still remain at the basic rate which was struck in 1926. There have been a few adjustments made but they are totally inadequate and still insufficient to enable the veteran, and his family to enjoy the standard of living which the schedule of 1926 intended them to have. The present pensions are inadequate because of the increased cost of living and because today the Canadian standard of living is higher than it was twenty-two years ago.
I feel also that the single veteran student should have been included in the recent increases granted to recipients of training allowances. These young men and women are experiencing grave, difficulty in carrying on their courses because of financial need. They receive S60 a month, which seems a considerable figure to some of us who struggled through university on much less, but the cost of living in those days was nothing compared to what it is today. I suggest that because of the increase in the cost of living-it has gone up about twenty-five per cent since 1944-the training allowances schedule be revised upward. It seems only fair that the single veteran student should be included along with the married veteran in the change of schedule rates.
I would also wish that the committee be again allowed to consider the granting of clear title to the soldier settlers of 1919. There is still an average of over $1,000-SI,089, to be exact-against each farm unit after the passage of twenty-nine years. These men have struggled for years trying to make ends meet. Surely after twenty-nine years it is time to right this wrong and rectify an injustice. The interest rates were too high; this has been generally conceded, and care was not exercised in many cases in the choice of land. Others were the victims of circumstances. I hope this matter may be again discussed in the committee.

Another matter which deserves the serious consideration of the committee is the rehabilitation of Canada's merchant seamen, the fourth arm of the service, as they were frequently called. As far as I am aware there are no merchant seamen in my constituency, but I do feel that the merchant seamen have been the victims of an injustice. I feel that they should have received the same rehabilitation grants and more particularly the same training allowances, as veterans received. True, they were not in uniform, but they rendered an invaluable service to Canada in her hour of greatest danger. Their casualties were heavy, their sufferings great. These brave men should be given an opportunity to make representations to the committee. That same opportunity should be given to a few other groups I shall mention. I feel that we should ask for representations, for instance, from the men of the ferry command, the fire fighters, war amputations, and the nursing services.
Finally I think there ought to be an investigation into the failure of the Veterans Land Act. It has failed to provide farms for thousands of veterans who have been clamouring for land in the west. Settlement has been slow, too slow. Many have been unable to get established despite the fact land is available everywhere. The loan granted is inadequate. I said so two years ago in this house. It is even more true today. The administration of the act appears cumbersome and inefficient. A recent return made in this house gives us some interesting figures regarding the slowness of settlement and the cost of loans to veterans. These figures are taken from sessional paper 134E, 1948. It shows that only 846 veterans were settled under the Veterans Land Act in 1947 in the province of Saskatchewan. The total number settled since 1943 in Saskatchewan up until December 31, 1947, the end of the last calendar year, was only 4,029. That is an average of approximately 1,000 veterans settled per year. The number of veterans who desire land in Saskatchewan has been estimated at some 30,000. That estimate was arrived at by taking the number of veterans who had enlisted from Saskatchewan in this war and comparing it with the number of veterans who were settled under the old soldier settlement scheme of 1919. Settling our veterans on land at the rate of 1,000 per year is not fast enough. At this rate it will take from twenty-five to thirty years to do the job and accommodate the men who want land.
The expenses for administration under the Veterans Land Act also appear to be excessive. In Saskatchewan alone, according to this same sessional paper, there were paid under the

Veterans Affairs Committee
Veterans Land Act for travelling expenses, $39,009.40; salaries, $318,129.64; rent, local, $127; miscellaneous, $40,536.28. There was also a further amount paid by the Department of Public Works for rent, light, heat, taxes and so forth, the figures for which are not given in the return. The total expenses for 1947 for administration were $397,848.32 by the figures revealed. When one divides this cost by the 846 loans which were approved in the province of Saskatchewan in 1947 it works out at $470 per loan. Added to that of course must be the pro rata share of the extra expenses paid by other departments, mainly public works, for rent, light, heat and that sort of thing, for which no figures are given in the return. The total amount of money lent to veterans in Saskatchewan for 1947 was $3,588,790, or an average loan of $4,240. Therefore the cost of administration is more than eleven per cent, plus the extras previously referred to, which might run to another ten per cent.
This indicates an unsatisfactory state of affairs. The whole program under the Veterans Land Act ought to be thoroughly scrutinized and most carefully investigated.
It must be apparent to all, Mr. Speaker, certainly to all members of this house, that there is a great deal of work to be done by this select committee on veterans affairs. I feel it is a matter for some regret that the committee was not set up earlier. There are many important and urgent problems to be dealt with. It is my hope, however, that much can be done in the weeks ahead to assist the veteran in the solution of the many grave problems with which he is confronted today.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief because I am a member of the committee and shall have plenty of opportunity there to say what I think should be done. We in this group appreciate the work and the sincerity of the former minister of veterans affairs, and we are afraid that the present minister will in all probability run into the same obstacle his predecessor so often ran into, namely, adverse decisions of the treasury board.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Oregg) this afternoon gave us the assurance that the terms of reference of the committee would be wide enough to permit all matters relating to his department to come before the committee. After reading the terms of the reference I should have thought they were wide enough to permit a full discussion of the merchant navy without the moving of the amendment, because, as I remember it, the
merchant navy was not specifically mentioned in former terms of reference; nevertheless we did discuss the merchant navy in former committees.
It will be recalled that at the time the veterans charter was being considered by the special committee on veterans affairs in 1946, a great deal of dissatisfaction was expressed at the inadequacy of some of the measures contained therein. Subsequent events have proven that the dissatisfaction was justified at that time. Consequently the failure of the government to bring down certain amendments to veterans legislation has, in many cases, caused extreme hardship.
Having in mind that the Department of Veterans Affairs will be making heavy expenditures on behalf of veterans for a number of years and that veterans problems will continue to be acute ones in the future, we also think it would be a good idea if the government would make the committee on veterans affairs a standing one, so that from year to year the committee would be in a position to deal with various matters relating to veterans without having to wait for several years before a special committee was set up.
We in this group would like to join in the protest that has been made regarding the inadequacy of the government's proposal with reference to an increase in disability pensions. We do not believe that such a low rate can be justified, having in mind that the cost of living, apart from rent, has increased by 40 per cent since the rate of pensions was last set. We feel that the legion request for a 25 per cent increase for all beneficiaries under the Pension Act is a reasonable one. Then, the present procedure of reducing pensions of veterans of world war I when examination shows a reduction in their disability is an extremely vicious one. After all, it is approximately thirty years since the first war, and the average age of the veteran is now fifty-nine; yet the government apparently tries to save a few dollars by penalizing those old veterans, and the consequence of that has been some tragic incidents, incidents that we have all regretted. Since that time most people, I think, feel it would have been a good idea if the government had made the present rate of pensions for veterans of world war I the floor, and that any revision made in the future should be upwards only.
I should like to say a few words with respect to the War Veterans Allowance Act. Probably some of the most tragic cases of hardship may be found amongst recipients of the war veterans allowances. I want to make it clear, however, that I am not for one min-
Veterans Affairs Committee

ute criticizing the administration of the act. I believe that those responsible for the administration of the act have always gone out of their way to be as generous as the act permits. The whole trouble is that the amount payable under the act is altogether too low to meet the current cost of living, and this is further aggravated by the ceiling on additional income. We feel that the rates should be raised at least to the level of $50 a month, without any means test. I think the means test is the main curse of the War Veterans Allowance Act. Furthermore, the ceiling allowed is restricted by the regulations governing the method by which the additional income may be earned or acquired. An additional income of $400 a year is allowed, of which only $250 may be earned income, $125 casual earnings and $25 interest from investment. If there were no strings attached to the additional income, if the veteran were allowed $400, it would not be quite so bad. To have a ceiling of $400 for additional income is altogether too low. If the government is not prepared to remove the means test, at least it could allow the veteran to have an income up to the amount of the exemption from income tax, which would be $1,500 at the present time.
I should like to say a few words regarding student veterans. We have received many letters from student veterans with regard to the scale of allowances and the fact that many of them have had to discontinue their studies on account of lack of funds. I cannot understand how any veteran would have to give up his studies on account of lack of funds, having in mind the fact that in the committee we dealt with legislation to grant to student veterans loans of $2,000. Therefore, when I received a brief from the National Council of Student Veterans of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba on this question I wrote to them asking how it was that veterans were having to discontinue their studies. I asked them whether or not these veterans had made use of the loan, and I should like to quote one part of the letter which I received with reference to these loans. The writer says:
Regarding point (1) above, I agree with you that the terms of the loan are easy. The problem that many students have is in obtaining the loan. Apparently individual universities vary considerably in their conditions which determine eligibility for the loan. For example, a certain eastern university has discouraged the loan practice to such an extent that the students have lost hope of even attempting to obtain it. At the other extreme is a western varsity which can produce a long list of satisfied loan seekers. The students merely ask and they receive. I have had personal experience with the loan board of the University of

Saskatchewan. On this campus the loan is viewed as an emergency measure only, and money is not given out unless definite proof is presented in the form of doctor bills, promissory motes, etc.
This letter is signed by Donald French, representative of the National Council of Student Veterans. I was quite surprised to get this letter, because when we discussed this matter in committee we were given to understand that these loans would be made available to help any student who found he was not able to carry on his studies. We now find that definite limitations are being placed upon the use of the loans. Therefore I urge the minister to make a thorough investigation into the whole question of loans in the various universities throughout the country to find out just what restrictions are being imposed upon the use of the loans and why in any one university loans can be granted, and yet, under exactly similar circumstances, a loan may be refused in another university.
Another matter which should be investigated is the present rate of taxation being charged settlers on small holdings under the Veterans Land Act. The intention of the act relating to small holdings, as originally drafted in 1942, was the settlement in semi-urban areas on a limited acreage with the opportunity to augment the small regular incomes. One of the main advantages was that of low taxes. The regulations set a ceiling of approximately $60; yet today we find that on some projects the settlers are having to pay taxes as high as from $150 to $270. There is a vast difference between $60 and $270. I have a brief on this question from settlers in the Bowness project, and I shall bring it before the committee when it is set up. If he has not already done so I hope that the minister will make a full investigation into the Bowness project to find if some form of relief cannot be given in that case. If it is not possible for the municipality to reduce the taxes, then I think there is some responsibility on the federal government to try to take care of the situation.
In closing I should like to say that some consideration should be given to the demands of the fire fighters in view of the fact that a definite promise was given to them upon enlistment that they would be considered in the same category as the men who served in the armed forces. We also feel that further consideration should be given to the merchant seamen. It is not necessary for me to refer to the wonderful record of these men to show that many of them served in far more

Veterans Affairs Committee
dangerous areas than many men who today are getting the full benefit of the veterans legislation.
Mr. HOWARD C. GREEN (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, in the course of the debate on the speech from the throne I spoke on February 19 about various aspects of veterans affairs, and I have no wish to cover the same ground today. However, there are three other points I should like to raise, and if the house will bear with me for a few minutes I shall try to make them clear.
In the first place, I urge that the minister and every member of the house accept the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) and seconded by myself. As you will have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that amendment merely adds, after the words "His Majesty's armed forces", the further words "including the merchant navy". So that if the amendment is carried, the first paragraph of the resolution we are considering today will read:
That a select committee be appointed to consider the legislation relating to pensions, treatment and re-establishment of former members of His Majesty's armed forces, including the merchant navy, and of other persons who have been otherwise engaged in pursuits closely related to war. and to make recommendations from time to time in respect thereto.
I suggest to hon. members that it will be of value to the committee if this resolution is adopted with the amendment included, because the committee may then take it that the merchant navy should be treated as the fourth arm of the services. During last session we had several debates on the question of whether or not the merchant navy men had received proper consideration; and personally I have been of the opinion, and I am today, that there is not a member in this house who does not believe that these men should be treated as though they had served in an arm of the forces. Therefore I suggest that we make it quite clear at this time by including the four words proposed.
I would refer hon. members to a promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on July 8 of last year, to be found at page 5210 of Hansard. He entered the debate on the question of whether the veterans preference in the civil service should be extended to men in the merchant navy, and he said:
.... the proper way to proceed would be to have the position of the merchant seamen further considered at another session of parliament. I will undertake to say that I would advocate that that course should Ve taken before a special committee in the light of what has been said here this afternoon.
If we go back to the speech from the throne in 1945 we find the following:
Our country will ever remember with pride the heroic exploits of Canada's fighting men and merchant seamen.
This implies that the government in 1945 considered that the merchant seamen were, in effect, the fourth arm of the services. I have here a magazine. Searchlight, published by men in the merchant marine, and it contains a statement by the Hon. Mr. Michaud. I notice the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) is smiling. There is a statement by him in the same publication, much to the same effect.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I am not smiling. There is no law against it. I would not smile at my hon. friend; he takes himself too seriously.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has a pleasant smile and I am glad to see him smiling today. This is a statement by the Hon. J. E. Michaud, published in February, 1945:
No other body of men in Canada's fighting services has done more for the cause of freedom than those unsung heroes of the sea-the merchant seamen. All our war effort would be unavailing if it were not for the heroic devotion to duty of Canadian and other seamen of the allied nations. Merchant seamen virtually form the fourth arm of the fighting services.
There are statements to the same effect by several other ministers. In the proceedings of the veterans affairs committee of 1946 hon. members will find at page 41 this statement in a summary of evidence that had been taken by departmental officials in the recess between the two sessions. Mr. Randles, who was head of merchant shipping in Canada for a portion of the war-


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Director of merchant seamen


Howard Charles Green: Director of merchant
shipping.


Lionel Chevrier: Merchant seamen.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Randles stated that the percentage of casualties in the merchant marine was greater than in any of the other services, and I think that statement is correct.
The hon. member for Royal and myself suggest that this position be settled today by including the merchant navy as the fourth arm of the services. If the house sees fit to vote down that amendment, on the other hand, it means that those who vote against the amendment will be saying that the merchant navy was not actually the fourth arm of the services and. I think, they will be doing a great injustice to those brave men.
We found during the committee sittings of 1946 that the merchant seamen were falling
Veterans Affairs Committee

between two departments. They were, in the first place, the charge of the Department of Transport. Then, if they were to get adequate pensions and other benefits that were available for ex-service men, they had to get them from the Department of Veterans Affairs. I felt throughout the sittings that we were failing to give them proper consideration largely because they fell between the two departments. I suggest, therefore, that we make it absolutely clear that the committee is to see that they get justice in 1948.
There was also some objection by the government to including merchant seamen in the benefits, because we were told it would be hard to define just who should be considered merchant seamen, who should be entitled to get the benefits. I would point out that there is no longer any need to worry about that score, because we have here Bill G, passed by the senate this year, being an amendment to the Veterans Insurance Act, and in that bill we find a definition of merchant seamen which could be used in the other veterans legislation. That definition is:
(d) with a merchant seaman who received or was eligible to receive a bonus pursuant to the merchant seaman special bonus order, at any time within three years after the 31st day of August, 1946.
I do not think anyone can question that there has been and is today great unfairness to these men in the failure to give them consideration. I would point out to the minister that a merchant seaman cannot get a pension for a disability suffered or for a disease incurred unless that disability or that disease can be traced directly to enemy action. In other words, if he was disabled while at sea through the rolling of his ship, then he could get no compensation whatever; or if he contracted a tropical disease while in the tropics, or a disease in the orient, he could get no compensation. And, mind you, we have many such cases in Vancouver, because Vancouver is a great seaport. We have a great many men who served in the merchant navy. It is almost necessary for such a man to have been hit by enemy fire in order to qualify for the pension, and that certainly is a most unfair situation.
Then he cannot take training, he cannot get vocational training unless he trains for the sea. We had many thousands of men at sea during the war. In peacetime we have a comparatively small number. There is no chance for the great majority to go to sea again, and yet they cannot get vocational training unless they take it in connection with a seafaring life.

They cannot get educational benefits. The merchant seaman who may have been torpedoed two or three times sits at the same desk in university with the man who did not serve outside Canada. Yet the merchant seaman gets no help and the other lad does. I do not think anybody can suggest that is a fair procedure. Merchant seamen cannot take up a holding under the Veterans Land Act unless they happen to be pensioners, and there are only about thirty-two or thirty-three merchant seamen who are pensioners. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) can correct me on the figure, but I believe it is under fifty for the whole war period. They cannot qualify for a business or professional loan, and they do not get any preference in the civil service. I suggest that this house face the fact that the merchant seaman is getting a raw deal in Canada today; and that the first step to remedy that situation is by accepting this amendment directing this committee to see that fair treatment is meted out to him.
That is the first subject I place before the house today. The second is this. I cannot say too emphatically, that the veterans affairs committee of 1948 must be allowed to make its own decisions and must not become a creature of the government. That happened in 1946, and it greatly detracted from the reputation established by veterans affairs committees throughout the years.


Walter Adam Tucker: I object, Mr. Speaker.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, now, now.


Walter Adam Tucker: I suggest that the hon. member, in saying that members of the committee became creatures of the government, is not doing justice by that committee or the members thereof. He has no right whatever to suggest that the members of that committee, individually or collectively, became creatures of the government. I object to that statement, and I ask that he withdraw it.


Howard Charles Green: I am not surprised, Mr. Speaker, at the hon. member for Rosthern blowing a fuse over that statement.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am not surprised in any way at the hon. member.


Howard Charles Green: I did not say that the members became creatures of the government. I said that the committee became a creature of the government, and I repeat that statement.


Walter Adam Tucker: That is the same thing.


Howard Charles Green: I shall explain just how that happened. The committee were considering amendments to the Pension Act, and certain

Veterans Affairs Committee
amendments were accepted unanimously by that committee. One of them was an amendment haying to do with the matter of presumption with regard to pre-enlistment condition. I intend to deal with that further a little later on. Another amendment had to do with the deadline. In the Pension Act there is a deadline which provides that if a veteran of the first war marries after May 1, 1944, the wife cannot qualify for an allowance, and any children by that wife cannot qualify for an allowance. This special committee in 1946 brought in and adopted unanimously recommendations to deal with both of these situations. I have before me here a copy of the proceedings of that committee, if the hon. member for Rosthern has forgotten. But he was chairman of the committee, and I am quite sure he has not forgotten, because we had a considerable row about it at the time. After those recommendations had been accepted by the committee, government members were sent in to a meeting held three or four days later; we had come in government members who had taken no part, or very little, in the proceedings of the committee up to that time. There were several ministers there. Perhaps the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) was one of the reinforcements; parliamentary assistants were also brought in. A motion was moved wiping out those recommendations and substituting recommendations which the government wanted. That is why I say the committee was made a creature of the government, and I say that must not happen again.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker-


Howard Charles Green: That was done, of course, so that the government would not have to reject in the house the recommendations made by the veterans affairs committee. But it was most unfair to the committee, and I am going to tell the house-


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. member, Mr. Speaker-


Howard Charles Green: I have the floor.


Walter Adam Tucker: On a point of order-


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Rosthern may make his own speech.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am not trying to make a speech at all. The hon. member for Vancouver South made a statement that the committee was reduced to the status of a creature of the government. I suggest that this was an unparliamentary statement. It was unfair and unjust to the committee and to the members of it. The excuse that the 5849-125
hon. member has made for making that statement does not justify it at all, because all the members of the committee attended and came to the final decision on the matter. That does not justify him in saying that the committee was a creature of the government. I suggest that it is not parliamentary.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Rosthern is going just a little too far. He is saying when all the members came and made a final decision, it was different. It was not a matter of making a final decision. The decision had been made before. Then the government members came in later and reversed it. That is what happened. I have in my hand-


Walter Adam Tucker: It was the decision that was finally given to this house. That is the final decision and the hon. member cannot get away from that.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Rosthern just cannot take it. He was like this in the committee. One day we had him rushing out of the chair like a bull rushing out of a china shop.


Walter Adam Tucker: I thank the hon. member for his remarks. But I still say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a reflection on the committee which was unfair and unjust.


Howard Charles Green: There is a second fuse blown, Mr. Speaker. I shall just read-


Walter Adam Tucker: I suggest that the hon. member who suggested that I blew a fuse has made an unparliamentary remark. I have not blown any fuse at all. The hon. member apparently thinks he is smart and clever in making that statement.
Some hon. MEMBERS : Order.


Walter Adam Tucker: I say the hon. member has not any more right to say that than I have to say that he is making a foolish and silly statement.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):: Order. I do not see that there is any point of order raised. I do not think it is out of order to say that the committee was a creature of the government, as was said by the hon. member for Vancouver South. I do not know that there is anything unparliamentary in that.


Walter Adam Tucker: Very well.


Howard Charles Green: To sum up, Mr. Speaker, and to support my statement, I shall quote from the committee proceedings of June 7, 1946, at page 852. I may say that this is a statement
Veterans Affairs Committee

by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) who, as you know, is a member of the government.


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: Not a member of the government.


Howard Charles Green: At least, a member of the Liberal party. This is what he says:
This committee made certain recommendations, and I do not think that we can reverse those except by unanimous consent. By doing what you are doing now, I think you are reversing what this committee decided on.
I see no reason at all why this committee has to reach a unanimous viewpoint on every thing that is in this bill or why the government has to have a bill that is unanimously endorsed. We find, after every attempt to compromise, that we cannot reach something that is endorsed by everybody; and that simply means that on one or two minor things there is going to be some controversy in the house, when the government assumes the responsibility of bringing the bill down. I think that is their responsibility, and) I do not see why they do not take it.
Then farther down on the page he says:
But I am going to vote against it-
The amendment to which I was objecting, -because I do not think this committee can be forced by muscular strength to reverse something that they submitted and were prepared to vote on previously.
On the next page he said:
To me it is not a question of a legal mind at all. It is a question simply of-what will I say-a rough roller against people who are opposed to the views of the minister. I am
foing to support the minister in the house, but am not going to support the methods in this committee.
The hon. member for Rosthem subsequently raised a row about that statement, and the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River withdrew it; but I have read from the record, and I do hope there will not be any back-tracking this time. You see, Mr. Speaker, those two points on which the government forced a change in the recommendations of the committee are still vital points. They are still unsettled, and they are still two of the most important points to be dealt with in connection with the veterans.
One has to do with the question of the preenlistment condition. Thousands of young Canadians have been refused pensions on the ground that they suffer from a pre-enlistment condition. Those young men were enlisted as fit. They were good enough to get into the army, the navy or the air force. A great many of them were good enough physically to be taken overseas. Now they are told by the commission that they cannot qualify for a disability pension because they are suffering 
from a pre-enlistment condition. We got the figures from the chairman of the pension commission in 1946. Then in 1947, when the estimates of the department were first up for consideration, I asked the then minister to bring his figures up to date, and he was kind enough to get them for me during the recess.
I have them here, up to June 30, 1947. These are the figures of the men who were taken into the forces as fit, who were discharged as unfit, yet who are refused any pension whatever, either for full disability or on an aggravation basis, on the ground that they were suffering from a pre-enlistment condition. Those who served in a theatre of actual war outside Canada numbered 13,321. Those with service wholly rendered in Canada numbered 72,340, or a total of 85,661.
You cannot tell me, Mr. Speaker, and you cannot tell any Canadian that this is a proper situation; that over 85,000 young Canadians should have been taken into the forces as fit and discharged as unfit, yet held not qualified for any pension whatever because they had pre-enlistment conditions. That is a situation which must be met. In the 1946 committee we tried to meet it by moving that thi3 presumption be written into the act:
There shall be a presumption that an applicant's condition as recorded on his acceptance as a member of the forces was in fact his condition at that time and that any subsequent deterioration during service was due to such service.
The idea was to put the onus on the state of showing that the deterioration in condition was not caused at all by service. I do not think the minister objected particularly, but the pension commission did not like it, and the matter was dealt with as I outlined' a few moments ago. The amendment may not be the proper way to meet the situation, but the figures speak for themselves. There is no reason why 85,000 Canadians should have to go through the rest of their lives disabled, after having been good enough physically to serve in the forces, without being able to get any compensation whatever for that disability.
The other point had to do with the deadline; and to mention it proves my case. . There is no reason why a veteran of the first war who married after May 1, 1944, should not receive an allowance for his wife and for any children by that wife. Those are two matters which must be straightened out by the committee this year.
My third point is this. I hope the powers of the committee will be deemed wide enough to permit it to bring in some recommendation for better treatment of the children of the men who died. Personally I believe the children of a veteran who died should be given

Veterans Affairs Committee
the advantage of vocational and university training at the expense of the state, just as their fathers would have had those benefits had they returned. At the present time the child of a veteran who was killed will not get that advantage, and as a result will be at a great disadvantage in life as compared with the child of the civilian or, for that matter, the child of the veteran who came back. So I suggest that the committee have power to recommend legislation to deal with this situation.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, today the minister said he would like the amendments to the Pension Act rushed through the house, put through all stages. He did not make it clear whether or not he intended to refer that bill to the committee, but I suggest that going over these amendments would be one of the most important jobs the committee could do this session; that it rather makes a farce of having a committee if legislation of this kind is to be rushed through the house without first being referred to the committee for consideration. If the minister is able to do that with the Pension Act he will be able to do the same thing with the amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act; and when these two measures are out of the way the committee will be able to deal only with what is left over. That is not good1 enough.
The minister has not lived up to the statement he made on February 16 in regard to war veterans allowances. At page 1228 of Hansard he said:
The amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act are still under study, and the proposals will be completed before the end of the present week.
That was nearly three weeks ago, but since that time there has been no further statement. The only word we have had with respect to any improvement in the war veterans allowance legislation was the statement made by the Prime Minister on December 19; and what was promised then is entirely inadequate. I have no intention of repeating today what I said on February 19, but I do not think there is a member of this house, of any party, who believes that the proposed amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act are anything like adequate.
I suggest to the minister that the bill amending the Pension Act and the bill amending the War Veterans Allowance Act should go to the committee, not only in fairness to the committee but because then an opportunity will be afforded the Canadian Legion, the Army, Navy and Air Force, the Amputations Association, the Canadian corps, the Sir Arthur 5849-1251
Pearson club and the other soldier organizations to make their representations. The young lads from the universities, too, will have a chance to state their case. If these bills are not referred to that committee no such representations can be made, or if they are made they will have no effect. So I hope no attempt will be made to short-circuit the committee by putting this legislation through the house without having it referred to the committee. If that is done the importance of the work of the committee will be greatly reduced, and I think a great injustice will have been done to the young men and women who served Canada so well during the years of the last war, and also those older men and women who served during the first great war.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to delay the house very long, but I should like to make a few observations because I feel it is important to get this resolution through. I had hoped also that by consent we might advance the pension legislation to the point where it could have been sent to the committee today so that it could be considered there at once. As hon. members know, there seems to be a great congestion of business in the house and although every effort has been made to bring this forward, other matters of great importance including the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne have held up the setting up of this committee.
As everyone knows, it was hoped that the increase and adjustment cheques for the past six months would go out at the end of this month. If the pension bill is not put through the house very shortly the preliminary work which has been done to get these pension increases out and the adjustment cheques ready will simply have been of no avail and the cheques will be held up further.
Many things have been said today which, it seems to me, could have been said before the committee. They could have been said after this pension legislation had been put through so that the cheques could be sent out. I urge that this resolution be passed and that consideration be given to putting the pension legislation through far enough so that it can be considered by the committee and reported back to the house.
Something has been suggested as to sidetracking or short-circuiting by not referring the pension legislation to the committee. The only reason why that was ever suggested was that it was felt that the government had already agreed how far it was ready to go in regard to the payment of certain increases in
Veterans Affairs Committee

pensions, and it was thought perhaps it would be a good thing to get out these payments as quickly as possible. The adjustments alone will amount to almost one month's pension. It was thought that, with the winter being nearly over, it would be a good thing to get out these payments before it was over.
It was thought that there might be pretty well general agreement to let these increases go through without prejudice to the committee, and then the house itself being able to consider anything further it felt should be done in the proper way. After all, if this bill is reported back to the house and put through, the committee will still have the right to make submissions in regard to increased pensions, it will still have the right to make recommendations. I for one cannot understand this attitude of holding up payments that our veterans really need while this matter is debated and debated and debated.


Howard Charles Green: You are the people who have been holding them up.


Walter Adam Tucker: No, we have not been holding them up. Everybody knows that that statement is untrue and incorrect. Everyone knows that for every person on this side of the house who has spoken-I have not figured it up, -but I am satisfied the record would prove it-at least two or three on the opposition side have spoken. If there -has been any delay in getting through the business of this house the responsibility certainly lies on the opposition and not on the government side of the house.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Did we not recommend at the beginning of the session three months ago that this committee be set up in order that the matter could be considered?


Walter Adam Tucker: Hon. members on this side of the house have been making representations to the government that this committee be set up, but two or three things cannot be done at once in this house; if things are to be debated and debated and repeated and repeated, there is bound to be delay in putting through the work. There are members on this side of the house who have been blamed for not speaking on many things, but they were anxious to have some of these other things go through. The opposition have repeatedly debated matters and they know very well that only one thing at a time can be taken up. Everyone knows that they have asked that the debate on the speech from the throne should be continued until finished. That debate was gone on with, and next they get up and say, "Why have we not gone on with this? Why have we not gone on with that?" Whenever anything is brought up, just as today, instead of accepting it and

allowing it to go through so that it can be dealt with we have had speeches such as that of the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) who -has brought up some comparatively minor question concerning the maritimes, and we have had a mean attack on the last committee by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), which I never thought-


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker-


Walter Adam Tucker: It was a mean attack; it was unwarranted by the hon. member for Vancouver South-


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I do not give a rap what the hon. member says, but I think the words "mean attack" should be withdrawn.


Walter Adam Tucker: I meant it. If the hon. member does not withdraw his suggestion that our fine veterans committee was made a creature of -the government I do not think I should be asked to withdraw the statement that that was a mean remark.


Howard Charles Green: That is not-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I think at the time the hon. member for Vancouver South made the remark that the committee was a creature of the government the Acting Speaker (Mr. Golding) ruled that it was not out of order. In view of that the hon. member for Rosthern might withdraw his remark.


Walter Adam Tucker: I did not hear your ruling.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: He said to take it back.


Walter Adam Tucker: I have no intention of taking it back.


William Ross Macdonald: The Acting Speaker (Mr. Golding) ruled that the hon. member for Vancouver South was not out of order when he said that the committee was a creature of the government. I understood that the hon. member for Rosthern stated that he would not insist -on his remarks remaining on Hansard.


Walter Adam Tucker: I said that that statement impugned the standing of a committee of this house, saying that the committee had become a creature of the government. I say that I do not intend to withdraw it unless I am told absolutely that it is unparliamentary. I think it was justified by the circumstances and I have no intention of withdrawing it unless you rule absolutely that I must.


Howard Charles Green: I am asking your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on that point. I submit that the hon. member has no right to make a statement of that type concerning another member.

Veterans Affairs Committee


Mr. MUTCH:: On a point of order, before you give your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I listened to both of the remarks. As I understood you a moment ago, you indicated in your ruling that the hon. member for Rosthern should withdraw because the Acting Speaker (Mr. Golding) had not ruled the other remark out of order. That is my understanding, but those two things are not related and they bear no relationship to each other.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Rosthern stated that he would not withdraw his remark unless the hon. member for Vancouver South withdrew his remark which the hon. member for Rosthern said was out of order. The hon. member for Rosthern made that statement. I am remarking that the Acting Speaker (Mr. Golding) stated that remark with respect to the committee being a creature of the government was not out of order, and I am suggesting that, in view of that and in view of his statement, the hon. member for Rosthern should withdraw his remark regarding meanness.
Mr, PROBE: Bow humbly now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Walter Adam Tucker: I do not know what is funny about the remark of the hon. member, but I do say that if the hon. member is of a nature that he will say that his fellow members are creatures of the government and then, when I say that is a mean remark, will object to withdrawing his remark and insist on my withdrawing my remark; if you rule that he is allowed to talk like that about his fellow members of parliament and I cannot say that is a mean thing for him to say, if you rule that way I will bow to your ruling.


Howard Charles Green: I have already had my ruling; I have won my case. Mr. Speaker ruled-*


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Howard Charles Green: I will not sit down for you or anybody else. The Speaker ruled that I was in order, and I have asked for the withdrawal of the remark made by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), which was not parliamentary.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member feels, as he says, that he has won his case; if he has managed to get away with something-


Howard Charles Green: That is another remark that is out of order.


William Ross Macdonald: Reference to citation 298, Beauchesne's 2nd edition, shows that alleging that a member's statements were
insulting, malignant, offensive, and so forth, is unparliamentary, and I think the word used would come within that rule.


Walter Adam Tucker: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker, but I do say this-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Walter Adam Tucker: I have a right to continue my speech. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) apparently cannot bear to have me speak. I was going to say that when the hon. member said that his fellow members were creatures of the government, I repudiate that suggestion entirely. I say that it was insulting, and if members on the opposition side of the house are not willing to have that said of them he will have to answer to them. I do not think he did himself justice in speaking in that way of fellow veterans who sat on the committee and who, to his own knowledge, on more than one occasion persuaded the government to change the legislation in accordance with the wishes of the committee. Creatures do not do that, and he knows it, and in making that statement he does justice neither to himself nor to his fellow member veterans in this parliament.


Howard Charles Green: It is funny to see nonveterans applauding.


Walter Adam Tucker: I do not wish to pursue this matter further, Mr. Speaker, because it will not help to do the very thing I want to see done, and that is to get this resolution through and the veterans legislation before the house. The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) said that there was no suggestion in the resolution of the right of the committee to submit draft bills. Of course the committee will have the right to make representations of that kind if it so desires. The mere fact that it is not mentioned in the terms of reference does not prevent the committee from making recommendations in that form if it so desires. The draft bills which we recommended from the last parliamentary committee were merely recommendations cast in the form of bills for the convenience of the house. There is nothing to prevent that from being done if the committee desires to do it.
On the question of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal, it certainly was the intention that merchant marine matters should be looked into if that was the desire of the committee, and I think that is the intention. But if the hon. member by his amendment means that we should, by resolution of this parliament, make the ex-members of the merchant navy members of His Majesty's armed forces, he is trying to do by resolution what I think should be done in
Veterans Affairs Committee

some other way. I do not know just what the hon. member intended to do.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The intention is to recognize the merchant navy as being on the same footing as the armed forces so far as benefits are concerned.


Walter Adam Tucker: I think the hon. member should have been satisfied with the assurance that their problems would be looked into by the committee, and that certainly was included in the terms of reference. But if the suggestion be made that by adopting the amendment we are taking the attitude that in every way, shape and form the members of the merchant navy shall be regarded as members of His Majesty's armed forces, that will lead to some discussion, and I do not know why that should be provoked at this particular stage. Of course we can consider the problems of the merchant navy; and if that is all the amendment means, that we are to consider the problems of the merchant navy and not make any parliamentary declaration in the matter, I do not see any objection to accepting the amendment; but it would be on the understanding that we are not making any declaration that a member of the merchant navy has become, by resolution of this parliament. a full-fledged ex-member of His Majesty's armed forces. Such a declaration would require consideration and considerable discussion. It is a matter that should be decided at some other time than this. But if the hon. member does not feel that his amendment goes that far, I do not see anything wrong with it. It would enable us to study their problems, as we shall do anyway.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not wish to debate the point with the hon. member. My hon. friend the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) has eloquently pointed out that these men should be placed on the same footing as the armed forces, and this would be just a belated recognition of the principle that has been laid down by cabinet ministers over the last number of years. Having regard to the services of these men. I think the amendment should be put through.


Walter Adam Tucker: It was the place where the amendment was to be inserted that made me wonder. The hon. member's motion was that the resolution be amended by inserting after the word "forces" the words "including the merchant navy". If the amendment had simply said "members of His Majesty's armed forces, members of the merchant navy and other persons", it would have been clear that he simply wanted their problems considered. But to say "members of His Majesty's armed

forces including the merchant navy", would create the impression that parliament recognized the merchant navy as part of His Majesty's armed forces. No one questions for a moment the wonderful services and the great contribution of the merchant navy, but I wonder if this is the right time to declare that in the opinion of this house the members of the merchant navy are really members of His Majesty's armed forces.


Howard Charles Green: Does the hon. member himself not think the members of the merchant navy for purposes of pension and other benefits should be treated as though they had been members of the fourth service?


Walter Adam Tucker: That is not what I was getting at. I do not believe that I as a member of the veterans affairs committee should state at this time what I think should be done about something that is going to come before that committee. All we are seeking to do now is to set up the committee and give it the right to consider certain matters. I do not think the hon. member intended by his amendment that we should make a declaration that the merchant navy are in effect ex-members of His Majesty's armed forces. I think he just meant that we should have a right to consider their problems, and if that is the only intention he had I do not see any harm in it because it would emphasize that we want to consider that question. If the hon. member says that was his intention, I do not see any objection.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: My intention was to place the members of the merchant service on the same footing as members of the armed forces for pension and other benefits, and if the hon. member for Rosthern is asking me, I do not wish to withdraw the amendment. I would like it to be voted on and to let the house decide.


Walter Adam Tucker: I just wanted the hon. member's intention clarified because, as the amendment was worded and from where it was proposed to be inserted, it looked to me that he wished to go farther than simply to give the committee the right to consider the problems of the merchant navy. As far as I am concerned, it was always the intention that the problems of the merchant navy should be considered.


Howard Charles Green: Then vote for the amendment.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It goes beyond that.


Walter Adam Tucker: If that was all it meant there would be no objection to it. I have been asking the hon. member if that is all

Veterans Affairs Committee
it means and he seems to be reluctant to say that that is all it means. However, he may have a chance to consider what I said. I may not have made myself clear. I understand that it is to set up a committee to consider the problems of veterans and various people engaged in pursuits closely related to war. Let us not drag into it any declaration other than that the committee should be set up and be given the right to have a full and broad investigation into all these problems. I will not say any more about that. I ask the hon. member to consider that statement, and perhaps he may be able to clear it up and save time, because we do want to get this through and get the legislation to the point where we can consider it.
The hon. member for Royal made some reference to the treatment we are giving to our students as compared with those in the United States. While I hate to take the time to do so, I feel I should correct the impression that may be left that the people in the United States treat their student veterans in, regard to training better than we do. He mentioned that they could get training for a year plus their period of service. But I would point out to him that in the United States that training is limited to four years; whereas in Canada it may go on for six and seven years, if the student is a good one and shows that he is benefiting by the training.
In regard to the amount paid, in the United States a married student with dependents gets $90 a month. Under the rates which are now going into force-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I ask the hon,. member a question? Does that include the recent increases which have been made in the allowances to United States veterans?


Walter Adam Tucker: I understand that there is no provision whatever for dependents in the United States other than that the single man gets $65-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I would like to correct the hon. member there.


Walter Adam Tucker: If the hon. member will permit me to complete my remarks he will be able to follow me. I did not interrupt him.


Howard Charles Green: You are giving the wrong facts. We have the facts here.


Walter Adam Tucker: Of course I realize that my hon. friends over there seem to think they are the only ones who know anything about this. I did not interrupt the hon. member when I thought he was giving information that was incorrect. The hon. member for Vancouver South made a statement which, on reflection; he will find is incorrect. I did not interrupt him.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member did nothing but interrupt.


Walter Adam Tucker: For example, he said that where the marriage took place after June 1, 1944, the dateline in respect of children had not been lifted. If he will look at the legislation he will find that the dateline in respect of children was lifted, but I did not interrupt the hon. member. After all, I did try to show a little bit of courtesy to a man who has served as a member of parliament for thirteen years and with whom I have served on three different veterans affairs committees. I would never think of referring to him in the terms in which he referred to me.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Walter Adam Tucker: I realize he may think he is a finer man than I am, but everyone is entitled to his opinion. May I go on? The suggestion is that we do not treat our student veterans as well as they do in the United States. I am referring to considerations which the hon. member did not mention. According to the last information which I have there was actually $25 more given to the veteran student with dependents in the United States than if he had no dependents. If he had a wife or children, it did not matter how many, he got $90 instead of $65.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I have the facts right here. I would ask the hon. member to allow me to correct him as far as that is concerned.


Mr. HOWE:: Sit down.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The hon. member for Rosthern has asked not to be interrupted. Even if hon. members do not agree with what the hon. member is saying they should not interrupt him.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: On a question of privilege, he said that the statement I made was incorrect. On a question of privilege, I have the right to make a statement.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. That is not a question, of privilege. There is a dispute between two hon. members regarding facts. The hon. member cannot raise a question of privilege under these circumstances. The hon. member for Rosthern has the floor.


Walter Adam Tucker: I do not want to prolong this thing; I am pointing out to the hon. member that there is no extra provision in the United States for children. A man has a wife-
1972	COMMONS
Veterans Affairs Committee


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I say the hon. member is absolutely wrong.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Rosthern having requested1 not to be interrupted, I must insist that he must not be interrupted.


Walter Adam Tucker: I say, Mr. Speaker, according to the last information which I have; it is possible that the hon. member may feel he has more recent information. I have no objection to his raising that, but I must say this-


Howard Charles Green: That is what he is trying to do.


Walter Adam Tucker: According to my last
information, in the United States a married student does not get any more if he has children or not. He gets paid in respect of having a wife, but there is no addition in respect of children. They do not increase his allowance. As I say, that is the last information I have. The hon. member may have a newspaper clipping which indicates something different. That may be correct. Improved rates were suggested, but I have not been informed that they have gone through Congress. I am giving the last information I have, and that is that a married man gets the same amount whether he has children or not. Under our set-up we pay in respect of the children. In respect of his wife a man gets $30 extra; he gets $18 extra in respect of his first child; in respect of his second child he gets $14 extra, and in respect of his third child gets $12 extra. In other words, a man with a wife and three children gets $134 in Canada, plus family allowances. I would venture to say that is more than he gets in the United States. That is what I wish to bring out, andl it seems to me that that was a fair remark to make.
I should now like to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. McKay). He suggested that settlement under the Veterans Land Act has not been going ahead fast enough. At times I have felt much the same way, but I have had many veterans organizations in Saskatchewan tell me that the settlement of soldier settlers after the first war went ahead too fast; that they went ahead when lands were inflated in value, when stock and equipment were expensive, and in many cases it could have been better for veterans to have held back and waited until three or four years after the war in order to get settled'. That was one of the reasons why we brought in the amendment, so that a man could get a loan up to $2,400 if he had a lease of the land, in order, that he might get started on the farm without perhaps undertaking to buy land at

inflated immediate post-war values. I know that many veterans organizations have approved our attitude of not rushing the soldiers on to the land too quickly after the war and, of course, giving them the right to go on the land later when costs of land and equipment- and so on have gone down. In many cases I think the veterans are quite satisfied to wait until they can get land at better values and are perhaps able to buy equipment and stock at lower prices than those at which they can buy them at the present time.


Mr. PROBE:: May I ask the parliamentary assistant a question? Is the age barrier to be reconsidered in the event that this settlement drags on? Suppose land values come down at some future time; what is to be done with the present age barrier?


Walter Adam Tucker: I think the committee and the government will look into that- and will be reasonable. They realize it is one of the policies of the government not to rush people on the land faster than it is wise for them to go. If it takes three or four years it will be a matter of recommendation by our committee that that should be taken into consideration in regard to future policy. I think myself it is a wise policy not to try to get everybody settled in the first two years after the war. I agree that our policy should be one of trying to get veterans on the land which they can hope to own and have as their own home and be able to pass on to their children. We should try to get them on land under conditions ensuring that as quickly as we can in their own best interest. That is a matter, of course, which will be considered by the committee, as to whether the settlement has gone on as fast as it should have.
The hon. member for Acadia mentioned the question of student loans. This is a matter in which I have been personally very much interested, because I have thought that when we were providing money to make these loans so that worthy students should not have to discontinue their courses, the money should be available uniformly to students throughout the country. In other words, every university loan scheme should pretty well be administered more or less on a uniform basis. Of course the conference of university presidents discusses these matters. The question is considered by them; the whole situation is brought before them, and certainly it is a matter which the committee should look into, because in my opinion there should be provision for students to be able to borrow money under a scheme we have set up so that they should not have to discontinue their courses.

Veterans Affairs Committee
It is a splendid idea and we should make sure that it is operating to the best possible advantage.
One matter that was mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver South was the position of men of the merchant navy. As I understood him, he said they could get a pension only for anything that was due to enemy action. Once more, for the sake of the record, I would point out that there is in the act a definition of what constitutes enemy action or counter-action. Let me quote section 5(e) of the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act:
(e) "enemy action, or counter-action against the enemy" includes extraordinary marine hazards occasioned by the war .and encountered by a Canadian ship or by a certified non-Canadian ship when employed on a voyage that in the opinion of the commission was essential to the prosecution of the war on behalf of His Majesty or His Majesty's allies.
I read that to indicate that enemy action or couniter-action has a wider significance than it might appear to have, because it includes extraordinary marine hazards occasioned by war.


Howard Charles Green: Can the hon. member tell us how many merchant seamen are getting pensions.


Walter Adam Tucker: I do not want to delay the house by looking for it, but I know there are cases where pensions have been awarded when there was no enemy action at all but there was an extraordinary marine hazard, when for example, there was not sufficient light, owing to the fact that war was on.


Howard Charles Green: Is the figure over fifty?


Walter Adam Tucker: It would be a guess. I looked at it a couple of days ago but I cannot remember it. I am sorry that I cannot give the figure but it can be procured.
I think that is all I wish to say except to state, in answer to the question just asked by the hon. member for Vancouver South, that the total amount being paid to disability pensioners under the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act is 838,697 for disability pensioners, and for dependents $235,467, or a total of $274,164.


Howard Charles Green: That is not merchant seamen; that is for everyone under the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.


Walter Adam Tucker: As regards Canadian merchant seamen, the number of disability pensioners is twenty-three, and the number of dependents, 333; salt water fishermen, disability pensioners, one, and dependents twenty-one; Canadian merchant seamen, supple-5849-126
mentary number, fifteen, and dependents, fifty-five. I could go on and give further figures, but that will give an idea of the number .that have been granted.
May I say a word in conclusion with regard
to my experience on the committee during the two years it sat. I must say that my recollection of it is not that of the hon. member for Vancouver South. I had thought that the members of the committee got along very well, that members of all parties got along well, and we did an enormous amount of work. I thought that this house and the country felt that we had done a reasonably good job in the time at our disposal. I hope that the members of this committee will get along with the same harmony and be able to accomplish at least a comparable measure of work which will be satisfactory to the veterans, as did the committees in the past. As chairman of the previous committees, I want to thank all hon. members who took part in our deliberations for their kindness towards myself, their willingness to work hard, and the work they accomplished.
I should like to say a word in appreciation of the minister whom I had the privilege to serve under for two years in serving the veterans of ithe country. I refer to the Right Hon. Ian Mackenzie, now Senator Mackenzie, and I am glad to say in his behalf that in my opinion no one in this parliament worked with a more single-hearted desire to serve the veterans of Canada than did the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie. It was a pleasure to work with him, and I believe the veterans of the country will always be grateful for the way in which he tried to serve them, to improve their lot and to help them in every respect. I repeat, it was a great privilege to serve with him.
In the present Minister of Veterans Affairs, (Mr. Gregg) I feel that we have a man who understands the problems of veterans, whose heart is in the right place and who is doing and will do the best he can for the veterans. I deem it a privilege to work with him.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: For a man who does not want to occupy much time or hold up the house, a man who is anxious to get his legislation through, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs did not do a bad job this afternoon.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: He took his forty minutes anyway.


Clarence Gillis: That is his privilege. To my mind, the debate this afternoon proves one thing conclusively to me. I read a long time
Veterans Affairs Committee

ago that some great man had said that you can get anything you want in this world if you do not care who gets the credit for it. I think the argument between the member for Vancouver South and the parliamentary assistant to the minister clearly indicated that.
I have served on two committees of this house on veterans affairs, and in my opinion the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) this afternoon made as good a speech as I have ever heard him make in this house. I thought it was factual, coming from one who has some knowledge of what he was talking about, and I considered it reasoned and fair. The fact of the matter is, he gave me the impression of being a very good lawyer judging from the way in which he assembled his facts, analysed them and put them before the house, and I think that, to any fair-minded jury, he would have won his case.
As regards this committee, I want to say that I, too, am sorry. I join with others who have stated that the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie who is now in the other place-and I hope he will be happy there-is missing. I know there is something missing on the other side of the house when I sit across here and see that his seat is occupied by someone else. I say, too, that I had a great deal to do with veterans legislation before ever I came to this house. I had the privilege of corresponding with the right hon. gentleman and of meeting him, and I always found him to be sympathetic and one who would do what he could within the confines of the legislation. That legislation will never be any broader than the treasury board wants to permit it to be. I know the present Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg), and I want to take this opportunity of saying that I am glad he is here in the post he now occupies. I know he will not go too far wrong in veterans affairs, because he received his early training on the executive council of the Canadian Legion in Nova Scotia. I had the honour of sitting there with him for a short time many years ago, when most of the legislation we are now talking about was in the embryo stage. I know he has watched it grow up from his place in this chamber, in the same way as most of us who are veterans in this house endeavoured to follow it as it developed.
I have no illusions about the committee. I do not believe in kidding myself or anyone else. I have a fairly good idea of what this committee will accomplish. It will accomplish exactly what the treasury board permits it to accomplish. The statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver South, when he says the committee is a creature of the government, is, I think, a fair statement. The com-

mittee cannot be anything else. When there is a majority over there on the other side, and the government decides to set up a committee for the purpose of analysing any problem, the majority of that committee will take directions from the treasury board in the matter of spending money. I say that every member- whether he was on the other side of the house or on this side-who sat on the veterans affairs committee or on the pension committee prior to it, was anxious to have things done regardless of party. I think the members took a fairly non-partisan attitude on these matters. But I know there comes a time when it is a matter of deciding on spending more money, and when the Minister of Veterans Affairs and his assistant must go to someone else who holds the purse-strings and say, "Can we get this money?" If the answer is "Yes," there is no difficulty; but if the answer is "No", then the government decide what is to be done, because they are in the majority on that committee; and the best that members can hope for is to try to provoke the thoughts of those who may have access to the treasury board, on matters affecting veterans on the outside with whom they do not come in contact every day.
I shall not repeat anything said by the hon. member for Vancouver South or by the h'on. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks). That would be just a waste of time. I agree with the former in his analysis of this merchant marine question. I suggest that the amendment now offered should be adopted. At least it would guarantee that the terms of reference of the committee would be sufficiently broad to have the matter discussed by it. But if something like what is suggested by this amendment is not included, any discussion of the marine service in that committee will be precluded. At least, that is the way I see it. Apparently the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) does not see it in that way. But maybe when he consults the legal branch of some department, he will get another opinion as to what this means and he will say, "I am sorry; I did not think it meant that, but the legal branch tells us now that this is the correct interpretation, so that you cannot discuss the question". I think it is merely broadening the terms of reference to permit discussion to take place in the committee on that question.
There are two or three odds and ends that I should like to bring to the attention of the minister and the hon. member for Rosthern with regard to veterans legislation. During the sitting of the last veterans affairs committee we had a great deal of discussion, and within the last couple of days I have re-read a great many of the recommendations which

Veterans Affairs Committee
were made on this matter of having our veterans legislation in this country reciprocal with veterans legislation in the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia. I think most of the bodies from the outside which represents veterans, and which presented briefs to us, brought in the suggestion that we should make our legislation reciprocal. The situation as it is now is causing hardship. For example, we have in Canada a few veterans who married widows overseas. They came back to Canada with their children, but because those children were not born in Canada they are not entitled to receive our family allowances, despite the fact that similar legislation is in effect in the United Kingdom.
I myself have run into several men who served six years in the British merchant marine. All during the time they served there they paid unemployment insurance to protect them against unemployment. At the end of six years they decided to come back to Canada. These boys land back in Canada; they cannot find a job, so they go with their card marked "paid up" a month or two weeks before leaving Britain, but they are told at the unemployment insurance office, "You are not entitled to unemployment insurance. We will see what we can do about a job". But this social legislation is not reciprocal with Britain, the Unites States or the other countries I mentioned.
These matters may seem to be trivial ones, but they are not to the individual who is affected. Whether only ten, fifteen or twenty men are affected, let us stop for a minute and think that every one of those people is a human being and he feels, just as much as you or I would, the injustice and the hardship that should be avoided. I generally try to place myself in their position. A man comes to me and says, "I did five years' service. A good deal of it was combat service in Italy and western Europe. But just toward the end of the war I went out one night and got into a little difficulty. I was sentenced to some time in detention." That man who was sentenced to detention lost his liberty. He lost his wages during the period he was incarcerated. But in addition to that, when he comes back to Canada he is further prosecuted by losing his gratuity. In addition to that, if he has a job- and I have run into several who were in this position-it lasted only long enough to make 107 or 110 contributions-I am actually giving the number of contributions-where it should have been 180 to the unemployment insurance office in order to qualify him for unemployment insurance. He is told, "You cannot qualify; you have not a benefit year estab-5849-126i
lished. But maybe we can get your armed service credits." This is where the soldier comes in. He is told, "If we can get your armed service credits, we can qualify you for unemployment insurance." So application is made for his armed service credits, and a note comes back to the effect, "Sorry; he cannot qualify for the simple reason that he got a misconduct discharge." I wonder how many of us ever stop to think for a minute of the kind of treatment meted out to a young man under those circumstances? In civil life you would not do that to him-take his pay from him, stigmatize him and deprive him of all social legislation. When you stop to think about it in terms of money alone, you will be surprised at the amount a young fellow like that loses. I think this is something which should be reconsidered and revised. I certainly think the armed service credits as applied to the ordinary service personnel in a matter of employment should be applicable in a case similar to the one I have set out here. Why should he lose everything just because he went out and had a few drinks of beer, and got into a little difficulty? I think most of us who were in the army could say, "There, but for the grace of God, go I." I believe that is the way we should look at it.
I am picking out these peculiar cases because, being a peculiar person, they come to me. I should like to bring another matter to the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley), which also has to do with the veterans. When I hear people talking about a committee, how we are to cure these problems in committee and all that kind of stuff, I think back to some of the things I have been talking about in the house for the last eight years. This is one of them. Away back in 1940 I ran into a case like this. While a veteran of the first war was overseas, his wife went to the United States and divorced him. He had nothing to do with it. He could not help himself; he was in the service. When he came back he found himself divorced. For pension purposes and all other matters of that kind that man cannot marry. If he does he commits bigamy, according to the decisions I have obtained, because we in Canada do not recognize a United States divorce.
I know of two cases of this kind. One man was issued a licence and married again. He was married for over twenty years, but he could never have his wife included for pension purposes. That was the case of a veteran of the first war. I have now another case of this kind from Ontario, and this man is affected in exactly the same way. He went overseas; his wife divorced him; he came back to Canada and found himself free, as he thought. He
Veterans Affairs Committee

-went out and obtained a marriage licence. I asked the late Hon. Mr. Lapointe when he was Minister of Justice, "If that man is not legally married in Canada why was he not prosecuted for bigamy?" No answer. "Why was he issued a marriage licence if he would not be entitled to marry?" No answer. "Do you consider it fair to keep a woman in that position for pension purposes, or for the protection of service personnel?" Well, he did not think it was fair; but the war was on; this divorce business was a rather touchy thing, and when we got this war off our hands we would consider that. At that time I was advised that a change would be required in the Canadian divorce law, but I do not think that is so.
I believe most of the things I am talking about here, the mean little things which set up a great deal of irritation, could be cured if the commission had sufficient administrative latitude. I have met quite a few of the people administering pension affairs. I think they are sane, reasonable and fair. If we would only write legislation flexible enough to allow them to make decisions in these borderline cases I believe a great deal of the trouble we are now having would be overcome, because it is in connection with matters of this kind that we are having most of our difficulties.
Another case is that of the young fellow who came back to his job on the railroad for a short time. Then the government said, "We will give you a course," so he took a course for ten months. When he finished there was no work for him. He applied for unemployment insurance. No unemployment insurance; he did not have sufficient contributions; and the ten months he spent taking a course, the cost paid by the government, could not be included for unemployment insurance purposes. That boy has been idle for over a year. He is still writing to me. Personally I think the ten months he spent in taking that course should be counted for unemployment insurance purposes. I do not see a reason in the world why it should not. So when the Minister of Veterans Affairs gets to know some of these things I hope he may be able to iron out some of the difficulties and knock off some of the corners.
I am not going to go beyond my time. I >vas rather provoked into getting up this afternoon by some of the discussion that took place. However, I would1 emphasize again this business of the merchant navy. I think a crying injustice has been done to the section of the service that fought the hardest battle of all. I do not think anyone equalled the hardships and misery the boys in the mer-

chant marine went through. There is only one thought I would leave with the hon. member for Vancouver East.-


Howard Charles Green: Vancouver South.


Clarence Gillis: That is right; the other fellow would not want to be tangled up with you. That thought is this. During the year the government of Canada mobilized the army, navy and air force. They said, "We are responsible for your wages and your maintenance; we will see that any disability is taken care of," and so on. These were government-owned institutions, functioning under the direction of the Canadian government. The only section of the service that functioned under the system of free enterprise was the merchant marine. There we had private, separate companies, who received all the profits; but now that the war is over, they do not want to accept any responsibility. Mind you, I am not arguing against the boys in the merchant marine getting everything the people of Canada are prepared to give them through this institution of parliament. I am leaving this thought with the hon. member for Vancouver South, that you must get to the point where you are not only willing to give the government responsibility and authority but prepared to support them in connection with these institutions. A glaring example of the failure of free enterprise in fighting the last war was the treatment given the boys of the merchant marine after the war was over. No grateful company came forward to establish pension rights, hospitalization and all that sort of thing. That can be done only when the people of Canada give this government a mandate to go out and do these things, and to socialize the whole business all along the line. Then, and not until then, shall we eliminate injustice.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: 
Humphrey Mitchell: If the hon. member will permit a question, it is estimated that a university degree is worth $1,000 a year once you have it. Hundreds of thousands of veterans have gone back to industry, agriculture, or commerce without asking the people of Canada for a cent and, by their participation in the productive efforts of the nation, have made possible the payment of these allowances to the veterans of whom my hon. friend speaks. Does the hon. member not think that those attending university should themselves make some contribution for that higher education which they demand from the people of Canada, including the rest of the veterans, who on coming back went straight to work?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: My experience has been that a good many of these veterans are making some contribution themselves and doing the very best they can to assist themselves; but even with that, the funds are not sufficient, particularly for the woman veteran, whose position I particularly emphasize. In answer to the minister's question I could read at great length from this letter which explains that point very clearly, but I shall not take the time of the house to do so. I believe this country can well afford to invest this relatively small amount of extra money in the education of the splendid youth of this country.
While I have no strong objection to the amendment proposed by the Progressive Conservatives respecting the merchant marine, personally I cannot see, after reading the resolution, that the amendment is necessary because the resolution says:
That a select committee be appointed to consider the legislation relating to pensions, treatment and re-establishment of former members of His Majesty's armed forces -and of other persons who have been- otherwise engaged in pursuits closely related to war

In my opinion that certainly includes the merchant seamen of this country and other

Veterans Affairs Committee
groups, and from the explanation given by the parliamentary assistant I would presume that my assumption is correct. The resolution goes on to say:
-and to make recommendations from time to time in respect thereto.
So I think the amendment is purely extraneous and confusing, and that the passing of the resolution itself will accomplish what those who support the amendment have in view.
In conclusion I urge again that consideration be given to making the small additional increase that is required under present conditions. I cannot understand why the government, after granting 16 per cent increase in pensions, could not go a little farther and grant the percentage asked for by the Canadian Legion, and the same with respect to the war veterans allowance. I agree with the hon. member for Comox-Albemi, whose remarks I thought were very appropriate and as well put as anything said in this house on the subject. When we consider the small additional amount required and the contentment and satisfaction it would bring to the veterans and their dependents there will be, I trust, no hesitation in granting this additional pension percentage and war veterans allowance.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I did not want to interrupt the hon. member because I agree with everything he said, except that I cannot go along with him as to the 860 a month for single students. Does my hon. friend think that even increasing the 860 will add to the value of Rhodes scholars?


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, three months after the opening of this session the new Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) has introduced the following motion:
That a select committee be appointed to consider the legislation relating to pensions, treatment and re-establishment of former members of His Majesty's armed forces and of other persons who have been otherwise engaged in pursuits closely related to war, and to make recommendations from time to time in respect thereto.
That the committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee.
That the committee shall have leave to sit while the house is sitting.
That eighteen members of the committee shall constitute a quorum.
That the committee shall consist of Messrs. Baker-, Belzile, Benid'ickson, Bentley, Blair, Blanchette, Brooks, Oroll, Cruickshank,, Dickey, Dion, Emmerson, Gauthier (Portneuf), Gregg, Green, Harris (Grey-Bruce), Harkness, Her-ridge. Isnor, Jutras, Langlods, Lennard, Mac-
Naught, McKay, Marshall, Moore, Mutch, Pearkes, Quelch, Roes (Souris), Skey, Tucker, Viau, White (Hastings-Peterborough), Wright, and that paragraph 1 of standing order 65 be suspended in relation thereto.
May I, first take this opportunity to congratulate the new Minister of Veterans Affairs upon his appointment and to assure him that his comrades across this country will certainly look to him for real leadership. From his experience and his past association with the Canadian Legion I am sure that he is well qualified to look after the interests of the veteran, but I want to repeat what others have said that he will have to be prepared to battle with the treasury board if he wishes to put through certain recommendations which the committee may later on make.
I was pleased to hear the minister say that all matters relating to the Department of Veterans Affairs will be referred to the committee. I was a member of the veterans affairs committee which sat under the able chairmanship of Doctor Cyrus Macmillan, in 1942, and it was my privilege also to sit on the committee in 1946 under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker). The committee of 1946 was composed of sixty members of the house, all veterans of one or two wars. Those members certainly put in long hours for many days and gave a great deal of thought to the veterans charter which was later introduced in the house.
In my opinion veterans legislation is never finished, and we might well have a standing committee of the House of Commons on veterans affairs. I wish to make some reference to this point at a later time. First, I wish to refer to the rather heated1 discussion carried on by the hon. member for Rosthern this afternoon on this topic. While he was going to be brief, he took his full forty minutes. He said he did not think the government were at all to blame because this legislation was introduced only at this time. My mind goes back to December 8 when we had a discussion in this house on procedure and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) introduced a resolution that government orders should have precedence after December 9. There was a heated discussion. I, along with other hon. members, at that time pointed out that I had many grievances which I wished to discuss on the speech from the throne, grievances having to do with veterans, agriculturists and others. After that discussion, a vote ensued in this house and we were defeated1 136 to 69. I am not sure that these are the exact figures. Then we debated the
Veterans Affairs Committee

throne speech periodically1 for a full three months, thr^e months last Friday, when I think it was disposed of.


Mr. ADAMSON:: It is not disposed of yet.


James Arthur Ross: 
Mr. McCANN:: The report is ready for submission to the veterans affairs committee as soon as they want it.


Howard Charles Green: Why not table it in the house?


James Arthur Ross: I am pleased to have that information from the minister. I am sure that many people in the country will be glad to know that. I had thought it might be tabled in the house, but so long as it is made available to the public through the committee I am glad to hear what the minister has said.

Veterans Affairs Committee

I wish to endorse the legion brief regarding the whole matter of added pensions and payments, concerning which, I understand, a separate bill is also to be referred to the committee. I wish again to state emphatically that for any delay that has taken place in this regard the government must assume responsibility. It is attributable entirely to the manner in which the government has introduced legislation and conducted procedure in this house during this session. We have already heard from four members on the government side concerning this bill. I am only the third speaker in this party and have taken only a few minutes, but I shall have more to say in the committee. However, I wish to make this point at the present time. I am disappointed that the committee is as small as it is. There was a committee of sixty members in 1946 and it brought forward the veterans charter. That committee consisted of veterans. Those gentlemen are still members of this house, and naturally many of them in all quarters of the house will be disappointed that they are not on this new committee, which consists of only thirty-five members. I am sorry that they will not be on the committee because it is their desire to do everything they can for their comrades. Owing to the limitation of the committee, however, it is impossible for them to participate.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to occupy eight or ten minutes of the time of the house this evening to call attention to some features of this great problem of the care and treatment of returned soldiers from the last two wars. I wish to compliment the committee which has been acting in the last [DOT]two or three years on the fine charter it produced last session and the session before.
This committee has approached the important problem of returned men very largely from a non-partisan point of view and I hope that spirit will still pervade the committee. Once in a while there is a departure from it, but on the whole the committee has been non-partisan in its endeavours and I compliment them accordingly. I also wish to compliment the two Victoria Cross holders on this side of the house.
I should like to refer to certain features of the work of this committee, but before doing so I would point out that after the last war, when the soldiers were coming home after 1917, owing to the lack of hospital accommodation hundreds of young soldiers died from the flu in the camps in the Toronto district. There was considerable uneasiness

about that situation and we had an inquiry in a series of inquests at Toronto, as a result of which we discovered that there was an utter lack of hospitalization for the troops all over Canada. The result was that the government of Sir Robert Borden had to spend $35,000,000 in hospitals all over Canada.
The minister of militia, as he was then, the late General Mewburn, accompanied by me, looked at the Goodyear new building at Long Branch, but it was unsuitable and too far away, and it was decided to take the plant of the Kodak Company, called the Christie Street Hospital from then on. At that time the doctors were only on half or part time.
A great many improvements have been effected since that day. I may say that when I first brought up the matter of Sunnybrook hospital the proposal was unfavourably considered, Before that war I had been in communication with the owner of that property, the late patriot, Joseph Kilgour, urging him to devote it to civic purposes and in his will he gave it to the city for a park. After the last war broke out, I urged the city of Toronto in 1942 to make use of the site for hospital purposes. The late lieutenant governor, Hon. W. D. Ross, a splendid citizen; who died recently, was a warm friend of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and he offered several hundred acres of his large farm at Erindale on the Credit river free to the government. I thought it would be accepted. However, they later accepted Sunnybrook; I am glad they did at last get a wonderful hospital there; and improvements have been carried out which are of great importance. I hope Christie Street will in time be closed.
I believe there are some aspects of this problem of veterans that have not been considered. I refer particularly to the representations that have been submitted by the war amputations of Canada. This is an association every member of which has lost a limb, limbs or complete eyesight in fighting for Canada. In common with all other disabled groups they are seeking an increase in the basic rate on which compensation for their war disabilities is assessed, and they are asking for a level which will provide $100 per month for a 100 per cent war disability. The pension for total war disability has been $75 a month since 1921. It was fixed on the cost of unskilled labour in the general labour market of that time. The government proposes to increase it to $87 a month.
In twenty-seven years the improved standard of living in Canada has enforced large increases in income throughout all industry

Veterans Affairs Committee
and business. Advances of 40 per cent and more were widespread even before the recent meteoric rise in the cost of living. The increase offered the war blinded, war limbless, war paralysed and other war disabled would be regarded as most moderate. The industrially disabled draw workmen's compensation at current wage rates in their industries. By comparison the request of the war disabled is most modest. Yet they have made the greatest of all sacrifices for their country, short of giving their lives. They should be the last and not the first targets of government economy. That is correct, in my opinion. That is what they are asking for and I now most heartily' endorse the principle of $100 a month for a 100 per cent disabled fighting man. I hope something will be done along these lines by this committee.
I am glad to see that the work of the committee will embrace pensions, treatment and re-establishment of former members of His Majesty's armed forces and other persons otherwise engaged in pursuits closely related to war, and that the committee will make recommendations from time to time in that respect. There is a strong committee from all sides of the house.
I will not go into all these matters, but I think the question of the blind and the amputation cases should receive very careful consideration. It is, as I say, a long overdue measure and further assistance should be given.
As regards the merchant marine, I was a former chairman of the harbour commission and one of the founders of the new harbour commission. I may say that I have seen these boys on ships on the lakes. I have seen the work they did before and during the war. I cannot speak too highly of the work done by the men of the merchant marine during the war. They went out to fight the battle of the Atlantic by night and by day, in the darkest hours of the war, when we thought the war was lost, in all seasons and in all climates. They stood by their ships, and many of them lost their lives. I hope something will be done for them this session.
I hope the committee will consider a further grant or bonus or subvention for the employees of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Pacific railway and the other railways. A large percentage of them are returned soldiers. I think this bonus should be given for the way in which they transported the troops to the seaboard. Their work was most commendable, and they received nothing for it. In connection with demobilization, hundreds of trains ran to Halifax from all across the country. These employees have as yet received
nothing for their services from the corporations by which they are employed. I hope the committee will go into that particular feature.
Another matter I wish to mention is that of housing, which amounts to almost a scandal in this country'. I can tell you that, from what I have seen of these trailers from the train windows when coming into the city. I remember raising this matter in 1928 and 1929 with a former great newspaper man, Mr. Harry Anderson, editor of the Globe, who was one of the heads of the press gallery. He took it up in his paper. I do not know what would have happened to these returned men across the river if the wind had been the other way the night of the fire, two years ago, which nearly destroyed the bridge in Ottawa and even in some parts of this city where there are these trailers which should not be there. The returned men have a right to something better than things like that.
Then with regard to rent control, I know of no reason why a returned soldier should not be able to get into his own home. I have always urged that in the house. I know of some of these injustices. From what I have seen of these rental courts, the decision in many cases is far from being justice. I am surprised at the judges acting in them. I do not believe in the principle that judges should act in these particular courts.
I notice that in some of the law courts there have appeared some of these poor unfortunate soldiers in connection with income tax and petty violations of control regulations, who cannot make a living because of the high cost of living and so on. They are summoned before magistrates, county court judges and all that kind of thing. Some consideration should be given to these men. I hope that either the government or the soldiers' organizations provide counsel for them, because I see reports in many of the newspapers with regard to them. I have received as many letters as most hon. members, and probably more than some, from people who write to me from the Toronto district and other parts of the country. We need to have counsel for those soldiers who are brought before these courts. Something should be done about the high cost of living for them.
Then we have the imperials. There are thousands of these men in Canada. Some of them have been here since the last war and have been citizens for twenty-five years, and some of them do not get anything. I have known a great many of them, and1 some of their children and their children's children are suffering. The committee should include
Veterans Affairs Committee

them. Then there are the firemen. Some of these firemen have done splendid work overseas. I hope the committee will consider them. Then we see that some of the Hong Kong soldiers are not getting a real living allowance. I had a letter from a lady the other day who said her boy would never be the same. He is in hospital. As I see it, a great many of these troops should1 have been placed in the hospital or in a rest home for a year after they return home, because they will never be the same. I hope the committee will consider that feature and grant them equality of treatment with those who trained in the United' States.
I believe some direct federal aid should be given to the municipalities by way of direct aid toward relief, hospitalization and rest homes. I know a great many of these poor soldiers whose wives have to go out to work in the daytime, leaving their small children in rest homes for nursing, education and food. Some of these women work an eight-hour day. I hope some aid may be given to the municipalities for the half the cost in soldier cases and others. The burden should not be on the municipality for the treatment of these honourable patriots who suffered even unto death for this country in two wars and during the depression. I believe that some help should be given to them. I believe in the policy which has been urged in some parts of the country. I hope the committee will consider what should be done about these war memorials. After the last war a survey was made by the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) with regard to these after-the-war memorials-schools, community homes or centres, municipal institutions or something like that all over the country. I think the finest memorial you could build for the soldiers is to give them- proper and decent housing, increased cost of living allowances, and1 many of the other matters which I have mentioned.
There was a1 debate last session with regard to these war memorials. In our city the municipality paid for two or three of them.
I have forgotten just how many thousands of dollars, but there were some of them which the city pays for. I do not believe that the municipality should do so. There should be a national policy on all this relief. It should be national, not local, and1, if done, should be done by the federal authority. Otherwise we shall have the citizens of our cities paying for these war memorials in their own towns and for those in other parts of the country. I hope the committee will consider that.

Then there are the war students in our universities and colleges. When I see these magnificent institutions, Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment you on having a son attending the University of Toronto. He has been recently elected head of the students' council of one of the important colleges in that great university. We have 18,000 or 19,000 students in the University of Toronto. A large percentage of these men-over 10,000 of them- served in this war. I know a great many of
them.	I might mention Danforth Technical School, where the Governor General is to lay the cornerstone of a war memorial on May 30 next. I can tell you that there is a school that was used during the war, with 10,000, 11,000 or 12,000 students, by night and day. Great work was done in the secondary schools. I was talking to one commanding officer the other day, and he could not understand why the government did not give further assistance to the cadet services in secondary and other schools as formerly. The buildings have been provided, and the work of the cadet services is most commendable. These cadets will be needed in the years to come as soldiers and leaders of this country. While many of these soldiers now at the universities work in the summertime, many of them cannot get jobs
then.	I wish to commend the present minister for his interest in that branch of the work, war students at colleges. He himself was the head of a great university and I know he is interested in that particular branch of the work. I urge that it be further extended to all the universities of our country, with more liberal treatment in it.
Another matter which I should like to see the committee consider is that of positions in the civil service. I remember when I was head of the city we had a hard-and-fast rule that all assistance should be given to returned men, and that has been the universal rule in our city from the start, that they be given preference in all positions of employment.
I hope the committee will consider the matter of cadet service. I urge that, lastly, upon the minister, because he knows the value of cadet service to the people of this country. The cadets of today are the soldiers of tomorrow in case of another war in the future. We are not far away from war now, though by the grace of God we hope it may never come to this country again. We hope we may never be invaded, though we are pretty close to it now as in the last war. I urge that something should be done at this time for the cadet services to restore the grants and camps.
I am sorry the Minister of National Defence

Veterans Affairs Committee
(Mr. Claxton) is not here tonight. I think he made a fatal mistake last year when he eliminated the cadet services from his program. In all wars, from the South African war and long before, to the two great wars, the cadet services have been the backbone of our militia, as they are today. Ask any commanding officer where his men come from; he will tell you that what I say is correct.
I do not know that I can add much more, except to say that I do not like all these evictions of returned men which are taking place throughout the country. They are a disgrace to Canada; and it is also disgraceful that soldiers cannot get possession of their own homes. I do not know where we are heading in regard to these matters, and I hope attention will be paid to them.
I want to compliment the various members of the committee. They did noble work in years gone by, and I hope they will get together this year and bring these matters up to date, so that the returned men will urge their sons and others to enlist if trouble should again come. If trouble does come on land, sea or in the air, as it may, I hope the committee will recommend the re-establishment of the air training program for the whole empire, as a defence measure for the empire. That should have been continued; we should never have let it drop.
Having offered the committee these few suggestions, I hope they will get to work soon and that the report they bring in will be a blessing not only to the people of this country at large but especially to the returned men and their wives and families.


Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I would not like the impression to get abroad as a result of this debate that the people of Canada have in any way changed their attitude toward our veterans. The people of Canada are just as enthusiastic today about showing great generosity and gratitude to those who served overseas as they were at the conclusion of either the first or the second great war. Nor would I like the impression to get abroad that the returned men feel that the people of Canada have not shown gratitude for their services. I believe the majority of the veterans feel that their sacrifices have been well recognized by the people, and they are grateful for all that has been done to enable them to become re-established in civilian life. They are also grateful to their comrades who are serving as officials in the Department of Veterans Affairs, whether on the pension commission, on the war veterans' allowances board, on the boards
in connection with rehabilitation or in connection with the Veterans Land Act. Veterans are serving in all those capacities; and the ordinary run-of-mine veteran in the country appreciates that they are trying to give him a square deal. Of course they realize that these officials are circumscribed by the laws and regulations which have been laid down, and that it is not within their province to go beyond those regulations. But I believe the officials of the department have endeavoured to interpret the laws as generously and sympathetically as possible.
I am proud to have been nominated as one of the members of this committee. It has not been my privilege to serve on committees for a number of years, though I did have the pleasure of serving on the committees of 1945 and 1946. This afternoon some reference was made to the activities of the 1946 committee, and perhaps I might give the impressions of a newcomer as -to how that committee functioned. During the first months of its sittings I was surprised at the non-partisan attitude adopted. Various briefs were presented by the different veteran organizations. They were listened to attentively; comments were made, and it did not matter which party a member of the committee might represent in this house, he tried to deal with the problems as they were presented to him and to give -the opinion of a veteran trying to work out the best possible scheme for his fellow veterans. But as time wore on and it became necessary to reach a decision in certain matters, one noticed a considerable change. New faces appeared at those meetings, and I remember so well the hidden legions being led forward by a minister of the crown, now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), and overruling the recommendations made by the impartial members of the committee in earlier sessions. During a previous session of this parliament I referred to the mobile reserves which were brought up. I have a vivid recollection of those mobile reserves moving in, not unlike the Hun divisions which moved in after the first battle of Cambrai.


Colin William George Gibson: I object. That is a bit thick.


George Randolph Pearkes: I had not the wit to coin the phrase uttered this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), who referred to that committee as a creature of the government; but I did come away from the later sessions of that committee with the firm conviction that we had been made tools of the government.
Veterans Affairs Committee

I am pleased that this new committee is being set up. I hope it will not be placed in a strait-jacket as was the previous committee of which I speak. I appreciate the remarks of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg), who says he will welcome suggestions as to how improvements may be made in veterans legislation. For fear some restrictions may be placed on the committee, I should like to take a few minutes this evening to offer one or two suggestions to which I hope the committee will be able to give consideration. I seize the opportunity to speak to the members of the committee now, and I hope this will enable them later on to give full consideration to what I am about to suggest.
Referring, first of all, to the amendment which has been proposed, I am heartily in favour of introducing into this motion now the fact that the committee must consider the merchant navy. If those words are included in the motion the committee will be obligated to consider the services rendered by those men. Again I recall what happened in the 1946 committee. Several hon. members suggested at that time that we should give full consideration to the benefits which should accrue to the members of our merchant marine. There was some rather desultory discussion of the part that the merchant navy had played in the general scheme of winning the war; there was some rather happy-go-lucky discussion of the type of benefits that they should receive, but when it came down to making a final decision the merchant navy was jockeyed out of position. There was a suggestion that their benefits should be considered in a separate bill, that they should not be included in the Pension Act or the War Veterans Allowance Act or other benefits which affected the armed services. Therefore I am anxious to see this committee charged with the responsibility of making a recommendation to the government as to exactly what benefits the men of Canada's merchant navy should receive.
There was some mention this afternoon about the merchant navy and the armed services. Do hon. members realize that the members of the merchant service were armed, that they had quick-firing guns on their vessels in order that they might deal with any hostile submarine? Do hon. members know that they regularly kept watch with their anti-aircraft guns so that they might engage any hostile aircraft which might fly over their vessel? I hope hon. members on all sides of the house will support the recommendation to include consideration of the benefits which should come to the men of the merchant marine and charge the committee with giving careful consideration to them.

I was pleased to hear the Minister of Veterans Affairs announce, when speaking about pensions, that the cheques for the increa'ses were already prepared and that he hoped to get them out for Easter. My query is: Why wait until Easter, midsummer or next Christmas? Let us get them out now. Why not send out these cheques tomorrow? When they are sent out I hope he will say that it is only in part payment because, if this committee gets the opportunity of hearing the recommendations of the various veterans organizations, there is no doubt in my mind that it will come forward with a recommendation to increase the increases of pension which the government has already recommended. I say, let it be made quite clear that these additional cheques are merely part payment of what I hope will be an additional increase to be approved when the committee has made its recommendations based upon the briefs which I hope it will listen to from the various veterans organizations.
I am not going to labour the point because twice this session I have pleaded for additional increases for the veterans. I remember an old saying: There's luck in odd numbers, says Rory O'More. Therefore I do not hesitate in saying for the third time, almost on St. Patrick's day: let us have additional increases to these pensions in view of the present increases that are recommended being totally inadequate.
The same thing applies to the war veterans allowances. I have spoken about this before and suggested that the regulations with regard to the amount a veteran may earn and still receive an allowance be simplified. But above all things I urge that the increase be made automatic in order that we do not have to refer back to the board to see whether a man already granted an allowance because he was needy can prove that he is still needy or perhaps more needy in order to obtain an. additional allowance. I urge also that the war veterans allowance be extended to cover more persons.
I would suggest, first of all, that the committee give careful consideration to allowing members of the Canadian expeditionary force of world war I who, through no fault of their own, got only as far as Great Britain, who were held there for various duties and were not granted the privilege of serving on the continent of Europe, to come under this legislation. It seems to me that those Canadians of that original expeditionary force should be granted the same benefits as those now granted to Canadians who served only in Great Britain in world war II. It should be

Veterans Affairs Committee
remembered that there were more casualties in Great Britain.' through meningitis on Salisbury Plain during world war I than there were from German bombings. It may be that this phase has been overlooked, but the records show more casualties on account of exposure on Salisbury Plain than from bombings.
When considering the extension of war veterans allowances to veterans of world war I who served only in Great Britain, let us remember that Canadians who served in the northwest field force, commonly known as the Riel rebellion, men who served only in Canada, are entitled to these allowances. Surely men who crossed the Atlantic and were exposed to submarine attacks during the first world war are just as much entitled to consideration as veterans who served only in Canada in the northwest field force.
I should like to refer to those veterans who served with British forces other than those of Canada, commonly known as imperials. I would put them in two classes. First, there is the man who was domiciled in Canada perhaps for a number of years before the outbreak of the war. Perhaps for business reasons, perhaps to complete his education or for some other reason he went over to the United Kingdom a short time before the war broke out in 1914. These men were anxious to serve their country and, giving no consideration to what unit they joined, they joined up with the first regiment accepting recruits. The first contingent of the Canadian expeditionary force did not arrive until some time after, so that these men joined up with any regiment which was mobilizing. Then, after the war, after they had served with the imperial forces, they returned to Canada. Those men are Canadians. They may have been bom1 in Canada; they may have come to Canada from the old land two or three years before. I received a letter this very morning from a man who came to this country in 1905, remained here until 1912, then went over to the old country for business reasons and joined up immediately on the outbreak of war. When the first world war was over, he returned to Canada. He is a Canadian in every sense of the word but he is deprived of the benefits of the war veterans allowance. I can see no reason why that class of imperial should not be included in the benefits of the war veterans allowance.
Others are those men who served in an actual theatre of war and, after service in the first world war, emigrated to Canada, and here in Canada they lived for perhaps twenty years. Personally I believe they also should be included in the benefits of the war veterans
allowance, and that they should also have the benefit of our Canadian hospitals. The next point I want to make, and I hope that this will be taken up in the committee, is that there should be a new definition of "western hemisphere" as applied to the War Service Grants Act. I should like to see the definition extended so that those men of the 34th company of the Veterans Guard of Canada who did their duty in British Guiana should have an opportunity of receiving the benefits under the act. Those men volunteered for active service wherever they might be, and they were sent, not to Europe, but through a submarine infested Caribbean sea down to South America, where they had strenuous and dangerous duty to perform. There they were separated from their families for two or more years. Owing to a narrow interpretation which is given to the term "western hemisphere", they are deprived of the benefits of the act. I feel that they should be given an opportunity to have their case considered. In the previous committee they submitted a brief; but on November 25, 1946, the chairman of the committee advised the author of the brief that it could not be considered during that session of parliament owing to the amount of work before the committee. I hope that now, after the lapse of all these months, the chairman will allow the original brief as submitted by the representatives of the 34th company of the Veterans Guard of Canada to be considered, with a view to seeing whether they are not entitled to some benefits in recognition of their service in British Guiana.
Some references have already been made to the members of the ferry command. They were Canadian, British and United States pilots who flew some 11,000 aircraft from Canada to the various theatres of war. They actually landed in North Africa only a short distance behind the troops, who were engaged in battle. There they delivered their aircraft, and they delivered ammunition and supplies. It is a matter of record that three out of every four of the pilots of the ferry command lost their lives.
I should like to put forward a special plea for the widows of the Canadian members of the ferry command. In British Columbia I know of some widows of pilots of the ferry command who are in very much straitened circumstances. I know of one case where there are three orphan children who have to depend entirely upon charity for their livelihood. They receive no pension; they receive no gratuities. Yet at the same time the British government has quite recently given full recognition to the members of all civilian aircrew and considers them on a par with service
Veterans Affairs Committee

personnel in so far as benefits and service decorations are concerned. I hope that the minister will charge the committee to give this class full consideration and to call evidence in order to substantiate my claim that the men of the ferry command should receive greater consideration, and particularly that their widows and orphans should have more generous treatment accorded to them.
I have one more point which I am not quite certain will come within the province of the committee, but I would ask that the question be reviewed by the committee. I speak of those veterans who were serving in the permanent forces of Canada and who took their discharge under what is known as part V of the militia pension scheme. They were regular sailors, soldiers or airmen who had expected to complete their service agreement of twenty or more years before they drew their pension. Owing to circumstances connected with the war, they found that after fifteen years of service, and sometimes less, they were given an opportunity to retire under what is known as part V of the militia pension scheme. They were given the opportunity but actually they had very little choice in the matter, because if they had remained on they would have had to take a very much lower rank. In many cases it was considered advisable, and rightly so, to stream-line our forces, and men who had reached middle age were not required in the armed forces of the country in peacetime. The point that is causing this type of veteran considerable hardship is that he is prohibited from enjoying the full benefits of his pension scheme if he accepts employment in the public service of Canada. When they joined up ten or fifteen years ago they realized that that was a condition of the militia pension scheme, but they also realized that by the time they had completed their service they would be getting on in years and would be drawing a larger pension than the one they now draw under part V of the Militia Pension Act. But they are handicapped now because, if they accept employment in the public service, they cannot receive the full benefits of the Militia Pension Act, to which fund they had contributed during the period of their service.	.
The public service of Canada has expanded considerably. It is no longer merely the civil service, but all these crown companies which are springing up to take care of various industries are considered as part of the public service of Canada. I suggest to you, sir, that a man who has spent a number of years in the armed service of the country is by virtue of his training, his adherence to discipline and punctuality, which has been instilled

into him, particularly suited in many cases to service in these crown companies or in the public service of Canada; and I would ask that the committee's scope be extended to give consideration to the advisability of modifying those restrictions in some way so as not to discourage this particularly desirable type of man.
I have covered a good many points. The minister asked for suggestions. I have tried to give some suggestions which I hope will be of benefit in guiding the committee's deliberations. I hope that the committee will be set up without further delay and will be able to get down to work, and that, after its deliberations and it has heard the evidence which will be placed before it by the different bodies which are to appear, when it has made its recommendations the government will pay heed to them.


John Oliver Probe: Mr. Speaker, I wish briefly to express concurrence in the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) to set up a select committee of the House of Commons to consider the legislation relating to pensions, treatment and reestablishment of former members of His Majesty's armed forces, and so on. It seems to me that this debate should have been the opportunity for those of us who this year are not to be favoured by being on the committee itself to pass on through you, Mr. Speaker, and through the Minister of Veterans Affairs, to the committee some of the points that arise in our minds as to what should be the scope of the activity of the committee when it starts to function.
I wish to refer for a moment to the amendment that was introduced this afternoon in the name of the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks). With respect to that portion of the resolution relating to pensions, treatment and re-establishment of former members of His Majesty's armed forces and of other persons who have been otherwise engaged in pursuits closely related to war, the hon. member for Royal brought in an amendment specifically mentioning the merchant marine. He emphasized that some consideration should be given to the merchant marine. I believe that all hon. members are concerned that the merchant marine should be properly re-established, as should be the members of the armed forces.
However, this occurs to me in connection with the amendment, and I want to ask some of the legal minds in the house a question on this matter. At the moment there comes to

Veterans Affairs Committee
my mind the contribution made by some of the fire fighters or of the personnel of the Red Cross or of the members of the ferry command or of the various other auxiliary services which are not at the moment recognized for re-establishment on the same basis as that of those who wore His Majesty's uniform. It seems to my non-legal mind that the fourth line of this resolution would have made complete provision for a discussion at least of further measures of rehabilitation for those groups which I mentioned, which are exclusive of the merchant marine. I do not know just why the hon. member for Royal considered the merchant marine as worthy of singling out at this stage. I want to pay them every tribute, but I recall the excellent work of the fire fighters overseas, and it would seem to me that they should be placed in this group as well. To my mind the resolution as it stands is sufficiently inclusive. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you would permit me to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) at this stage, or perhaps he can answer it after I sit down if he prefers, just to what extent the reading of the resolution as it stands on the order paper would exclude, or otherwise to what extent the groups I have mentioned come within the scope of the resolution without applying the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Royal. To my mind the thing is redundant; but not being trained in legal matters, it seems to me that the wording is perfectly clear to include all these groups that I am interested in, as well as the fire fighters. I would appreciate it if the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who has some training in these matters, would express an opinion as to the comprehensiveness of the scope of this resolution with respect to the group that I have mentioned other than the merchant marine. Then, of course, in his capacity as leader of the house at the moment he could assure us whether or not we would be excluded or whether the committee would be excluded from discussing the various matters relating to their re-establishment as they are brought up. I should like the minister to make a note of that as well.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member a question? Perhaps he has overlooked the fact that the amendment deals with His Majesty's armed forces. If the amendment is accepted the resolution would read, "former-"


Humphrey Mitchell: To whom are you talking?


Howard Charles Green: "Former members of His Majesty's armed forces, including the merchant navy." Then it goes on.


John Oliver Probe: I beg your pardon. If what the hon. member for Vancouver South now says is the purpose of the amendment it is to put the merchant marine in the same class as members of His Majesty's forces in uniform.


Howard Charles Green: As a fourth arm of the service.


John Oliver Probe: If we do that then, of course, we shall have to include the fire fighters and those other groups who saw service in an actual theatre of war, as most of us are aware. However, I shall wait until the minister makes a statement in that regard if he will be so kind.
My purpose in rising was to offer a suggestion or two. I want to concur in the argument of those hon. members who have suggested that this committee be a standing committee of the house and that it do not just sit when the Minister of Veterans Affairs has some special thorny problems to place before it.
For quite a number of years yet we shall have to have continuous changes in administration and legislation covering re-establishment matters, and I would favour this committee being a standing committee of the house. I think, too, that the committee should be asked to consider pensions, treatment and re-establishment as specified in the resolution, but it seems to me that there is a broader aspect of this whole matter which they should consider. I believe there is a basic relationship to the special needs of discharged persons which should be considered-veterans of the war and war casualties and their families. These should be considered specifically as such; but as we get farther away from the war, then I think there should be some sort of co-ordination between the consideration given the needs of veterans and their families, having regard to the peculiar nature of war disabilities and the results of the war, and the needs of the citizens generally from the point of view of social service. That is to say, if there is, by virtue of public opinion at the present time, need to consider these matters, then it should be done as I suggest. If such a condition occurs that veterans rehabilitation, pensions, treatment, allowances and so on are given a certain emphasis in relation to our budget, and at the same time old age pensions, family allowances and the like are allowed to remain as they now are, and if there is no co-ordination or no relation between the two, then eventually we shall think of this as class legislation rather than as re-establishment legislation. The time is coming soon when there should be a co-ordination between veterans' matters and matters of social welfare affecting the basic needs of Canadian citizens generally, and legislation on the two aspects should be
Veterans Affairs Committee

dove-tailed in some respects, paying special regard, of course, to the peculiar needs of war veterans themselves and their families.
There is something else in connection with these allowances that are prescribed by statute. We fix these allowances periodically, every twenty, twenty-five or thirty years, or after sufficient public opinion has been built up for the purpose, and there is little actual relationship between war veterans allowances and pensions for war casualties, and the actual purchasing value of the money which they receive by statute. Our economy in the last year particularly has been so vulnerable to outside influences, or to government policy, that the cost of living has risen at a terrific speed, and there is no way in which compensation can be given to these people who have no earning powers so that they may have a living as adequate in 1948 or 1949 as they had on the same monthly cheque in 1946 and 1947.
I submit that the time has come to set basic pensions and basic treatment allowances, and then the government should in effect give bonuses automatically, based on the changes and fluctuations in the cost of living which are in large measure due to the policies of the Canadian government and for which, therefore, the Canadian government must assume full responsibility specifically.
I believe we all favour in this house increased allowances to student veterans and to pensioners; but simply to say, let us increase these allowances by ten., twenty-five or forty per cent is not a solution. It is not a cure for the straitened circumstances in which a person may find himself in consequence of the cost of living having fluctuated this way or that. In my opinion it would be much better to set these pensions at a base figure once and for all and then supplement them according to the fluctuations in the cost of living index, paying the difference as a supplement.
I would like the committee to consider an extension of the housing program so far as veterans are concerned. Unless a veteran and his family are able to take advantage of the Veterans Land Act and settle on a farm or a small holding, and that includes only a small portion of the number of men and women who have been in uniform, there is no opportunity to secure much needed1 housing. Some members may say, "Well, we have a wartime housing scheme by which the veteran may be able to rent a home." That is true for some if they are so fortunately situated1 that they may qualify for houses under Wartime Housing. Or, you may say, if he has money let him buy a home under the integrated housing

plan. To my mind, that scheme for veterans is a distinct and utter flop. I recall specifically the case of a young man in my own city who purchased1 under the integrated housing scheme, or thought he was purchasing, a four-room house for $6,060, and when the time came that the contractor had completed the house this veteran found that, unless he was to take a chance on the down payment he had made to the construction company, he had to put up another $1,300 additional payment in order to get possession of a four-roomed house, or $7,300 for a small dwelling of that kind. It is utterly fantastic. The contractor was protected in his cost by the National Housing Act, but the man whom we thought we were protecting took the rap again by paying on an already inflated price another $1,300 before he could secure possession of his house.
I suggest that the committee should make a strong recommendation to the government this time that the housing schemes of the country be so enlarged that veterans might use their re-establishment credits to take advantage of alternative types of housing to that provided by the Veterans Land Act so that they can settle in urban areas, if they wish to do so, having the same right to receive grants from the federal purse as those who are fortunate enough to be settled under the Veterans Land Act.
Other groups could be included in this housing re-establishment as well as those in uniform, and I refer to the groups I mentioned earlier in my talk.
There is one other thing the committee should consider. I have spoken to a number of civil servants who enlisted at the beginning of the war, whose superannuation rights on enlistment were automatically suspended at that time and who now find, five or six or seven years after they enlisted, that they have to start all over again to build up superannuation credits. Surely that is very shabby treatment for the federal government to give its own employees when they are re-established.
I feel that the veterans affairs committee should see that our own federal government be as generous as they have expected private concerns to be in the matter of taking back returned men.
I wish the veterans affairs committee every success in their deliberations if and when the committee is set up, and I hope it will be set up early.
I hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will rise when I sit down and give to this house some assurance that it is not necessary to have the Tory amendment voted on at this time. Perhaps the Tories will withdraw it.

Veterans Affairs Committee


An hon. MEMBER:: Progressive Conservatives.


John Oliver Probe: I beg your pardon, Progressive Conservatives.


An hon. MEMBER:: They are all the same.


John Oliver Probe: As I see it, the wording of this resolution seems quite satisfactory to me, but I should like to have a definite government assurance on that point.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): The hon. member asked for a definite assurance that the resolution as drawn covers and was intended to cover all those for whom there are already legislative provisions relating to pensions, treatment and re-establishment. That is quite clear. The question was specially considered by the government when the terms of the resolution to be put on the order paper were being approved. There are a large number of persons other than members of the armed forces for whom there have already been made legislative provisions relating to pensions, treatment and re-establishment. For instance, there are the merchant seamen and salt-water fishermen; there are the auxiliary services including several branches determined in the statute. There is the corps of civilian fire fighters for service in the United Kingdom; there are the R.C.M.P. special constables. The air raid precaution workers are included. Under part VIII, there are the voluntary aid services; that is, the Red Cross and the St. John Ambulance workers. Under Part IX, there are the overseas welfare workers; under part X, the Canadian civilian air crew of the R.A.F.. commonly called the ferry command. It also includes veterans of the allied forces who are not members of His Majesty's armed forces. It includes the Wrens, the South African military nursing services, the special operators, and there may be others. The government wished to have the terms such that all those who could possibly come within the description of having been engaged in pursuits closely related to the war could bring their grievances, if any, before this committee.


Howard Charles Green: Of course the merchant navy was right in the war.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am not prepared to admit that the other classes I have referred to were not also right in the war; and I do not think the hon. member would wish, for instance, to face the fire fighters who enlisted for service in the United Kingdom, and say that they were not right in the war.


Howard Charles Green: We fought their battles for them in 1946.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes. But the same provisions have been made for merchant seamen as have been made for these others; and there are with respect to them legislative provisions which may or may not be sufficient. But they are all included in the terms of this resolution. The hon. member's proposed amendment asks this house to make a statement of fact which would be false, because it cannot be asserted by this house with any degree of accuracy that the persons engaged for service in the merchant marine were members of His Majesty's armed forces.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister a question?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister contend tonight that the merchant navy men were incorrectly described by his associates in the cabinet as the fourth arm of the services?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Did my hon. friend never hear of allegories or rhetorical figures of
speech ?


Howard Charles Green: I think that is what that was.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I have listened to many of my hon. friend's speeches in the house, and there are a great many of his assertions that I would consider as allegories or figures of speech.


Mr. IRVINE:: Since the merchant marine is already included in the original resolution, and since an amendment has been moved which mentions them alone, if the government does not accept that and the house should vote it down, would that action not exclude them from consideration?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Certainly not. They are included in those who are described in this chapter 43 of the statutes of 1946.


William Irvine: Yes. But I think the right hon. gentleman did not understand my question. I should think that if this house should vote down the amendment, it would be an instruction to the committee to leave these people out, when they are in already.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Oh, no. How could that be? The instruction to the committee would be in the terms which are on the order paper, and those terms include all the services which were closely related to the war and for which legislative provisions have already been made and which provisions may or may not be satisfactory. It is a committee to review the whole field of those for whom some legislative provision has been made, so as to
Veterans Affairs Committee

recommend, if there be occasion to do so, modifications to that legislation, and that would cover the whole field. If we started to put in three or four, then I think it would be a logical conclusion that the others who were not enumerated were not intended to be covered by the general language. The purpose of the government in drafting the resolution in these wide terms was to make it open to the committee to hear grievances from all those for whom, since the beginning, there has been any legislative provision made, and to see if those legislative provisions were sufficient or not.


William Ross Macdonald: In view of what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said, I am doubtful whether this amendment is in order. As has been pointed out clearly, and it seems to be correct, the amendment is superfluous in that it adds nothing to the resolution. There is a rule that an amendment must either add to or subtract from the resolution. In view of what has been said, I wonder if the hon. member desires to proceed with the resolution or to withdraw it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not altogether agree, Mr. Speaker, with your statement that it does not add anything to the resolution. As a matter of fact, I do not think the government would be so much concerned if it did not add anything to it. Our object has simply been to place the merchant marine in a position which the government themselves have repeatedly stated they should be placed in; that is, that they were one of the four fighting services of this country. The minister speaks about placing them in the same category as the Red Cross workers, V.A.D. workers, fire fighters and so on. We recognize that these people all performed splendid services. But when we recall that the men of the merchant navy had more casualties than had any other branch of the service-and that has been definitely stated in this house

and that the suffering that these men had to endure was as great as that of those in any other braneh of the service, we in the committee felt that these men-


An hon. MEMBER:: And their dependents.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes, and their dependents. Many of these men died. They died by the hundreds. In our veterans affairs committee, time and time again members from the other side of the house as well as members from this side felt that these men should be included as one of the fighting branches of the

service. Our amendment, Mr. Speaker, is simply to have these men included as one of the fighting services. The amendment would have the resolution read:
That a select committee be appointed to consider the legislation relating to pensions, treatment and re-establishment of former members of His Majesty's armed forces, including the merchant navy.
Some hon. members have confused this with the next section, which speaks of "other persons who have been otherwise engaged'' and so on. We know that will include the merchant marine; we know it will include all the other people the minister has mentioned, but we want the merchant marine included in a different way. We want them included as one of the fighting forces, and that is the reason for our amendment.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend has just made a speech on a point of order. I am not speaking to the point of order-


Howard Charles Green: Are you on the point of order?


Humphrey Mitchell: No; I am speaking to the resolution.


William Ross Macdonald: There is a point of order before the house, and I expect only a very limited discussion on it.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to speak to the point of order. The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) has covered the situation very well, but in addition to the points he has raised there is the further fact that in order to get any benefits the merchant navy must come under two departments, the Department of Transport, which is primarily concerned writh them, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. In that respect I think they are different from any other category that would be dealt with by the committee. The hon. member for Royal and I, in moving this amendment, believe it is of the utmost importance that this house should say the men of the merchant navy are to be regarded as the fourth arm of the services. That statement has been made by various ministers. Perhaps it was made by every member of this house who spoke about these people during the war. Certainly we all felt that way, and I do not see why there should be all this objection to having them included in the resolution as the fourth arm of the services. So I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a material alteration in the resolution and, therefore, is perfectly in order.


Humphrey Mitchell: Speaking to the point of order; my hon. friend has made the point

Veterans Affairs Committee
that they were the fourth arm of the fighting forces. He is an old soldier; I was in the navy, and we must remember that the relationship between the crown and the air force, the navy and the army is entirely different from its relationship to the merchant marine, not the merchant navy but the merchant marine. The average merchant service man belongs to a trade union.


Howard Charles Green: They were under the manning pool.


Humphrey Mitchell: I did not interrupt you, so just sit quietly for a few minutes and listen to Someone who knows what he is talking about. My hon. friend speaks of the fourth arm of the services. That is just a slogan; it is not based on fact. I take second place to no one in this house in paying tribute to the services these men rendered during the war; but you do not have trade union agreements as between the army and the crown. You do not have a trade union agreement between the navy and the crown, or between the air force and the crown. Merchant service men had their trade unions. They were paid on the basis of civilian workers, might I say, there is absolutely no comparison. The whole drift and drive of my hon. friend's argument is to make them an arm of the fighting services. Before you do that, Mr. Speaker, I think the men concerned should be consulted. I believe they are quite prepared to remain as they are; and with, all due respect to what has been said by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent), they have a perfect right to appear before this committee under the resolution moved by the government.


Howard Charles Green: Is this a point of order or a speech?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am speaking to the point of order.


Mr. BARENESS:: What is the point of order?


Humphrey Mitchell: You wouldn't know if
I told you.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. A number of hon. members have spoken to the point of order, and I think they went far afield without being interrupted. I think the Minister of- Labour should be allowed to speak without interruption.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend speaks of the fourth arm of the services. I know something about the fire fighters' organization in this dominion and in the United States, and there would be some force to the argument if
they suggested that they were the fourth arm. Or the nurses could quite properly argue that they were the fourth arm, or the A.R.P. workers, or almost any one who was in Europe throughout the blitz, irrespective of the particular government activity in which they were engaged. I think there is absolutely no basis for the argument advanced by the hon. member for Vancouver South, and I believe he should leave the merchant seamen to their own organizations. They are quite prepared and' quite capable of taking care of themselves before this committee, under the resolution moved by the government.


William Ross Macdonald: I must thank hon. members for the assistance they have given me in coming to a conclusion on the point of order. I am sure we all agree with everything that has been said with respect to the merchant seamen, but the question here is one of procedure. Are they now included in the resolution, or, in other words, does the amendment add anything to the resolution?
I am satisfied that the amendment adds nothing to the resolution; therefore I must rule it out of order.


Mr. E. D. FULTON (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, this delightful, remarkable example of co-operation between the C.C.F. and the government rather reminds us of old times, with such carefully framed questions giving rise to such carefully framed answers. The amendment of the official opposition having been ruled out of order, the subject matter before the house is now the resolution proposed by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg). Before I go on with my remarks in that regard, I should like to refer to the implication sought to be left this afternoon by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Tucker) that if we take much time in discussing this resolution, and particularly if we ask that the amendments to the Pension Act be sent to the veterans affairs committee, we shall be guilty of obstruction and delay. I would point out that the only time effective action can be taken to increase pensions and veterans allowances this session is when the legislation is before the house; and the best way to get amendments to the government's present proposals is to have those proposals sent to the veterans affairs committee, where they can be discussed and the pros and cons debated. Them, after the various matters are considered in the impartial and constructive manner we hope that will be done, if it can be shown that further increases are justified those increases will be made.
If, on the other hand, we allow the legislation to go through this house virtually without
Veterans Affairs Committee

protest, as we are being invited to do, simply in order to avoid the charge of obstruction and delay, then we shall have lost our chance of actually obtaining increases under the present proposals. It is an old tactic to put poor legislation or inadequate legislation or undesirable proposals before an assembly and then, when objection is taken and it is suggested that the legislation could be improved, to charge the opponents with obstruction, and try to ram it through on that basis. It is a tactic we saw operated time and again under constitutions and types of government we thought were different from our own. That is a tactic which I think should be deplored in this house, especially when it is used in connection with veterans legislation.


Mr. GREGG:: May I ask who indicated that the pension bill would not come before the veterans affairs committee?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was my understanding of the remarks made this afternoon by the parliamentary assistant.


Walter Adam Tucker: Just to clear up the point and save time, I said that some people had suggested that, but there is no suggestion that if the house wants it to go to the committee we are setting up there will be any objection in any way.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have to confess that that was not my understanding of the hon. member's remarks this afternoon and I am glad he has cleared up that point for us. I hope, then, that the government will accede to the request which has been made that the proposed pensions legislation be sent to the veterans affairs committee.
In considering the subject matter of the resolution before us, I think it would be useful to go back to the statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) at the beginning of the session and again on February 16 with regard to the proposed legislation concerning veterans affairs. On December 19, before Christmas, the Prime Minister opened his statement in the house with the following words, 'to be found on page 489 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, the government has for some time been giving careful consideration to the nates of pay of members of the civil service and the armed forces, and the rates of veterans pensions and war veterans 'allowances. I,t was recognized that account should be taken of increases in the general level of wages and salaries since the establishment of the existing rates.
I would direct attention particularly to that sentence to the effect that account should be taken of the increases in the general level of 
wages and salaries. The Prime Minister having made that statement, I think it was to be expected that increases in veterans benefits would actually bear a relation to that other level. But having said that, the Prime Minister announced increases of 110 a month in the case of a 100 per cent pensioner, or 13-3 per cent. I shall give the figures in a moment which show that the increase in the genera! level of wages has been in the neighbourhood of 65 to 70 per cent. As the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) said immediately, it was a tragic and terrible let-down.
Then the Prime Minister made a statement on February 16, in which he admitted that representations had been received from all veteran bodies and that, partly as a result of those representations, further careful consideration had been given to the matter. He went on to add that the legislation was practically completed and he tabled details of the increases to be given. The wording of that statement created the impression of generous treatment, but no specific figures were given at the time. Figures were tabled only.
An examination of the tabled figures shows that the first impression of generous treatment was completely misleading. The increase announced on December 19 was 13-3 per cent for a 100 per cent pension, and the increase announced on February 16 brought it up to 16 per cent for a 100 per cent pension. Certain of the percentages given in the table produced at the time created an erroneous impression, particularly the percentage of increase in the case of married student veterans. The increases to which I shall refer are to be found in the table placed on Hansard, but I am reading now from sessional paper 131F of the same day, Monday, February 16,
1948.
From those figures we find that a widow with children used to get $97; she now gets $114, which is an increase of 17-5 per cent. A 100 per cent pensioner with children gets the same increase, 17-5 per cent. It is represented in the table that in the case of student veterans, taking university or vocational training, the increases range up to 50 per cent, but the only justification for that figure is that the allowance is broken down into various categories. Instead of taking the married student and his wife together, the increase for the wife is-listed separately and that is shown as an increase of 50 per cent from $20 to $30. When the increases to the student and his wife are taken together they represent an increase of only 12J per cent. It seems to me that when you are dealing with allowances to married

Veterans Affairs Committee
veterans the only basis that should be used is the family unit. If all the increases given are added together it is found that the average increase for a veteran, wife and children is about 18 per cent. The effective figures for the increases in veterans benefits under this legislation vary between 16 per cent and approximately 20 per cent.
I have obtained Department of Labour statistics showing the increases in the wage rate. I should like to bring again to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Prime Minister stated that in a consideration of this matter effect should be given to the general increases in wage rate. If we take the general index for wages as given by the Department of Labour, with a base of 100 for 1939, we find that ,n 1925 it was 93-8, increasing to 155-2 in 1946, or 61-4 per cent. I am told that during 1947 there has been approximately a 10 per cent additional increase. I am starting with 1925 because that is the year in which the basic rates for pension were established.
Similarly if we take the index for unskilled labour, which I understand was the one used when the scale of pensions was set in 1925, still taking a base of 100 as of 1939, we find that it increased from 92-4 in 1925 to 165-9 in 1946, or a total of 73-5 per cent. Wages have gone up an average of 70 per cent, while the increase in pensions over 1925, even on the most generous estimate, is approximately 20 per cent.
It seems to me that this is another case of letting down the veteran. Some of us feel strongly about this, more strongly than the words we are inclined to use. In my first speech in this house I referred to the matter of letting down the armed forces, and I said I would not refer to it again unless I felt that history was repeating itself and that the lessons of the past were being neglected. I feel that that is taking place. We have the government saying to the veterans that they will give increases which will bear relation to the increases in the general wage rates, but we find that when their action is actually analysed it does not carry out their words, because their words would entitle the veteran to an increase of at least 50 per cent, and their actions give him an average increase of less than 20 per cent. So we see history repeating itself, and we want this matter sent to the veterans affairs committee and the government to suit its action to its word and give the veterans the treatment they deserve.
I want to read an open letter addressed to the Prime Minister from one of the legion
branches in my constituency, because it puts the situation in apt and well chosen words. It was an open letter, a copy of which was sent to myself; it appeared in the press, and therefore it may be read to the house. It is dated January 21 and was written before the second announcement of increases on February 16, but the increases covered by this announcement represented only some three per cent, and therefore I have no hesitation in saying that the words in this letter are as applicable after the announcement as they were before. The letter reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
The members of the branch and all veterans of the district wish to take this opportunity to vigorously protest the manner in which your government is conducting veterans legislation.
At the last special session of the house your government refused to give priority to the business of veterans legislation on the grounds that it was not an urgent matter. This action is beyond all comprehension to us in view of the ever-soaring cost of living even by government index, which is not anywhere near accurate. The failure of your government to increase veterans pensions and widows allowances immediately, is causing extreme hardship and privation.
In order to refresh the memory of your government it is necessary to digress somewhat at this point. Only a few short years ago when the shadow of the swastika threatened to darken the entire civilized world, nearly a million young men and women, without thought for their own private future or safety, without benefit of contract or negotiation, interrupted their lives to take up arms for freedom and democracy. Mr. Prime Minister, the plight in which we find our veterans, their widows and dependents today is not the democracy thousands fought and died for. And until these injustices are remedied we shall not consider the last battle as being over.
With great dismay we now read in the press of your proposed increases in pension rates and widows allowances, which are not only inadequate but insulting. It will do little or nothing to alleviate the suffering of veterans, their widows and children. It will do nothing but prolong their privation and humiliation because their fathers gave their lives for their country. It will do nothing to inspire them to greater things which should be their right. Nor will it, Mr. Prime Minister, gird them to combat the otheT menace which is again threatening our country from without and within-the hammer and sickle.
In conclusion, Mr. Prime Minister, we wish to repeat that us a veterans organization we shall continue to fight with every rightful means at our disposal until such time as these cruel injustices are rectified.
Yours very truly,
Ashcroft Branch No. 113.
Canadian Legion, B.E.S.L.
That is a sentiment expressed in words which I consider it a privilege and am proud to support.
Veterans Affairs Committee

With respect particularly to the pension and disability benefits to be paid to our war veterans, there are certain suggestions which I should like at this stage to put before the house so that they might in turn go before the committee. I would also request the minister to be kind enough ,to make some reference to this matter in closing the debate. I have not dreamed up these recommendations myself. They are the result of what careful study I have been able to give to the matter in consultation with veterans organizations. They are an attempt to arrive at a reasonable statement of the opinions of experts whom I have been able to consult.
The first recommendation is that there should be a change in the terminology in the Pension Act from war disability pension to war disability compensation. The reason for that may seem to be a technical one; but it is urged, and I believe there is good ground for it, that by the use of the wordl "pension" employers 'are apt to come to the conclusion: This man has a pension; therefore I need give him only a lower paid job. Or when the employer is dispensing with the services of some of his employees he may dispense with the employee who has a disability pension rather than someone who has not a pension; whereas if it were put on the basis of disability compensation the question of the amount of the man's compensation for war disability does not and could not be allowed to enter the question of his wages or salary on receiving employment. On that point I object strongly to a statement made in the magazine issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs itself. In its issue of March 1, 1948, there is an article dealing with "The Disability Preference in Civil Service of Canada", and the article shows just how far astray our attitude to pensions and the effect of pensions has gone. In the article I find this sentence:
Needless to say the amount of pension awarded is intended to be significant of the candidate's remaining capacity for work.
It seems to me that this sentence reflects the attitude that a pension is a reward1 for inability to work, based on the loss of the man's earning capacity in the labour market. I am going to suggest that that is a wrong approach, and it is very unfortunate that it should1 have been allowed to creep into an article in a magazine published by the department itself.
In considering the approach which I think should be placed before the committee in a review of pensions legislation, I would suggest the following: Those who are interested in pensions and veterans affairs generally will agree that the proper basis, and the basis on

which I understand the matter was first placed, is that since the war service of the veteran has resulted in disablement, the country owes him compensation in so far as it can make up for the disability he now suffers. Therefore the degree of disability and the degree of pension awarded must bear a real relationship and what must be considered1 is the actual disability, plus the amount of pain and suffering, plus any psychological as well as physiological handicaps suffered by the veteran. We must attempt to assess the man's disability as a percentage of total disability, not how much less he can earn in the labour market. How much has he lost by his wound? In that way we can assess the percentage of disability.
Then we come to the basic rate of compensation, the money value of the compensation, and that is where the difficulty arises. For that possibly some yardstick must be used, but that rate must surely bear a real relationship to present-day standards. The rate must, as the Prime Minister said, take into account the increase in the general rate of wages. The rate must be the measure of compensation which the country wishes to pay for the disability the veteran has suffered, and surely the country does not wish to pay niggardly compensation but wants to be generous and to have the compensation bear a real relationship to current wage and salary levels. If that is the case, and surely there can be no doubt of it, the demand of the various veterans' associations that the rate for 100 per cent disability should be increased to $100 a month is only reasonable, and is perhaps even underestimating what should be granted.
I suggest, further, that, as in the case of the disability compensation, it must bear a reasonable relationship to present-day standards, so also must widows' compensation and so also must war veterans allowances. In that connection I should like to support what has been said on so many occasions with respect to the extension of the benefits of the War Veterans Allowance Act to imperial veterans. These are now Canadian citizens. They fought in the same war. There is no reason why, after fifteen years' residence in Canada, they should not be entitled to the same benefits.
I should like to suggest that there should be laid before the committee for its consideration the case of the helpless and the introduction of amendments designed to bring the helplessness allowance more into line with the requirements of present-day conditions. I refer particularly to paraplegics and quadra-plegics and other totally disabled veterans. Some of them are now in receipt of a helplessness allowance, the maximum of which is $750 a year. That sounds like quite a lot,

Veterans Affairs Committee
until you consider that these helplessly disabled and totally disabled-I am speaking in terms of physical disability, not in terms of earning capacity-have to hire a taxi every time they go downtown. They must pay an extra tip to somebody to put their wheel chair in the back of the car, close the door, and take them out again. Every time they need a haircut or wish to go to a movie they have additional expense, the extent of which is almost beyond our comprehension until we sit down and calculate it with pencil and paper. Besides their possible extra suffering, their psychological suffering, they have expenses all the time. Particularly if 'they are married we find that what actually happens under the present rate of helplessness allowance is that their wives become their attendants. I am quite certain that no government would ever permit that condition to continue if it were forcibly brought to their attention. The government never intended that the wife should become the 100 per cent full-time attendant of those helpless veterans.
While I am on this subject, I wish to deal briefly with remarks that are frequently made that, while there are some criticisms which might be made of the scale of veterans benefits, still Canada is far and away ahead of anything in any other country. That is not altogether correct, and particularly it is not correct in connection with the matter of helplessness allowances. In New Zealand, for instance-I am basing these figures on a comparative study in the last section of the "veterans charter"-one finds that the helpless allowance is $1,040 a year if it is necessary for the veteran to have an attendant. That is based oh the pound at $4. In the United States an attendant is provided; a conveyance is provided free of charge, and pensions up to $3,000 a year may be paid in special cases of disability. Therefore in Canada I suggest that, in the case of helplessness, the 100 per cent allowance should be increased to not less than $100 a month, because if your basic compensation rate is designed to compensate for the degree of a man's disability, bis physical and psychological disability and physical and psychological suffering, then, however generous you are in setting your compensation for that suffering, that compensation can only take care of the general case, and the special case of those totally blinded, totally or partly paralysed, double amputees or those in any other ways rendered totally or partly helpless requiring special attention, must be taken care of by an additional and generous helplessness allowance.
These are some of the suggestions that should be placed before the committee. Others 5849-127
would have to do with the case of student veterans, particularly the married student veterans whose increase is only 12J per cent. There are many things which I should like to say; but in view of the lateness of the hour and the anxiety to conclude tonight, I shall just refer to them in passing. It is well to remember that in the United States, in New Zealand and in Australia student veterans are in receipt of one or both of travelling allowance and an allowance for books. Our student veterans tell me that, in the case of single veterans, if they could receive the book allowance it would help greatly to tide them over the difficulty. As for the married men it cannot be denied that the increase of only 12^ per cent is not an adequate increase in view of the increase in the cost of living and in the general scale of wage rates.
In closing I should like to summarize the matters that I think should be laid before the committee for its consideration. They are as follows: first, a change in the terminology to that of war disability compensation instead of disability pension; second, an increase in the basic rate for 100 per cent disability to at least $100 a month; third, an increase in the rate for total helplessness allowance to at least $100 a month, and in the degrees of helplessness should be included such things as blindness, double amputations as well as para and quadraplegics; a further increase to take care of student veterans; and such other matters as have been previously mentioned, for instance the Veterans Land Act and the veterans living in wartime houses. I would ask the minister if he would do us the courtesy of referring, at least in passing, to these matters before closing the debate.
Mr. L. W. SIvEY (Trinity): Mr. Speaker, before I commence my remarks I just wish to say that some of .the problems which have been presented in the last five and a half hours have been indeed staggering and show clearly how badly the House of Commons needed to discuss these matters.
At the outset, may I offer briefly my congratulations to the minister on his maiden speech in the house and at the same time to pay my personal tribute to his painstaking assistants in D.V.A. who have performed their duties so conscientiously so far as their mandate permits. May I also say, regardless of party, that I am one who appreciated in full the energy and application of the former minister and his great service to the war veterans of Canada. I appreciated the irn-
Veterans Affairs Committee

mediate action which always was taken on the problems sent to him by veterans and other members of the house.
There is no need for me to refer to the fact that this committee and this resolution should have been called earlier. That has been ably dealt with by my colleagues. The few minutes that I shall take can certainly not delay the setting up of this committee and the veterans benefits which I hope will accrue from it. When the government finished the work of the 1946 committee it had not completed its job. The committee had gone as far as it was permitted to go, and it is my belief that it should have been permitted to meet again in 1947. However, in 1948 we find the situation doubly aggravated, not so much by what the government would not permit us to do in 1946, but more so by the government's financial policy which has resulted in inflation and rising prices. On top of this financial policy followed the embargoes which caused further scarcity with still higher prices. All these things have their tremendous effect on (pensions, allowances, benefits and dependents allowances. Those living on them have been affected most grievously. It is not now a case of the cost of living with these people; it is a case of the cost of keeping alive, and those on fixed incomes, as every member of this house knows, are without protection against this tremendous rise in prices.
Let me briefly cite some of the people who have written to me, to show the uniformity of their complaints. The Native Sons of Canada have written calling attention to the effects of the rising cost of living and have also described Canada's pension debt as a debt of honour to the veterans. The war amputations' association has also written. L will say no more, but I endorse the remarks of my hon. friend, the member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), with regard to their just case. I have had two letters from Christie Street hospital calling attention to the housing difficulties of veterans and the tremendous rise in the cost of living and the difficulties it has brought about. I have received a signed letter on how to starve on $30 a month and a budget is laid out therein. I have had an unsigned letter from a homeless widow showing her dire plight, with the rising cost of living and the difficult housing situation. From the Victoria College Union I have received a letter calling attention to the severe financial difficulties of both single and married students. The ex-service committee of students administrative council of the national council of student veterans have written to call attention to the same thing and

to point out how their education is being jeopardized. Branch No. 455 of the Canadian Legion at the University of Toronto has also stated the same thing. I have a full brief from the national council of veterans' association in Canada covering the whole situation and making recommendations. There can be no doubt that their brief and the Canadian Legion's recommendations should be endorsed. All veterans' organizations should be called on now to send their briefs to Ottawa so that otxr committee may arrange for their priority in appearance before it.
There are certain other immediate considerations which have to do in one instance with hospital allowances. If you can imagine a veteran in a hospital receiving $10 a month for incidental expenses, it is not necessary for me to describe the hardships he suffers, unable to buy even the smallest of personal comforts with this very meagre amount of money.
Then there is the length of time which pension appeals take. This in my opinion should be drastically reduced, and with it we should also consider the stabilization of the world war pensions at fixed levels after they have been paid for a certain fixed period of time.
Student veterans have also asked for a uniform interpretation of the students loan legislation across Canada. They ask that loans be underwritten by the Department of Veterans Affairs; that special loans be granted to those whose benefits have expired, and also that there be a student representative on the board,
I think you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that these are all reasonable requests. The single student veteran is in no less a plight than the married veteran, and he or she requires the same or the equivalent of any additional allowance that may be granted to married veterans. In many cases they have courses which require their full time. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the science courses require long hours of laboratory work and they have, of course, their other long hours of additional study.
I should like briefly to endorse what has been said by many others on this side of the house concerning both pensions and allowances, concerning merchant seamen, the means test for veterans allowances, the operation of the Veterans Land Act, a permanent veterans committee, ferry command veterans, fire fighters, war amputations cases and the many other classes of veterans or near veterans to whom the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) called attention a few moments ago, including the R.C.M.P. special constables, A.R.P. workers, St. John

Veterans Affairs Committee
Ambulance, overseas welfare organizations, veterans of allied forces, Wrens, South African nurses and many others.
But there are two cases which I particularly wish to refer to, and they are, first, the case of the Red Cross overseas veterans. The Red Cross, as you know, goes on into the peace. It is an organization that never stops. These girls who went overseas, in many cases at considerable cost to themselves, have received no benefits at all for their great service in world war II, and I feel that benefits for them should be given special consideration by our committee.
The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) has already called attention to the second case I want to mention, which is that of the Hong Kong veterans who have been denied the Pacific pay which they, above all others, so justly earned. I consider it scandalous that they have not received the allowances due to them.
I close within the time limit which the minister asked, by saying I hope that we can meet immediately this resolution is passed and that we can agree to the wide reforms which are necessary. I hope that we shall operate swiftly in the interest of our fellow-Canadian ex-service men.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not wish to delay the passage of the resolution and I will take just one minute on behalf of the many veterans and veterans' organizations in Calgary that have asked me to take part in the debate. I should like to call the attention of the minister to the fact that the feeling there was universal that the increases announced by the government were completely inadequate.
The veterans and their organizations in Calgary consider that the disability pensions, the pensions to widows and the war veterans allowance must be increased. The veterans' organizations there are particularly concerned over the situation of the older veterans, their difficulty in getting employment, the level of war veterans allowance, and the allowance under that act to dual war service men.
I should like particularly to ask the minister to give consideration to these men. In the coming years they will be the ones who will need and must have increased pensions if they are to get by. All the veterans with whom I have spoken at home have looked for great things from this committee, and I trust that the committee will not disappoint them and that the implementing of the committee's recommendations by the government will be forthcoming rapidly.
Hon. MILTON F. GREGG (Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I should like to say, first of all, how much I appreciate the fact that members of the house have made it possible to look forward to having this committee set up before adjournment tonight. I know hon. members will not expect me to cover the many points raised this afternoon and evening. It would be unfair to attempt to do so. I assure hon. members, however, that I have listened carefully, and the record of Hansard will be studied and the points brought forward will be submitted to the committee.
In one or two cases I was requested to deal with some particular matter tonight. The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) brought up certain points. I have already studied them, because they have been represented to me by veterans' organizations, and since these matters, I anticipate, will come before the committee, I think it would be wrong for me to deal with them at this late hour.
There is one point, however, with which I should like to deal, and that is the matter as to whether the bill for the increase in pensions, which is No. 18 on the order paper, should or will come before this select committee. If this resolution passes now, Mr. Speaker, and I stop talking soon, it is my intention to ask for the unanimous consent of the house to move No. 18 up one or two stages so that it may perhaps come forward to the select committee during the next day or two. That is the answer to that question. I shall be glad to have this bill come before the committee on veterans affairs if it can be so arranged.
I do not intend to add any more, except one point which five or six speakers mentioned, and that was regarding veteran students. I should like to make this point, that the recent increase was an increase to help married students take care of their families. The federal scholarship, namely, the tuition which is what it costs to pay the bill at the university and the living allowance for the veteran as a veteran was not changed. The tuition was whatever the university charged the veteran student, plus $60 a month, and so it remains. The increase was to assist in taking care of wife, children, mother and father if the veteran has them as dependents. I just wanted to make that point clear.	,
Motion (Mr. Gregg) agreed to.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Has the minister the unanimous consent of the house to proceed with the resolution he mentioned?
Inquiries oj the Ministry


Howard Charles Green: What about orders of the day?


John Bracken: Have orders of the day been called yet, Mr. Speaker?


James Horace King: No, I have not yet called the orders of the day. That is why I asked the hon. members of the house if they gave the minister unanimous consent to proceed with the resolution. If it is the desire of hon. members, I can call the orders of the day.


Mr. MacINNIS:: If you are going to do that, Mr. Speaker, I think you would have to move this order forward so that we could reach it. I do not think that we can jump to it in this way.



EXPORT-IMPORT BANK INQUIRY WITH RESPECT TO DRAWING $50,000,000 AGAINST $300,000,000 LOAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: I hoped this afternoon to direct a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). He was not in his place then and he is not in his place now. Perhaps someone will take note of this question and have it answered; if the answer is not ready now, I should like to have it answered as soon as possible.
In view of the report over the week end that Canada has drawn $50,000,000 against the $300 million loan negotiated by this government with the Reconstruction Finance Corporation of the United States, is the minister in a position to confirm this report? If so, is there any change in our dollar reserve situation of which the house is not aware that makes such an advance necessary at this time?
I am sorry the minister is not here at present. If the answer has been given to no one else, perhaps it can be given to me.


Mr. KIDD:: Here is the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) coming in now.
Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Secretary of State)1: I shall be glad to bring that question to the attention of the Minister of Finance and see that the leader of the opposition gets .a reply when it is available.


John Bracken: I see the Minister of Finance now in the house. I wonder if the question I asked earlier has been referred to him, and if he has an answer to it now.


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: No. What was the question? Perhaps I can answer it.


John Bracken: In view of a report over the week end that Canada has drawn $50,000,000 against the $300,000,000 loan negotiated by this government with the Reconstruction Finance Corporation of the United States, is the minister in a_ position to confirm this report? If so, is there any change in our dollar reserve situation of which the house is not aware that made such an advance necessary at this time?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is no change in our dollar situation which made the advance necessary. We shall be drawing on the loan from the export-import bank at fairly regular intervals over the next five or eight months, I think. Our exchange reserves, at $500,000,000 odd, are very much less than they should be and very much lower than I would like to see them. This advance is one of a series which I anticipate will be taken over in the next few months.


John Bracken: An advance has been made of $50,000,000, then?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Angus MacInnis: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can he inform the house if the unemployment insurance commission is refusing to pay unemployment insurance benefits to persons who receive annual vacation pay at time of termination of employment until the period covered by the vacation pay has expired? If this is the case, can the minister tell the house under what authority it is done?


Humphrey Mitchell: The unemployment insurance commission does refuse to pay any unemployment insurance benefits to a person while he or she is on retirement leave with pay. Authority for that is given by section 29 (1) (a) of the Unemployment Insurance Act which reads as follows:
29. (I) An insured person, shall be deemed not to be unemployed
(a) during any period for which notwithstanding that his employment has terminated, he continues to receive
(i) remuneration . . .
It has come to my attention that in some instances civil servants retire with six months full pay and allowances. The view taken by

The Address-Mr. Fulton
the commission, and I think it is a sound one, is that actually they, are receiving their full remuneration during that period and are not unemployed within the terms of the act.
The other point raised by my hon. friend is this. In many provinces in Canada, certain stipulated vacations with pay are allowed by law, and some by trade union agreements. I agree with the commission that, where a person is receiving full pay for holidays under the law or by agreement with the employer, within the terms of the act he is employed and is not entitled to benefits under the scheme. Then, of course, there is the over-riding factor that all have the right to appeal to a board of referees in whatever district they belong, this board being composed of an impartial chairman, representatives of the trade unions or workers and the employers' organization. I hope that is the answer my hon. friend wanted.


Angus MacInnis: I wish to ask a supplementary question andi I should like the minister to look into this matter a little further. A person is not supposed to be working when he is receiving vacation pay. Would the minister try to ascertain how it can be assumed that he is either on retirement pay or that this is in lieu of any other remuneration that he could receive? This is vacation pay, and he is not supposed1 to be working when he is getting his vacation pay.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will answer that immediately. I think, when a person is receiving full pay for holidays, he does not come within the terms of the act. I think that is sound and reasonable. To say that he should is, I think, stretching it a little bit too far.



PENSION ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. MILTON F. GREGG (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Pension Act to provide for increases in the rates of pension for disability and for death under the act, and to provide an increase in salary for the members of the Canadian pension commission.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. GREGG thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 126, to amend the Pension Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
James Horace King: When shall said bill be read the second time?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Next sitting.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Now.


James Horace King: Now?


John Bracken: I think hon. members should see the bill before we are asked to give it second reading. We would be prepared to proceed with it as soon as possible after the bill is distributed.


James Horace King: Next sitting of the house. Mr. Mackenzie King moves the adjournment of the house.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. A. Dion for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Edmund Davie Fulton: My understanding of the situation, Mr. Speaker, is that the various amendments have now been disposed of and that the house is now considering the address itself. In the few moments that remain at my disposal tonight I should like to revert to a suggestion made in all seriousness during the course of the debate, to which as yet the ministry has made no reply nor has it given any indication of its attitude. I refer to the suggestion that there should be an immediate statement on the part of Canada as to her foreign policy, particularly with respect to recent and current events in Europe. I refer also to the request made by members on this side, particularly the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) and the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), for a debate on foreign affairs. There has not been a reply either to the suggestion made in the course of the throne speech debate or to the request made on the orders of the day; nor has there been any indication as to the attitude of the government. Since we think this matter is so important; since we think it is one of the most important questions facing the coutry and the world at the moment, we consider it essential to take this opportunity to introduce a discussion of foreign affairs.
If it is the wish of the house I can continue until eleven o'clock; but, if not, I would
The Address-Mr. Fulton

appreciate it if I might be allowed to call it eleven o'clock and move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Prime Minister moved the adjournment of the house some time ago. I understood that was the motion before the house. Did he not move that?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Horace King: Mr. Fulton moves that the debate be now adjourned.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Did not Your Honour some time ago announce that the Prime Minister had moved the adjournment of the house? We cannot hear very well down here. On Friday night I moved the adjournment of the debate on the address.


James Horace King: I am very sorry. I understood that the Prime Minister wanted to move the adjournment of the house. I put the motion, and then realized it was not the intention to have the house adjourn, so the assistant clerk called the special order. The hon. member for Kamloops rose, and I permitted him to proceed. He has moved the .adjournment of the debate, so I have no other choice than to put the motion.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Does that mean I have lost my right to speak?


Mr. POULIOT:: I rise to a point of order. I may be mistaken, but I do not see anything on the orders of the day about the debate on the address. If it is not on the orders of the day, how can the debate be adjourned?


James Horace King: The hon. member will find it on page 37 of the orders of the day, under the special order.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Bracken: Would the Prime Minister indicate the business for tomorrow?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Tomorrow we shall continue with the debate on the address, which comes under the special order. If and when it is concluded we shall continue in ways and means with the excise measures under the emergency legislation.


Howard Charles Green: Will there be private bills tomorrow evening?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not tomorrow night; Friday night.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 9, 1948