Mr. J. IRENEE HAMEL (St. Maurice-Lafleche):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. On Friday, July 11, Bill No. 411 authorizing the government to enter into agreements wdth the various provinces, had its third reading.
The Votes and Proceedings of the house for that date do not mention that the said bill was read the third time and passed "on division".
On that occasion I voiced my disagreement, as reference to page 5436 of Hansard will show.

Canadian Armed Forces
Therefore, the Votes and Proceedings should be corrected so as to indicate my disagreement, and in fairness to those hon. members who did not support the third reading.



PRIVILEGE-MR. POULIOT

[Stage Direction]
CORRECTION OP A REPORT IN THE JULY 11 ISSUE OP "LE soleil"
Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Mr. Speaker, in the first column, on the front page of the July 11 issue of Le Soleil, I am quoted as having made the following statement:
Mr. Pouliot said that the whole problem boiled down to a struggle between taxpayers, and he pointed out that there were more dominion than provincial taxpayers.
I never made such a statement. What I said was that the problem boiled down to a struggle between taxpayers and bureaucrats and I pointed out that the bureaucrats were more numerous in the dominion than in the provincial field. I hope Le Soleil will make the necessary correction.
(Text):



CRIMINAL CODE


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to renew the motion I made last night, and which was allowed to stand, that the house agree to the amendments to the criminal code agreed upon in the free conference of the managers of the Senate and the managers of the House of Commons.


Mr. BRACKEN:: Would the minister make clear the substance of the agreement arrived at in order that the house may understand what we are asked to do?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, it is very complicated. Last night I presented the report. The conference dealt with two amendments to the criminal code. One was an amendment to the nuisance sections of the code, and the difference of opinion turned upon the definition of what should be regarded as a public place. The other amendment had to do with a homicide which is brought about by the use of a weapon which is carried by one of the persons responsible for the homicide. It would take quite a while to enter into the fine points, and it took the conference a long time to hammer it out. The reason the motion was allowed to stand last night was that hon.
members might have an opportunity to familiarize themselves with these fine points.


Mr. FRASER:: Yesterday's Hansard is not out yet. We could have done that if we had had Hansard.


Mr. SPEAKER:: May I suggest to the house and to the minister that this matter be allowed to stand until we reach the orders of the day.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief announcement in connection with the award of the Canadian general service badge. Up to the present, the award of this badge has been limited to men and women who served during the war in the armed forces of Canada. Provision was not made for the award of the badge to Canadians who served in the armed forces of Great Britain or any of the other dominions or other allied governments. In Great Britain no service badge was awarded and a number of Canadians who served in the British forces were not entitled to wear any badge. This applied particularly to a very large number of Canadians, about 4,000 in all who joined the Royal Air Force before and during the war. To meet these cases, it has been decided to extend the award of this badge to Canadians who served in the armed forces of any of the nations of the British commonwealth or allied countries.
Application by those who are entitled to the badge should be made to the director of records, Department of Veterans Affairs, No. 8 Temporary Building, Ottawa, who, after verifying eligibility, will transfer the applications to the Department of National Defence for issue of the badge.



TRANSFER OF SERVICE PERSONNEL RECORDS TO VETERANS AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT

Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, on March 21, a question was asked in the house as to the transfer of personal records of former members of the armed forces from the Department of National Defence to the Department of Veterans Affairs. The question was partly answered by my colleague the right hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs on March 25, when plans were already under way for this transfer. I am glad to say that those plans are being carried out so that the records of all
Questions

service personnel will be transferred to the Department of Veterans Affairs as part of the government's policy of having everything to do with veterans dealt with by a single department.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Has the governor in council or any minister the power to set an acreage for wheat production from which the wheat board will be authorized to accept deliveries of wheat regardless of what that delivery quota may be?
2.	If so, under what statute or order in council or regulation?
3.	How much wheat has been sold each week during the past six weeks to class I countries other than Great Britain, giving particulars of the countries and the amounts sold to each and the price per bushel in each case?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	The governor in council has not, nor has any minister, the power to control the production of wheat either by setting an acreage for production, or otherwise.
Under the Canadian Wheat Board Act, the Canadian wheat board is empowered to fix from time to time quotas of each kind of grain that may be delivered by producers to elevators or railway cars within any period or periods either generally or in specified areas, or at specified delivery points, or otherwise.
"Quota" is defined in the said act as "the quantity of grain authorized to be delivered from the grain produced on land described in the permit book as fixed from time to time by the board, whether expressed as a quantity that may be delivered from a specified number of acres, or otherwise."
2.	Answered by (1).
3.	If by class I countries are meant countries receiving wheat at the price of $1.55 per bushel, basis No. 1 Northern, in store Fort William Port Arthur, Vancouver or Churchill, the answer is that no country other than Great Britain receives wheat at this price.


STANDARD PROFITS CLAIMS-BOARD OF REFEREES
Mr. GREEN:: 1.	How many standard profits claims are now on file and not yet dealt with?
, 2. Of these, how many are ready for submission to the board of referees?
3. How many claims have been filed through each district office since January 1, 1947?

4.	How many claims have been submitted to the hoard of referees from each district office since January 1, 1947?
5.	How many awards have been made by the hoard of referees since January 1, 1947 (showing the number in each district office) ?


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	1,830 standard profits claims are now on file and not yet dealt with by the board of
referees.
2.	Of the above claims 310 have been prepared for consideration by the board.
3.	District office:
Charlottetown	 0
Halifax	 22
Saint John	 4
Quebec	 12
Montreal	  260
Ottawa	 23
Kingston	 1
Belleville	 7
Toronto	 118
Hamilton	 50
London	 56
Fort William	 3
Winnipeg	 38
Regina	   15
Saskatoon	   3
Calgary	 35
Edmonton	 15
Vancouver	   Ill
Dawson	 0
Total	 773
4. District office:
Charlottetown	 6
Halifax	  13
Saint John	 10
Quebec	 18
Montreal	 150
Ottawa	 26
Kingston	 2
Belleville	 5
Toronto	 154
Hamilton	 31
London	[DOT]	 35
Fort William	 4
Winnipeg	 34
Regina	 14
Saskatoon	:	 1
Calgary	 21
Edmonton	 20
Vancouver	 36
Dawson	 0
Total	 580

Inquiries of the Ministry
5. District office: Charlottetown	
Halifax	
Saint John	
Quebec	
Montreal	
Ottawa	
Kingston	
Belleville	
Toronto	
Hamilton	
London	
Fort William ....
Winnipeg	
Regina	
Saskatoon	
Calgary	
Edmonton	
Vancouver	
Dawson	
16
13
26
2
40
2
13
17
18 38
Total
ment was not consulted about this project. After arrangements had been announced the minister of planning, Mr. Porter, called on me and told me of something about the project. Later I received literature put out by Ontario House in London. The project simply consists of providing aeroplanes and arranging for the sale of tickets through a private agency on aeroplanes, tickets being available to those recommended by Ontario House. The literature states specifically that there is no promise of employment and no promise of housing, but that the good offices of the government of Ontario will be available in both directions.
The serious aspect of the project to the federal government is that the arrangements for transportation break across our treaty arrangements with the international civil aviation authority and also those of air transport authority. I was obliged to point that out to Mr. Porter. The problem extends far beyond the Canadian difficulty, but that is a matter on which we have not been formally asked to act on.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. HAMEL:: 1.	What factors are considered by the civil service commission in determining the ability of applicants for a position in the civil service?
2.	Is an applicant who claims to be wronged by such rating, allowed to appeal therefrom?
3.	If so, what is the procedure to be followed?


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: Return tabled.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: May I direct a question to the Acting Minister of Immigration. A cable from a friend in London received late yesterday indicates that large numbers of applicants are queuing daily in front of Ontario House seeking early admission to Canada. I wish to inquire whether or not the federal government has been consulted by the Ontario government about these immigration activities, and if so, what guarantees of full employment and responsibility for such immigrants have been assumed by the government of Ontario or by the government of Canada.


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Acting Minister *of Mines and Resources):: The federal govern-


Major James William Coldwell: In the telegram I have been asked to cable a reply to this particular person in London. No responsibility has been assumed by the federal government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: None by the federal government. The federal government has not been formally consulted or asked to take any part whatever in the movement.


Mr. GREEN:: May I ask a supplementary question? Quite apart from the transportation problem, is there any objection to a provincial government entering upon an immigration plan of this type? I ask the question because there has been some suggestion about British Columbia taking the same action.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no difficulty whatever about immigrants from the United Kingdom entering Canada, provided they are of good character and good health and have sufficient funds to tide them over the period of becoming established. Any province or any agency is quite welcome to sponsor plans for bringing out that type of immigrant. The function of the federal government in that regard would simply be to provide facilities for the examination.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Is it not a fact that the minister promised the Minister of Planning and Development of the Ontario government full cooperation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct, except that I pointed out to him immediately that a United States plane carrying immigrants from the United Kingdom to Canada could not be per-
Inquiries of the Ministry

mitted to land in Canada. I think it will also develop that a United States plane carrying immigrants from the United Kingdom to Canada will not be permitted to handle traffic in the United Kingdom.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: May I ask if it is perfectly all right for United States planes to carry passengers from Britain to Buffalo?


James Horace King: Order. The hon. member will admit that I cannot permit a debate on the question. I permitted the hon. member to ask a supplementary question, and I think that should be sufficient.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: May I direct a question to the acting minister of immigration? He said a moment ago that persons coming from Great Britain would require sufficient money to tide them over the period of establishment in order to be admitted into Canada. Is it not true that the immigration authorities also demand from Britishers the assurance that housing will be here for them -when they arrive? I ask that question because a number have been refused admittance until they have had that assurance.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That suggestion is new to me. I have never known of a case. My hon. friend says he knows positively that people have been refused as immigrants because there is no housing. Perhaps he can give me the correspondence on the point. If he does I shall be glad to look into the situation, since I know of no such prohibition.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The acting director of
immigration so informed me the other day, and there are also letters from England and persons in Canada.


NEWFOUNDLAND
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that Newfoundland delegates have been here for some time, and that we are hoping this will be the last day of the session, I should like to ask the minister if he is in a position to give us a progress report with respect to the discussions as to the future relations of Newfoundland and Canada. I have not given the minister any notice of this question. I should be

satisfied to have him delay bis answer until later on in the day, but I think that before we leave some statement should be made.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): I do not think that I would be in any better position later in the day than I am at this moment to answer the question. There have been several meetings with the delegation from Newfoundland, and at the last general meeting of their delegation with our representatives several subcommittees were established to consider various aspects of the problems being explored.
All I can say is that on both sides there is evidence of the sincerest desire to get at all such facts as it would be important for the citizenst of the two countries to consider in drawing their conclusions as to whether at this time it is possible to find a basis of closer union that would be of mutual advantage to the two countries. There is the sincerest desire on both sides to smooth out all suggestions of what at first might appear to be difficulties standing in the way. The matter has not progressed to a stage where anything definite can be stated about it, but it is further advanced than it was when this delegation came here, and the advance has been in the right direction. There are still very cordial and hopeful efforts being made on all sides to arrive at something that would appeal to the citizens of both countries.


John Bracken: I am sure the house, and the public as well, will welcome the statement of progress by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. If I may be permitted to make one observation, I would say that it is the sincere view of every hon. member that the government will meet with a very great measure of success in its discussions with the Newfoundland delegates.


TRADE AND COMMERCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: I wish to address a question
to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. What is the present position with respect to the marketing of newsprint in Britain? It has been reported that in view of her difficulties Britain has found it necessary to curtail the imports of newsprint, one of our largest exports. I have not given the minister notice

Inquiries of the Ministry
of this question. If he wishes to delay the answer until later on it will be quite satisfactory to me.


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I answered a similar question in the house within the last few days. The situation is that the United Kingdom has dollar difficulties and is looking about for ways to conserve her expenditure of American and Canadian dollars. Newsprint is one of the matters that had been under discussion and there has been correspondence as well as discussion, I believe, between the United Kingdom authorities and the Department of Trade and Commerce.


TEN CENTS A BTJSHEL ADJUSTING PAYMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Angus MacKinnon: I wish to announce that the ten cent per bushel adjusting payment on western barley sold from August 1, 1946, to March 17, 1947, inclusive, will be under way this week-end. On Friday, July 18, t'he cheques covering this payment will be sent by the Canadian Wheat Board to the grain companies for distribution to their farmer customers. Approximately $5,300,000 will be involved in the payment.


PARTICIPATION PAYMENTS, 1944 CROP
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce what the plans are for sending the wheat bonus cheques, particularly in the areas now suffering from drought in Saskatchewan and other parts of the west.


James Angus MacKinnon: I presume the hon. member refers to the participation payments in respect of the 1944 crop?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


James Angus MacKinnon: The barley payments have now been taken care of. Word is proceeding to get the 1944 cheques out as soon as possible. It is impossible for me to say when it will be physically practicable actually to get the cheques out, but I gave the hon. member assurance before, and I repeat it now, that attention will be given in the issuing of these cheques to see that where the need is greatest the cheques will go first


FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. CHARLTON (Brant):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, notice of which has been sent him. In view of the huge quantities of fruits and vegetables now accumulating in railway and other storage places in Canada, and the urgency of saving United States dollars, will the government give consideration to taking some action to curtail these imports now that Canadian produce is available, such action to be operative so long as the Canadian supply is adequate?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: A similar question was asked
yesterday by the hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Clark). The customs tariff now provides for seasonal duties on this type of commodity. Of course, there are usually dumping duties. The government is following the situation but there is no other action which could profitably be taken at this time.
FEED GRAINS	.


SUBSIDIES ON COARSE GRAINS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):: I wish to direct a question to the government. It should properly be directed to the Minister of Agriculture, but he is not here. In view of the extreme shortage of feed grains in eastern Canada, is the government giving further consideration to the matter of leaving the subsidies on coarse grains after July 31.


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: May I take the question as a notice and answer later?


Percy Ellis Wright: I believe the Minister of Finance was about to rise. Perhaps he can answer the question.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The government is considering the matter. I seldom venture into the field of prophecy but it is unlikely that the subsidies will be continued for any stated period of time.


PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. FULTON (Kamloops):: May I ask the Acting Minister of Agriculture whether
Redistribution

a date has yet been set for representatives of the British Columbia government to come here and consult with the federal government with regard to the extension of the P.F.R.A. to British Columbia?


Ernest Bertrand: I do not know but I will inquire and let the hon. member know.
f Later]:


Ernest Bertrand: A question was asked me this morning by the hon. member for Kamloops which I said I would answer later in the day. There has been no date fixed as yet for a meeting between the provincial authorities and representatives of the federal government in respect to P.F.R.A., but one will be set as soon as the Minister of Agriculture returns.


REDISTRIBUTION
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the third reading of Bill No. 18, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): Yesterday when this bill was before the committee of the whole house the temperature of hon. members had risen to such a degree that it would have been difficult, I fear, to secure agreement on a proposition as simple as twice two makes four. Earlier in the day I had suggested that the name "Wright," which a county on the north shore of the Ottawa has borne for several generations, be restored to it in place of the name "Gatineau" bestowed upon it by this bill. In the course of my remarks I contended that the issue was not political and I understood the right hon. gentleman who leads the house 'to say that he considered it in the same light and that it was one on which hon. members might express their opinion without regard to political allegiance. Later my hon. friend the member for Wright (Mr. Raymond) took part in the debate and advanced some reasons for the change of name.
I hope >that the hon. member for Wright will not think that I am attempting in any way to dictate to the people of his constituency or even to suggest to them that they have not the complete right to express views concerning a matter which affects them primarily. On the other hand, I hope that the hon. gentleman will not consider me impertinent if I say to him that sometimes people do in haste things they would not do rMr. Fulton.]
had they considered them a little more maturely. There is a principle at stake, I believe, which probably most people would not be willing to abandon without some thought. The whole continent, on both sides of the international line, is studded with the names of great precursors, the names of men of daring, the names of men who went forth into the wilderness and planted there the seeds of Christianity, of civilization, of culture and industry. We owe it to the future to preserve these names.
The hon. member for Wright said some things about the Gatineau river and the souvenirs which it recalls, the hardihood of the many people who have laboured along its shores. That is well and good, and I share his generous sentiment to the fullest extent. But there was a man who was probably the first to fell trees on the shores of that majestic stream, and I am suggesting to my hon. friend that it is well that his name be not forgotten. The name Gatineau is well preserved. The stream itself is a mighty one and for a long time has been an important highway in the development of our north country. The provincial county of Gatineau is, after all, the official area on which municipal divisions are based and on which the whole municipal and educational fabric rests. Registration and other branches of our civil government rest on provincial county divisions. A federal electoral division is something superimposed on the civil divisions which are essentially provincial. To permit this electoral division to retain the name of that great man who, after all, was the father of what has become the national capital-it was Wright who established the settlement which later extended to and became Ottawa-so that the name of Wright may be kept alive is something that I think we should all wish to do. There is fame and glory enough to go around. There is enough for everyone. I do not think we are adding to the interest of the story of Canada by eliminating a name like that of Wright.
I intend to move an amendment; I ask the house if it will not reconsider the somewhat heated and hurried decision reached yesterday. I am going to ask the hon. member for Wright if in all these circumstances he does not feel that he can support an amendment which would restore to that fine district in the Gatineau valley the name of Wright. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) that the word "Gatineau" which appears under item 18 in the Quebec schedule, be replaced by the name of "Wright", which was the name that area has borne for several generations.
James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Jean-François Pouliot: No, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a word of appreciation to the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Rinfret).


James Horace King: I have received no
amendment.


Mr. HACKETT:: There is an amendment on the table. I will hand it up right away.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not speaking to the amendment. I am speaking to the main motion. I wish to say a word of praise of and pay a tribute to the hon. member for Outremont for the trouble he has taken in trying to adjust the difficulties of redistribution. I do not know whether an additional number of members will prove to be a good thing. The future will tell. It will all depend on the new members who will be elected in the various new constituencies. However, I cannot let the opportunity pass without expressing my sympathy for the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacomfoe). He is an old colleague of mine and has been in the House of Commons for a great number of years. He was elected some time after I myself was elected, and he was reelected by his constituents at each election except one. Of course he has personal views. No one is bound to agree with all he has said in his various speeches. The membership of the house creates a close association between members of parliament. Personally I have disagreed with others at times, but not all the time, and I have received some support from my Liberal colleagues, from members of the Progressive Conservative group, from some C.C.F. members and some Social Credit members, and even from the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains. I find it pitiful that a constituency of such long-standing disappears from the map. I understand the feelings of the hon. gentleman, and I would perhaps have found stronger words in tihe dictionary than those he used if the same thing had been done to me.
I was speaking a moment ago about the close association which exists between all members of parliament. We are in the same boat. We have to make the best of it. Even when I disagree with any one of my colleagues, I am readly to give him credit for some quality which has been acknowledged by his constituents who have given him a majority in the previous election. There is also a close association between members of parliament and their own constituents. My constituents have been most kind to me.
Redistribution
When it was rumoured that some intriguers wanted to take one-half of my constituency and join it to one-half of the constituency of the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Belzile), there were strong protests in my county from the people themselves. I like them; in fact I love them. They have been .most kind to me, and I appreciate it. Even after I cease to be a .member of parliament I shall remember the unceasing kindness they have shown me. They are more than constituents; they are friends. Therefore I understand perfectly the feeling of the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains; I sympathize with him, and I am sure that if he decides to run again he will be elected in any constituency he may select.
In all this matter of dividing Temiseouata and Rimouski to create a new constituency I have appreciated the cooperation of the hon. member for Outremont. I explained the situation to him, and he took the trouble to look into the matter personally and make a splendid report to the sophomores, the intriguers and others who had written him promoting, plans for a new constituency. Temiseouata is my county; it remains so. It was an act of. fairness and justice to the constituents themselves not to make any change. If there have been some difficulties and some annoyances I hope they will be ironed out, and that everything will be done on the basis of justice and fair play.


James Horace King: Mr. Hacketf moves,
seconded by Mr. Wright:
That from item 18 on page 21 of the Quebec schedule the word "Gatineau" be deleted and the word "Wright" substituted therefor.


Mr. EDOUARD RINFRET (Outremont):: The whole argument of the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr Hackett) this morning was based upon his statement that a similar amendment was dealt with hurriedly yesterday and that the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Raymond) had not fully considered the matter before he made his speech. I would remind the hon. member for Stanstead that the resolution upon which the subcommittee acted was passed in 1939. It was a resolution of the corporation of the county of Gatineau, which includes thirty-two mayors of various parishes. Those thirty-two mayors have since been consulted by the hon. member for Wright and all are in agreement that the change of name should be made. Anyone who listened to the various arguments advanced by the hon. member for Wright yesterday will agree that under the circumstances the change is warranted. The practically unanimous demand of the electors of the county is to the effect that the change should be made, and that is what the subcommittee acted upon. Therefore I am
5732	COMMONS
Pensions and War Veterans Allowances
opposing the amendment and will ask the house to confirm the report of the subcommittee on this matter.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Mr. Speaker, I would ask in the first instance whether Your Honour is wholly of the mind that the amendment as worded does not conflict with the rule, which states that when a bill comes up for third reading an hon. member may move that it be not read a third time but referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending it in any particular. I do not think my hon. friend's amendment is so worded. I am raising the point simply that the rule may be considered, not with the view of trying to obstruct my hon. friend.


James Horace King: I think the point raised by the right hon. Prime Minister is well taken. If the hon. member looks at Beauchesne, second edition, citation 813 he will see:
When a bill comes up for third reading a member may move that it be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending it in any particular.
The hon. member is not moving that the bill be referred back to the committee; his amendment suggests a change in the bill itself. Therefore I believe the amendment is not in order.
Motion (Mr. Mackenzie King) agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.


CRIMINAL CODE
James Lorimer Ilsley: That the amendments agreed to in the free conference with the Senate to Bill No. 364, an act to amend the criminal code, be agreed to; and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours therewith.


Mr. CHURCH:: What is the effect of it?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved that the house go into committee of supply.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion for committee of supply:
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, just before you leave the chair on this motion there is a word

or two I should like to say to the government, and particularly to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie). There are a few hours yet before this session will be over and it does seem to me that it is not too late for the government to do something for certain groups of people to whom no consideration has been given during this session. I shall not take the time to enumerate the various groups which I feel have been overlooked; there are a great many, but there are two that I wish to mention. I know that I have the support of all members of the house with respect to these two groups of people.
First of all, I refer to widows of non-pen-sioned veterans. At the moment the only provision for these widows made by the government is under the War Veterans Allowance Act, and the maximum payment is $30.41 per month. I know the kind of thing that can be said about raising a matter of this kind at this stage of the session, but I ask the government to face the fact that it simply is not fair to ask these women to get along on such a small amount of money. This applies also to the second group I have in mind, namely veterans who have to live on the so-called burnt-out pension, properly known as a war veterans allowance. In this case the maximum amount paid to a single veteran is the same figure of $30.41 per month.
When that figure was set I did not think it was sufficient, but one argument advanced in favour of it was that it was a little higher than the amount of the old age pension and similar benefits in effect at that time. The old age pension has now been raised to a basic amount of $30. per month and in some provinces it is more than that. In fact, this government is urging the provinces to add to the $30, to make it $40 or something more. It has been recognized that more than S30 per month is needed to live on, and I think it is most unfair to ask these veterans' widows and burnt-out pensioners to get along on $30.41 per month.
I know the sympathy to which I have referred is just as strong in the heart of the Minister of Veterans Affairs as it is in the hearts of the rest of us, but in addition to the sympathy he may have in his heart the minister has power in the position which he occupies. I am making an appeal to him and to his colleagues to find some way before this session closes to raise that amount. To allow these people only $30.41 a month is a disgrace.
I Shall not go into all the arguments we have brought forward on previous occasions during this session with regard to increases

Pensions and War Veterans Allowances
in the cost of living and the way we feel about the manner in which those increases have been permitted to occur. The fact is that the cost of living has gone up since that figure of $30.41 per month or $365 per year was set. I am sure that this matter appeals so definitely to the hearts and minds of hon. members that nothing more need be said All of us have had appeals made to us in recent months to do something for groups of people of this kind before the session ends. I am sure that I have the support of hon. members to my right and of hon. members to my left, and I know there is support among hon. members across the way. I hope hon. members from all quarters in the house will join me in asking the government to do something about this matter before this session ends.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few words to say and I am glad the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is in the chamber. When he is here the explanations given by the acting leader of the house are in order and are as they should be, but if the Prime Minister had been in the house last night he would have witnessed an unpleasant performance by the acting leader of the house. It was nothing but provocation of the opposition. He did not answer properly the questions that were asked. Last year I lodged a complaint against him. At times he is most provocative. We all wish the session to close at an early date, probably today, but the leader of the house will have to change his tone.


Some hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: Otherwise the session will last two weeks more. I have come here after spending the summer in a most delightful spot. I have come here at great sacrifice. I am here on parliamentary business and I want to be respected as a member of parliament. I do not want to witness another performance such as occurred last night at the closing of the house. That is not a threat, it is a warning. I want the acting leader of the house to be just as polite as the Prime Minister and the rest of his colleagues. I do not want him to bully anyone. I want him to realize that the position he holds is a position of honour and he must prove himself qualified for it. I have waited for a long time to say this.
I am scandalized that the estimates of veterans affairs are coming at the very last hour of the very last day. A great deal of money has been spent for veterans and it is time for us to know how it has been spent
and how usefully it has been spent. I have many grievances to place before the Chair. Simply because this is the last day of the session is no reason why I should be prevented from saying what I would have said a long time ago if the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs had been given precedence over useless legislation. I say that with great respect to the Prime Minister. I am on a footing as a member of the House of Commons which is equal with that of the leader of the house. There is only one who is superior to all of us, that is yourself. I remember distinctly that on the eve of his departure from Quebec city in the summer of 1926 for the imperial conference the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), realizing the importance of this position, said "I am the first amongst equals." The Prime Minister is the first amongst equals and, sir, you are the only one who has been given authority over us, and I hope that in the future as in the past you will not forget it.


Mr. G. S. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to support the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Temiseouata (Mr. Pouliot). I think it is most unfortunate that the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs are to be practically the last, according to the statement which the minister has just made, to come before us. At this late hour it will be impossible to give the estimates of this most important department of government the careful consideration which they merit. There is no question, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of Veterans Affairs is to many, many hundreds of thousands of Canadians the most important department of government today, and I would suggest to the minister that even at this late hour he give most serious consideration to the recommendations made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that the War Veterans Allowance Act should be amended with a view to increasing the allowances to make them equal at least to the amount now paid to old age pensioners, and that consideration also be given to the non-pensioned widows, not only the widows of veterans who did not receive a pension but also the widows of veterans who received a pension up to the time of their death but whose disability pension was less than fifty per cent, thereby disentitling the widow to pension.
I point out to the minister that in my opinion it is most essential that we should have in this house a standing committee on veterans affairs. If we had such a committee

Pensions and War Veterans Allowances
functioning as the special war veterans committee has functioned in a very efficient manner in the last two sessions of parliament, thereby relieving the house of a great deal of tedious work, it could have reviewed the War Veterans Allowances Act to provide for these two classes of pensioners.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who I will readily admit has the interests of the veterans at heart, will change the order of procedure and at least bring down the estimates of his department immediately following those of the Prime Minister, and that he will even at this late date take some action whereby these needy veterans and their dependents can be assisted.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a matter that is not covered by existing legislation and to ask the Minister of Justice a question. I have heard, and have received by letter, a lot of complaints about disturbances on street cars throughout the country not covered by the amendments of last week to the Criminal Code, which have resulted in a large number of accidents. Would the government look into that during the recess, and the matter of an amendment to cover it? It is one of the most important factors in accidents, I gather from statistics I have studied. Will the minister give that consideration?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will give it consideration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, a word in
regard to the question raised as to the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs being left until this time. I hope hon. members will recall that I have within the last month on at least three occasions in this house said that the government would be pleased to bring on any estimates at a time that hon. gentlemen opposite might wish to have them brought on. I made that statement when, I met with the leaders of the different parties. I asked if there were any particular estimates that they would like to have considered immediately, and promised that the government would see that they were considered immediately. My hon. friends the leaders of the different groups will bear me out in that. No intimation has come, so far as I am aware, until this moment that the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs should have been brought on at an earlier time. I am sure that if such a request had been made it would have been met immediately by the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: I have been ready
with them for two months.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As to the
request my hon. friend has just made that veterans affairs estimates should be taken up without further delay, I have just been speaking with my colleague and ,he is agreeable and the government is wholly agreeable that those estimates shall be the first to be taken up after the house reassembles at two o'clock this afternoon. We will consider them with the others in the order my hon. friend has mentioned.


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was not with regard to taking up the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs. It had to do with three other matters which we think are of importance at this time. First there was the question of the disability pension for the returned man from this war who is totally disabled and, if married, gets a pension of $100 a month for himself and his wife and $75 a month if he is single. Second, there are a number of widows of veterans of the last war whose pension is only $30.41 if they receive full pension, but many of whom, through some mistake on their part but more often mistakes made by some government department, do not receive the full pension. I know of one. case, the widow of a soldier of the first great war who had two sons fighting in the last war and who was receiving the war veterans allowance and the widow's pension, the two cheques being sent out at the same time. Today she is living on $27.41 a month, with a son who was severely wounded and lost an eye at Hong Kong and is unable to obtain suitable employment. He receives some $45 a month. He used to help support his mother both before going overseas and during the time he was overseas.
In view of the answers I have received from the government to date indicating that we are going to have an increased cost of living in this country this fall when the subsidies on grain are taken off and costs are increased to the producers in eastern Canada which will result in higher prices for agricultural products, and with the subsidy of 78 cents a bushel coming off wheat that is being milled for flour, which will mean an increase of three cents a loaf in the price of bread, there is no doubt in my mind and I am sure in the minds of the members of this house that the cost of living is going to increase this fall and1 winter, and I think we would be derelict in our duty if we left this house

Pensions and War Veterans Allowances
without indicating to the government that we believe something should be done with respect to this matter. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden):
That all the words after the word "that" to the end of the question be left out, and the following words be inserted instead thereof:
This house is of the opinion that the government should give immediate consideration to the amending of the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act so as to provide increases in the basic disability pension, the war veterans' allowance, and the allowance to veterans' widows and orphans, to enable those receiving these pensions and allowances to meet the increased cost of living.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask whether my hon. friend is satisfied tihat this motion is in order? My recollection is that the Pension Act has already been passed; if so, this motion is asking for the reconsideration of a measure that has already been dealt with.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I point out that the Pension Act was amended last year, not this year.


Howard Charles Green: On a point of order, there has been no amendment to the Pension Act, and there was a request made this session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was definitely not amended this year.


Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: In seconding this motion I should like it to be noted by the house that we are not making any special reference to the ordinary people of Canada who are supporting this government in its policy of lifting controls. The cost of living is going up. Owing to the fact that the government have set its rate of pension at $75 for a single person who is totally disabled, and $100 for a married man and that the pensions for widows with children were set at a time when the cost of living was not as high as it is at this time, we are making a special appeal on behalf of veterans and veterans' dependents to meet the situation in which they find themselves, and which they are incapable of meeting themselves. We are talking about veterans who are totally disabled but whose pension has not been increased. Because the cost of living is constantly rising it puts them in a position where their standard of living is going down below that which we should allow as legislators of this country.
We are making a special appeal at this particular time that special legislation be brought in now to meet the situation. The house is not likely to meet again until next
February. These veterans are stuck. It is quite evident that controls are to be lifted and the cost of living is going up. Much can happen between now and when this house meets again and passes through the regular procedure which is necessary before any legislation can be brought in to increase these pensions. The matter should be dealt with. It is an emergency situation: Efforts should be taken to improve the lot of people who are going to suffer under the presently existing circumstances. We renew our plea that this house and the government in particular take this matter into serious consideration at this time in behalf of people who have done so much for Canada.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to say a few words in support of this amendment. I have no doubt that the government is not very happy about an amendment of this kind being brought in at this stage of the session, but it would not have happened had the estimates of veterans affairs been brought up for consideration at an earlier date. The attempt of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to switch the onus for that delay onto the opposition parties is ridiculous. At the end of each day's sittings, as the business of the house for the following day was announced, the Department of Veterans Affairs frequently was listed, but always mysteriously it has turned out that the Department of Veterans Affairs is at the end, and the government must take full responsibility for that fact.
Hon. members will realize that in the 1945 and 1946 sessions we had a special committee on veterans affairs where all these problems could be thoroughly discussed. This year there has been no opportunity whatever from the beginning of the session until today to have a discussion on veterans affairs. After all the obstacles possible had been put in our way we did manage to bring about a discussion on the unfairness to merchant seamen, but there has been no chance to have a proper debate on veterans affairs.
The position is this. Old age pensions have been increased. This government has announced as its policy that it is not setting the proper rate for old age pension required for the maintenance of a person without any other income, but is simply making a maintenance grant, paying three-quarters of what they call a maintenance grant; in other words, three-quarters of $30. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) has admitted several times that $30 is not enough for a person to live on; that it if only meant to be
5736	COMMONS
Pensions and War Veterans Allowances
a maintenance grant and that it is the responsibility of the provinces to pay whatever additional amount is required to enable our senior citizens to live. The veterans are the direct responsibility of this dominion parliament; they are not the responsibility of the provinces. Last Saturday the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) said that in so far as housing is concerned he accepted responsibility for the veterans, but for nobody else, and the government cannot get away from the fact that the responsibility for the veterans of Canada rests right here in the House of Commons. The veteran is able to get only $30.41 as a war veterans allowance. That is admittedly not a large enough sum for him to live on. The onus for increasing that to a living amount rests on the dominion government. That is one of the main reasons why this amendment is so important.
During the discussion on old age pensions I pointed out this fact to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and he said that there would be a committee next year at which time the whole question could be considered. That means a delay of a year with nothing being done to help these veterans who receive war veterans allowances, and delay of a year is a very serious thing to men of that age.
The position with regard to pensioners is also serious, particularly the widows and the children whose father was lost in the war. There must be some change made, and made quickly, to benefit them. I suggest to the government that the time has now come to make provision that the children of the soldier who lost his life in the war shall get the same educational benefits as the father would have received had he returned to Canada. There are different other questions which I will not go into any further at this stage, but I do say that this amendment is timely, and that these problems should have been faced by the government many weeks ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite proper that hon. members should bring up any question on going into supply which they may deem to be important, and certainly this is one of the most important questions which parliament could have before it. For that reason, among other reasons, I wish to refer to the form in which the amendment comes before the house. The amendment reads:
That all the words after the word "that" to the end of the question be left out, and the following words be inserted therefor.

If the amendment were to carry it would be in the nature of a want of confidence motion in the government and the government will have to resign, and there would then be no opportunity for any government immediately to consider the condition and wellbeing of the veterans, their widows and orphans. That is the position. As I say, it is all right to bring up the question at this time to be discussed; I welcome that in the fullest possible way but I want hon. members to understand the significance of the motion as it is worded and which if carried would make it impossible for this government to consider any further at this time the question of the well-being of veterans and members of their families.


Mr. PROBE:: Take the whips off and it will be all right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend perhaps knows more about parliamentary government than anyone, but may I say to him, whether the whips were off or not the effect would be exactly what I have described, and if he knew a little more about parliamentary procedure and practice he would have realized that.
I am making it quite clear that the government welcomes any discussion which hon. members may wish to have on this question. It is an important question and it would naturally have come up, and will naturally come up, this afternoon when the Minister of Veterans Affairs brings his estimates before the house; but to ask the government to accept a motion which will mean, if carried in this house, the defeat of the administration itself at this time is asking much more than can be expected of any administration.
Having said this much may I say that I have been looking carefully at the wording of the second part of the motion, and it is to the effect-
. . . that the government should give immediate consideration to the amending of the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act so as to provide increases in the basic disability pension, the war veterans allowance, and the allowance to veterans' widows and orphans, to enable those receiving these pensions and allowances to meet the increased cost of living.
What is asked for there is immediate consideration of the matters that are therein mentioned. I have never found the government unwilling to give consideration to all important matters, and certainly the government would not be unwilling to give consideration to the matters that are referred to here. But if hon. members mean by immediate consideration that the cabinet must meet, that the Minister of Finam e must reconsider

Pensions and War Veterans Allowances
estimates in relation to what may be required for these purposes, and that we shall have to wait here, if any action is to be taken, until' the approval of His Excellency is obtained to a resolution to be brought before the house and a bill introduced, it is unreasonable to expect the government to take that step at this time.


George Hugh Castleden: We are willing to wait.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have only to repeat that, as to considering this matter, at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way the administration will be prepared so to do. But if hon. members opposite feel that is not sufficient and wish to press the motion, then they must abide by the consequences of the vote that may be taken.


John George Diefenbaker: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), that support of this motion would be a vote of want of confidence in the government. The suggestion was.made by the member for Regina City (Mr. Probe) that if the whip of authority were removed it would be all right.
My recollection is that last year, in the last days of the session, an amendment similar to this was moved with respect to the removal of the milk subsidy. At that time the government found itself in much the same position as that in which it finds itself today. It realized that there was a large body of opinion in the country opposed to the removal of the milk subsidy. The then leader of the house, the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, as I remember-


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, the then Minister of Justice.


John George Diefenbaker: All right; I beg your pardon. I was conferring the honour on the wrong gentleman. The then Minister of Justice relieved everyone in the house from any responsibility other than his personal responsibility in giving a vote, and it is interesting to note that as a result of that vote, the free membership of this house, untrammelled and uncontrolled, to use the words of the Minister of Veterans Affairs- free and untrammelled, I believe-voted against the removal of the milk subsidy and voted for the amendment. Then, as soon as parliament adjourned and went home, the government refused to carry out the free and untrammelled vote of the House of Commons.
I am not going to deal at length with the motion which was moved on that occasion.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was not an amendment on a motion to go into supply.


John George Diefenbaker: I have sent for the volume. It is not here yet, but my recollection is that I am entirely correct. There is an immediate problem before us now and that is the welfare of these men who today find themselves in the position of receiving a matter of less than S31 a month. They find themselves in difficulties and they ask that parliament do something, and- not run home when matters such as this are before the house. Immediate consideration of an amendment to the Pensions Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act so as to provide increases for the basic disability pension is sought. If the Prime Minister will rise in his place and free his membership on the other side of the house in a vote such as this, I believe the majority of them will support this amendment so that war veterans allowances and the allowances to veterans' widows and orphans may be increased to meet the increased cost of living.
I join with others who have said that apparently there has been a deliberate effort to keep back certain of the estimates until the end of the session. We follow this practice every year. Last year the promise was made that at the very earliest possible date the estimates would be brought down, and now we are near the end of the session. All of us want to go home, and we are asked in the last forty-eight hours, the last twelve hours, to vote millions upon millions of dollars, a large part of which is in the form of supplementaries made necessary by reason of an election that took place the other day in the city of Halifax.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Mr. DIEFENBAKpR: Oh, yes. There is no doubt about it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who won the byelection?


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, you won,
certainly.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently the position of affairs is that, whatever promises may be made, they are justified provided the results are favourable to the government. That is apparently the attitude being adopted and I suggest-


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is a good alibi, anyway.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, it is an excellent alibi, a fine explanation of a series of promises. I believe the hon. gentleman was one of those who joined in the promising-


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, I made no promises. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I made a speech in Halifax and specifically stated that I made no promises. I never made
573S	COMMONS
Pensions and War Veterans Allowances
any promises, and may I add that the Minister of Justice and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who were on the platform with me, made no promises either.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It was the opposition speakers that made the promises.


James Horace King: I would ask the hon. member for Lake Centre to confine his remarks to the amendment.


John George Diefenbaker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have touched on a sore point


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not at all.


John George Diefenbaker: -as my hon. friend evidences. I can quite understand-


Douglas Charles Abbott: The soreness is elsewhere.


John George Diefenbaker: There is a contribution, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. McCANN:: We will beat you every time.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend is giving us the benefit of his medical diagnosis-


James Horace King: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -and I am giving you the benefit of a diagnosis of an election campaign when matters were discussed and promises made.


James Horace King: Order. I must ask the
hon. member to confine his remarks to the amendment which is before the house.


John George Diefenbaker: I wonder, sir, if
you would ask my hon. friends opposite to confine their questions to themselves, because when I am asked questions I have to answer them. I suggest that this is an important matter. There are many thousands of soldiers and the widows of soldiers who served who are desirous of receiving fair consideration. There is no monopoly on any side of the house in that regard and I ask the Prime Minister to relieve his followers from any suggestion that this is a vote of confidence and to allow the members in all parts of the house to show that they want something down now and not one year hence.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that my first duty is not to relieve my followers of anything, or to relieve the house of anything, but to hold the house to its own rules and to see that those rules are carried out.


John George Diefenbaker: They were withdrawn last year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just a moment, please. There is a motion before the house

now that the house go into supply. Hon. gentlemen opposite have moved that the words of that motion be deleted, that all the words after "that" be struck out, which means that the house does not go into supply. If the house is not to be permitted to go into supply, how are we to have the appropriations necessary to carry on the government of this country? Hon. gentlemen know very well that any motion which is made in this form and which denies supply to the government is a motion of want of confidence. I intend to hold the house to that obligation; this is a want of confidence motion, and it must be so considered. I have said in regard to the second part of the motion that we all agree that it contains much with which all parties in this house are in great sympathy, and that the government is prepared to consider what is there requested. Beyond that I cannot possibly go at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I just have a moment to reply to the point which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has raised about the effect of this amendment? By speaking now I shall exhaust my right to speak on the amendment, in view of the fact that no point of order has been raised. I would ask the Prime Minister to bear in mind what actually happened last year on August 27.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Last year on August 27 I was in another part of the world. I heard that there was a great deal of confusion in the house at that time and that it would have been much better if much that was done had not been done. I am here at the present time with the responsibility of seeing that the rules of this house are observed, and I intend to exercise that responsibility.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr, Speaker-


James Horace King: The hon. member has already spoken. The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) has risen.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken on the amendment. I spoke previous to the amendment.


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. member has spoken too often.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not accept the Prime Minister's inference that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent), who was Minister of Justice last year, and the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) broke the iules of the house in

Pensions and War Veterans Allowances
what they did in a similar situation. At page 5422 of Hansard for August 27, 1946, I read this:
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
That is quite definite; it was a supply motion. Then follow a few pages of debate, starting with myself and one or two others, followed by an amendment moved by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson), my deskmate, with reference to the milk subsidy. The amendment was in precisely the same form as this one. After that amendment was moved, members in all parts of the house rose and spoke favourably about it until it was realized that the vote would likely be in the affirmative. Accordingly the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply rose and drew attention to citation 489 in the second edition of Beauchesne. His remarks are found at page 5431. They are lengthy and for that reason I do not think I should read them. He quotes the citation, and I shall read that as it appears at page 5431 of Hansard:
When an amendment has been adopted to the motion for the house to go into committee of supply or of ways and means, it may be forthwith moved that the house resolve itself into such committee immediately or on a future day.
I shall also read one sentence after that, from the remarks of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply':
Therefore I should like to serve notice that if this vote carries the government will immediately move that the house go into committee of supply this day.
I submit that the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply was perfectly in order. What happened, as all hon. members will recall, was this. The amendment made by the hon. member for Mackenzie carried. The record of that vote is found at pages 5433-34. There were sixty-nine yeas and forty-one nays. Immediately after that we find the following:
Mr. St. Laurent:	I move that the house do
now go into committee of supply.
The government was not defeated at all. The hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) later in the day raised a point of order as to whether the committee of supply was properly constituted, and the government was able to show, from the rules, that what had happened that morning was perfectly in order. The case before us is identical; I realize it is equally embarrassing. But the fact of the matter is that tlhe passing of this motion does not necessarily involve the defeat of the government. Rather it gives the
government definite instructions from this parliament of Canada to give consideration to these matters.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: I
should like to say that the members of this group are whole-heartedly in support of the amendment before the house. We also should like to see the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) allow a free vote on the part of members of his party with regard to this question. Surely', by unanimous understanding, this vote need not be regarded as a vote of want of confidence but can be regarded merely as representing the demands of the members of this house for a certain specific thing. We have heard in this country a great deal about democracy'. Surely it is about time we saw democracy in action in this house. Let us once in a while see the members of this house speak on behalf of their constituents as they know they would like them to speak; and let us see members vote as they know their constituents would like them to vote. It is time we had an end to just lip service.
We agree that the estimates should have been brought down at an earlier date. In spite of what the Prime Minister has said, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) knows very well that various members have from time to time approached him and asked when the estimates were to be brought down, thus showing an anxiety on their part to have them brought down. Recently, when I approached the minister, I was told that they would be brought down as soon as the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) returned to the house; at the time he was no dioubt unavoidably absent. There has been an anxiety on the part of veteran members of this house to have the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs brought down. From time to time requests have been made in this house that a standing committee on veterans affairs be set up. I think it is important that such a committee on veterans affairs should be set up in order, in the first place, to deal with individual cases. The committee which was set up two years ago drafted a charter; and I think that all members on that committee felt that generally speaking they had done a good job in so far as the rehabilitation of the veterans of *world war II was concerned. But I think we all realize that the veterans of world war I were the forgotten men of Canada. In addition to that, the majority of the members of that committee were * far from satisfied with the type of pension bill that was brought down in this house. It did not represent the unanimous opinion of the members of the committee. I would say it did not even
5740	COMMONS
Pensions and War Veterans Allowances
represent the will of tihe majority of the members on that committee, but rather represented the will of the government as expressed through the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I shall leave that matter now and deal with it again when we come to the estimates.
We feel that the amount paid under the War Veterans Allowance Act is altogether too low. I think all members of this house know of veterans who are today living under appalling conditions. I do not think that this government or this country can be congratulated upon the way they have dealt with the veterans of world war I; I am not now referring to veterans of world war II. We feel that the rates should be increased to at least $50 a month and- that the means test should be abolished.
When the war veterans allowance was first introduced it was in the form of an application of the old age pension to veterans at the age of sixty. At that time we recognized that veterans were pre-aged by ten years; therefore the very least that should be done is to immediately increase the amount of the war veterans allowance to the highest old age pension paid in this country, which at the present time is $40. That is something which should be done at once. It will not be satisfactory; it will not be enough, but at least it should be increased to $40, which is the amount of the old age pension paid in Ontario. I say this because we recognize that the war veterans allowance is a federal responsibility. The government cannot shove it off on the provinces. In view of the fact that the war veterans allowance is an application of the old age pension, certainly we should increase it to the amount of the highest old age pension paid in any part of this dominion.
There is another unfortunate thing about the war veterans allowance. Today it is being used for the purpose of giving an allowance to a soldier who in reality is entitled to a pension. Instead of paying the pension we pay the war veterans allowance, which of course means that the amount of money paid is far less than the amount of the pension would be, and at the same time we do not guarantee the same security for the dependents of the veteran. In addition, of course, the means test is involved in the war veterans allowance, whereas the means test does not apply in connection with the pension.
I am not going to say more on this matter at this time, but when the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs come up we shall have more to say about the various measures coming under that department. I 
would emphasize the fact, however, that we should give an example of how a democracy can really function by allowing the members of this house, on this important matter concerning the veterans, to express what they know to be the sentiments of the people in their constituencies.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, I think it is to the knowledge of every hon. member that we are now in the 114th day of the session; that during the session while each of some twenty or more departments have been put into supply, each time hon. members might have raised the serious point that has been raised today. It is being done now for one express purpose; that is, for the purpose of endeavouring to place the government in a dilemma in which it would be virtually impossible to carry on. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has made the constitutional position perfectly clear. May I say, speaking as one of those who are proud to support him that on such matters I take the view he takes, and we will support him through thick and thin.


Percy Ellis Wright: The Prime Minister before the people?


Brooke Claxton: 
Stanley Howard Knowles: It has been asked for on the orders of the day half a dozen times.


Brooke Claxton: We are not going to be taken that way, Mr. Speaker. We are quite prepared to face this issue and to deal with it in a proper and regular way, but at the present time we know how to deal with this kind of thing; that is, vote it down; or if we do not vote it down, then face the country on our record and on the issues right across the board.
The question raised by this motion is one that has been before hon. members on a number of occasions at various sessions. Every hon. member has the same sympathetic interest in the welfare of our fellow Canadians as other hon. members. From my knowledge of members of this house no party has a monopoly of the milk of human kindness or of. fairness or justice. The record of this government with regard to veterans and veterans rehabilitation and everything that goes with it is not only without parallel in the history of this country; it is without parallel in any country on the whole face of the earth. We have shown where we stand with regard to these matters and we have endeavoured, with the full support of hon. members and their cooperation in the committee on veterans affairs very frequently, to make this a comprehensive programme to be taken together.
As gaps have been discovered they have been filled, but hon. members will appreciate that the sets of cases which have been put before the house at the present time are cases which are based upon a belief as to what will happen in the future, that is, that the cost of living is going to increase still further.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is already going up.


Brooke Claxton: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) shares the view held by others, that there should be a levelling out. While we are not going to prophesy, our hope and expectation is that things are just about levelling out and that once again the timing of the government and its record with regard to its fiscal policy has been ahead, not only of hon. friends opposite but of all other countries.
These cases to which my hon. friend has referred and which he has in mind are in the minds of members of the government and all others. One of our obligations is to endeavour to balance the things that need
5742	COMMONS
Pensions and War Veterans Allowances
to be done and to appreciate what should be done and endeavour to deal with the fiscal affairs of the country in a responsible fashion. Everything has to be taken into account. There is no bottomless pit from which money can be drawn to pay all the things we would like to pay to people in need. I notice that my hon. friends opposite have not been cautious in the promises they have made through, the session. I have made a list of those made by members of the Conservative party, beginning with the debate on the address, and there have been over 110 separate proposals involving additional expenditures or reductions in revenue.


Mr. FLEMING:: On a point cf order, just a few minutes ago, sir, you did not permit the hon. member for Lake Centre to discuss a matter because you said it was not germane to the subject under discussion. What earthly relevancy to the immediate subject under discussion have the remarks now being made by the minister?


Brooke Claxton: If I may say a word an the point raised by the hon. gentleman, ike the Prime. Minister, I regard this motion is a vote of want of confidence in the government. I believe it is perfectly proper for me to say that one of the reasons why it is not possible at this particular moment to accept fully and without further consideration the proposal made by the hon. member is that we have to consider the financial responsibility of the government as a whole. I believe that when we make that consideration we are entitled to draw the attention of hon. members of the house to the way in which other parties have weighed similar considerations so that we can cast a balance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If this motion is eonsid-:red as a vote of want of confidence in the government, surely a wide range of debate should be open to all members. If we are going to deal with the record of the government or of other parties, that privilege must be extended to all members of the house.


James Horace King: I would ask hon. members to confine their remarks to the general principle of the amendment before the house.


Brooke Claxton: With regard to the principle of the amendment, as I have pointed out, and as the Prime Minister pointed out, it is quite impossible to give effect to it in any other terms except those proposed, that is that the house do not go into committee of supply. As the Prime Minister has said, that would leave us face to face with nothing except a vote of want of confidence. On that score we would know where we stood.
With regard to the proposition itself, I may say that I along with other hon. members have received communications from the classes of people affected. I have considered them and I shall certainly give them the utmost consideration in the future. Beyond that I cannot see where any government under our British parliamentary system can do more. The responsibility for the expenditure of funds must be that of the government, and that responsibility we are prepared to face.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at two o'clock.
Mr. J. 0. PROBE (Regina City):	Mr. Speaker, this morning the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) moved an amendment to the motion for the house to go into supply in order to focus the attention of the government on certain omissions in the legislation that has been put before the house at this session. In speaking thereto the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) made the accusation that the amendment was prompted purely by political considerations. To my mind the business of this House of Commons is one of politics, politics in the proper sense, not in the narrow partisan sense, and if the conscience of the government is so tender and delicate that it is pricked by what the hon. member for Melfort has done, I am very glad to be able to add a sting or two to that prick of conscience. I 'hope that hon. members all over this house who are just as anxious as I am to leave Ottawa and get home and join their families will consider it their paramount duty not to get away on a fishing trip but to stay here until the business of the country is properly concluded.
The Minister of National Defence stated *that we were bringing this matter up in the dying moments of the session. Let me refresh the memory of the house with this fact, that my colleague the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has on various occasions attempted to bring this matter to the attention of the house. Furthermore we had a delegation of the widows of veterans allowance personnel in this city at which time again we attempted to focus the attention of parliament on this matter.
This morning the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) undertook to give me a personal castigation because I had suggested to him in all humility-I defer to his great parliamentary experience-that he allow the whips to be taken off when this amendment is voted on; that no official pressure be put

Pensions and War Veterans Allowances
on the members on the government side of the house but that they be left free to record their wishes in this matter. The Prime Minister undertook to lecture me as a green member who is unaware of the rules of the House of Commons. I thought it was in the nature of unfair castigation because I am trying to learn my duties and to discharge them diligently, Mr. Speaker. Apropos of that, if I know the rules of this house, the Prime Minister himself was out of order this morning because three times the right hon. gentleman got up on his feet to speak on this amendment to the motion to go into supply. I am willing to admit that I am in the learning stage. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman has passed tihat stage. He can give us advice, and I am *willing to profit by that advice, but I do not think it becomes the dignity of his high office to lecture in that way a backbencher who is sincerely trying to perform his duty.
In my comparatively short period in this house I have learned that a favourite phrase used on the government benches when a grievance is brought to the attention of the house is that the government will give it serious consideration, or will seriously consider it at some time in the future. Our plea, Mr. Speaker, is that the government give serious consideration now to the questions that have been brought before the house in moving this amendment. When I think of the legislation that has been passed this session by this house, accelerated pensions of $3,000 to $7,000 after five years in the diplomatic service abroad, increased allowances to the senate leaders, judges' pensions-


James Horace King: Order. I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the principle of the amendment which is before the house.


John Oliver Probe: I must bow to your decision, of course, Mr. Speaker, but I find that the greatest latitude has been given to hon. members on the government side in discussing this question.


Mr. MUTCH:: Withdraw.


John Oliver Probe: It is not necessary that I withdraw, and I do not propose to withdraw for the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch) or anybody else, because I am perfectly within my rights.


James Horace King: I know that it is very warm outside and that hon. members are tired, but I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the general principle of the motion before the house and to have
regard for the dignity and the decorum of the house, of which every member should be jealous.


John Oliver Probe: I will try to be as dignified, Mr. Speaker, as my ungainly figure will permit.
In this amendment to the motion to go into supply we ask that further consideration be given by the government to increases under the Pension Act for the returned men who are in receipt of pensions, and consideration for widows of veterans who were in receipt of veterans allowance. I want to give one example of the attitude of the government towards this question of allowances to widows of veterans who had been in receipt of the veterans allowance.
A case was brought to my attention in my own city of Regina in which a veteran had been in receipt of an allowance. Upon his death the widow came to me to see if it would not be possible for the allowance to be continued on, her behalf. I took the matter up with the appropriate officials in Ottawa and the answer I got back was that this woman was not eligible under the rules governing administration under the act, and the suggestion was made by Ottawa: Why do you not see the Saskatchewan government to see that she gets mother's allowance? In other words, the government here just passed the buck to a junior administration. If there is one criterion of the government of the Prime Minister during the years that he has been in office it has been one described colloquially as passing the buck. Certainly it is time that in all seriousness this House of Commons, in all its dignity and' with all its decorum, should get down to brass tacks. People are in want because of the family compact nature of the legislation that is being passed in this House of Commons.
I feel satisfied that the hon. member for Melfort will be happy to withdraw his amendment-I have not discussed the matter with him-if the government will give the assurance today that even at this late hour it will give immediate attention to legislation on this subject. We want the legislation on this matter brought in. There is no use in reviewing the arguments. Arguments have been reviewed for months past. The cost of living has gone up, and these people are literally in the bread line, if their only source of income is the kindness or the largesse of the govern^ ment of Canada. If the Prime Minister would assure the house that a measure will be intro-[DOT] duced even at this late hour-in my limited experience I have learned that matters can be introduced in the house on very little notice-
4	COMMONS
Pensions and War Veterans Allowances _
I would feel satisfied that the government had some intention of attending to the real needs of the people.
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): Perhaps the house will pardon me if I say a few quiet and kindly words in this debate. After eighteen years in this house I was surprised to learn for the first time that an hon. gentleman felt it necessary to move a resolution in regard to veterans legislation, which is a vote of non-confidence in the government, particularly when only last year, sir, every single party in this house endorsed the most generous veterans legislation in the history of the world. We passed a vote of $749 million for the ex-service men of this country.


Percy Ellis Wright: What has happened to the cost of living since then?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) was one of them, and one of my best friends on the committee, a very useful and constructive critic on that committee. Now what do they say? They were informed by my leader before this motion was brought down that the estimates of veterans affairs would be up for consideration at two o'clock this afternoon unless the motion was moved. Despite that information, for some reasons which I shall not seek to analyse-


John Oliver Probe: "Political considerations".


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Well, I am not saying that. I know this, that in thirty years of experience with veterans matters I have never seen party politics played before.


Percy Ellis Wright: It is not being played now, either.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Today what did you do? You moved an amendment to the budget resolutions, which is a vote of non-confidence in the government, a government which has done more for veterans than any government has ever done in the history of the world.
Let the blame rest where it must. They have destroyed forever the non-partisan cooperation of this house extending, in my memory, over thirty years in regard to legislation for veterans in Canada. That is what they have done, and that is what they are seeking to do. If they think that is going to help the cause of the returned ex-servicemen of Canada they are greatly mistaken. What we need in this house in that regard is the cooperation of all parties and a complete abolition of political considerations.


John Oliver Probe: Bring in the legislation and we will cooperate.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If you seek to obtain results, sir, by moving an amendment to a budget resolution, which means the abolition of a government which has done so much for ex-servicemen, you are rendering a distinct disservice to every ex-serviceman in the Dominion of Canada. That is what you are doing by this amendment.
I also suggest, sir, in the strongest possible way, that this is a vote of non-confidence. In my opinion it is entirely out of order. It is a contingent impost upon the people of Canada and as such, in my judgment at least-it may not be worth much-it is out of order. I intend to deal with this matter this afternoon on my estimates, and the house was told that by the Prime Minister. I am prepared to discuss these issues; I am ready to discuss them. Here out of the shadows some nefarious political boxer comes and moves this sinister amendment of non-confidence in the government when the Prime Minister announced that the government's responsible minister-


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Speaker-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was not referring to my hon. friend.


Percy Ellis Wright: To whom did my hon. friend refer, then?


Jean-François Pouliot: He is not a boxer; he is a farmer.	-


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister used some pretty strong language.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was not referring to my hon. friend.


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister used the words "sinister and nefarious" with regard to the mover of the amendment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I withdraw the slightest imputation against my hon. friend, because I have the highest possible regard for him.
There were some remarks made this morning by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), alleging certain discourtesies by myself to the house yesterday. Well, I can assure him none was intended. I think if you look at the record of the house for the last twenty years you will find that in the last two or three days of the session it was always said by whoever was trying to direct the activities of the house that any measure whatsoever would be taken up.


Jean-François Pouliot: An impertinent irrelevance.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I did not hear the remark of my hon. friend; I would not respect it very much if I did hear it. But I wish to say this, when we gave the assurance to the house that the estimates of Veterans Affairs

Pensions and War Veterans Allowances
would be considered this afternoon I do think it is bad judgment, to say the least, to move an amendment such as this.
One hon. gentleman whom I respect very much, I think the hon. member for Acadia, said that he had requested me several times to bring down the estimates of Veterans Affairs.


Victor Quelch: I did not say that. I said I asked when the estimates were to be brought up, thereby showing anxiety.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I thank the hon. member very much for the correction. I have never yet, sir, been asked by any hon. gentleman in this house to bring these estimates down. These estimates have been ready to come down for three months. I want to tell the house that we have twelve full departments through supply already, a record unequalled in parliament since confederation I want to say this to the house, and I know something whereof I speak-the Minister of National Defence mentioned it briefly this morning: greater progress in supply has been made during this session than at any previous session, at least within my knowledge. We have been fair with the house, but sometimes the house has also put us back in going into supply; they have held us back for at least three days in going into supply, and thereby from getting our estimates advanced. Therefore on every single count we are abundantly justified. Early in the session the leader of the opposition asked that the estimates be brought down early, and we must give him credit for that. He was afraid that supply might be deferred. We tried to meet his wishes as best we could, and we did. We have made more progress this year than in any other year during my time here. I deeply regret the moving of an amendment such as this when hon. gentlemen knew that they could debate it fully when my estimates were before the house, as they were supposed to be at two o'clock this afternoon.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Apparently someone wants to put responsibility on the other fellow for delaying the house. That is not the question at all. Certainly I think the government is fully responsible for this debate that has taken place today. I say that for this reason. Very early in the session I personally requested the Minister of Veterans Affairs to consider the advisability of setting up the veterans affairs committee and it was not done. I am not blaming him for that. I know one minister does not make decisions affecting government policy.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I interrupt in a friendly way? I received requests from members of every party not to set up the veterans affairs committee.


Clarence Gillis: I am glad to hear the minister say that, because those who made that request must share the responsibility equally with the government, but I can assure him that he did not receive requests from any member of this group not to set up the veterans affairs committee. My reason for raising that question at that time early in the session was that I anticipated something like this towards the end of the session. The veterans affairs committee has brought down a charter, and I think that with the time at our disposal when that legislation was piloted through the veterans affairs committee, under the conditions as they existed then, a fair and reasonable job was done. But within the last year many changes have taken place, particularly with respect to the amount of the necessities of life that the pension as applied' now will purchase.
The present amendment merely requests the government to take some action in order to do for the veterans what they have done for practically every other section of society, that is, to compensate them for the increased cost of living. We have done that for practically every other section of society. We have increased judges salaries, and all through industry there have been increases in wages to offset the cost of living. At this time we recognize that the amount of the necessities of life, that is to say food, fuel, clothing and shelter, which the pension will provide is thirty per cent less today than it was in 1939 or on the termination of the war. That pension is fixed and I think the time has arrived when the government should consider the advisability-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct-


Clarence Gillis: -of jacking up that pension so as to keep the pensioner in the same position as the rest of the people in the country who have had some compensating increases because of the cost of living.
With respect to the amendment, the Prime Minister says it is a want of confidence motion. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no one in this house who wants to force the government into an election, but if the Prime Minister wants to take the stand that this amendment is not going to be accepted, and if a vote is forced on the house and he wants to construe it as a want of confidence motion on this particular question, then as far as I am concerned, and I am

5746	COMMONS
Pensions and War Veterans Allowances
speaking for myself personally, I would be quite prepared to face that and if necessary go into an election, because I think the grievance we are airing now is legitimate.
When we stop for a moment and think back a few years, we realize that this institution would not be functioning today were it not for the people whom we are talking about, who offered their lives for the country. We are not asking anything unreasonable for them, but that the government consider the advisability. If the Prime Minister cannot bring in legislation now at this late stage of the session, we might have some assurance by the Minister of Veterans Affairs or the Prime Minister that this matter will be given consideration and the cabinet will take some steps.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I interrupt again? -and I do not interrupt deliberately but just to be helpful. I have already given the assurance to the officials of the Canadian Legion that early next year we shall have a committee to consider this whole question.


Clarence Gillis: The assurance the minister has given is to the Canadian Legion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am giving it now to parliament.


Clarence Gillis: The minister is giving it
now to parliament, that when this session rises the cabinet will give consideration to increasing the amount of pension in order to compensate the pensioner for the increased cost of living, and that action will be taken before the next session convenes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think my hon. friend has been with me on many committees and he knows that these things should be carefully reviewed, not necessarily by veteran members but by members of this house, in cooperation with the Canadian Legion and other ex-service organizations, and I think that is the proven and wise way of proceeding in regard to future developments in this matter.


Jean-François Pouliot: As soon as he leaves for home the minister will start to work.
Mr. .MACKENZIE: Start to forget you.


Clarence Gillis: That is not enough, in my opinion. I am not doubting the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I believe he will do anything the treasury board will permit him to do. What I am afraid of is the treasury board. I do not know who he is. I cannot put my finger on him.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think I am one of them.


Clarence Gillis: But if the Prime Minister, who apparently does not want this vote, can offset it by merely telling the house that when it rises he is quite prepared to consider granting pensioners, say on the 1st of October, an amount in the pension that will offset the increased cost of living since the termination of the war, as far as I am concerned that would satisfy me. I do not think we shall get anywhere by one trying to blame the other. But I leave this thought with the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I believe that the veterans affairs committee should be a standing committee of the house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am inclined to agree with my hon. friend.


Clarence Gillis: Thank you very much. Early in the session it should be set up, because this is an important problem.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend has my promise that, as far as my colleagues' consent will go, that will be done early next session.


Clarence Gillis: That is progress at least, and I have no desire to hold the house up. I want to make this observation again now that the Prime Minister is in his seat. I want to repeat what I said a moment ago.


An hon. MEMBER:: Question.


Clarence Gillis: Go behind the curtains and have a smoke. I said we were not desirous of pushing this motion for the purpose of embarrassing anyone but we did feel that the question we raised was a legitimate one and if the Prime Minister can give us the assurance that when this house rises this question of granting a sufficient amount of money to pensioners to offset the cost of living, will be taken into consideration-


An hon. MEMBER:: Why can't we go home?


Clarence Gillis: It would be far better if some of you never came here. You do not contribute very much and the least you can do is to keep quiet.


Mr. TUCKER:: The people will be the judges.


Clarence Gillis: Judging by the number of your gang from Saskatchewan, they are fairly good judges.


Walter Adam Tucker: The next time they will be better judges than the last time.


Clarence Gillis: I was endeavouring to make a short and lucid explanation to the Prime Minister and I think his followers are rather

Pensions and War Veterans Allowances
discourteous. They will not let him hear. They want him to strain his ears. Could the Prime Minister give that assurance, {hat he will take into consideration the granting of a sufficient amount of money in the pension to offset the increased cost of living since the termination of the war? It has been done for every other section in the country. Let us say, beginning the first of October; could we have that assurance? If we could, then as far as I am concerned, speaking for myself, I would be satisfied to let this go. It is not for political purposes; this is a grievance that should be rectified. With the assurance from the Minister of Veterans Affairs that the matter will be studied, I would suggest that the veterans affairs committee should be a standing committee of the house. If it were, a great deal of this tangle and all this wrangling would be got rid of in regard to these very complex problems, which in my opinion should be considered from time to time and ironed out by sensible people. If those who cannot recommend anything would keep their mouths shut a great deal of trouble would be avoided.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I explain to my hon. friend that, as he knows, I was in the' house at two o'clock. I received an important communication from England which had to be answered immediately and 1 left the house in order to dictate the draft of what should be sent in reply. So my absence for those few minutes has not been intended as any discourtesy or any indifference to the committee.
The hon. gentleman asks me to give an assurance in the name of the government. May I say to him that I have been careful at all times, as I intend to be, about giving assurances on anything until I have had an opportunity of conferring with my colleagues. I do not intend to speak in the name of the government on my own responsibility. When I speak in the name of the government I intend to do so with the knowledge that I have my colleagues' entire approval for the stand that I take. May I say that I hold that position in reference to any undertaking given by any minister. I do not recognize the right of any minister to give any undertaking in regard to any important public matter unless it has been discussed in the cabinet as a whole and agreed to by members of the council.
I am as anxious as anyone is to get through discussion at the present time and to have the house prorogue as soon as possible, but I am more concerned about seeing that what is done is done in the right order and in accordance with the rules of the house. My hon.
831G6-3661
friend says that he does not wish to embarrass anyone. Let me assure him that he will not embarrass this government if he puts this amendment to a vote, because no one is more anxious than I am to know exactly where the government stands in the eyes of the people, and that is where hon. gentlemen opposite or their representatives will place the government at this time. So I hope hon. members will feel free to do just as they please on this motion. I said a little earlier in the day that I was quite prepared to ask my colleagues to consider what is suggested in the second part of the amendment. Farther than that I will not go, and I will not be driven into any other position through fear of any vote in this house at this time.


Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: I should like to say a word in order to explain my vote, because I may say frankly that I intend to vote to support the government. I know there may be some misunderstanding with regard to that among the veterans in my own riding. If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) were a veteran as I am, I think he would appreciate that. It is rather unfair to put us in this position. I think every hon. member in this house, irrespective of party, has an equal interest in the veterans. I think every hon. member in this house wants to do the right thing by the veterans. It i^ unfortunate that we should be put in this; position.
There is another thing that I wish to make-clear. Mention lias been made of whips. I have been asked in my own riding about whips. I have never yet seen the whip who could tell me what I must do. I want to-make that clear. In saying that I think I. speak for every member of the Liberal party, and certainly for those from British Columbia. No influence has ever been brought to bear on me by any member of the Liberal party or the cabinet. I may have made mistakes in the way I voted. I acted in what I thought were the best interests of the people of Canada, but those mistakes were made by me without any influence from any member of the cabinet or any whip. I want that to be clear.
I am sorry that the government cannot see its way clear to take immediate action in this connection. I think they should. I am frank about that. The leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Cold well) has in my opinion always; been fair. This manoeuvre was probably only one for political position. If we are fair about it, we all know that -it is done for certain reasons. I want to point out to
5748	COMMONS
Pensions and War Veterans Allowances
members of the C.C.F. party-and I do not blame them because they stand to gain-that Halifax demonstrated the fact that my good friend, that great Canadian gentleman, the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Bracken) will never be Prime Minister of Canada; and I do not think that Canada is yet ready for socialism.
I am sorry I have to vote against the amendment. I should like to do more for the veterans. But on a straight vote of confidence in this government, I must vote to support it. I think it would be a calamity to Canada if there were a change in government at this time.


James Horace King: The hon. member for Kamloops.


Mr. BRYCE:: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I have risen in my seat at least eight times.


James Horace King: I must call the attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that some other hon. members have risen as often as he has.


William Scottie Bryce: I must bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I still think you are wrong.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What I wish to say is given point to by the remarks just made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank). Personally I am prepared and shall be happy to support this motion moved by the hon. member for M effort (Mr. Wright). The hon member for Fraser Valley has clearly indicated the diilemma he is in, and I am sure he has the sympathy of all other hon. members, at least those on this side of the house. But it should be pointed out that the dilemma is not of his making. The dilemma is in respect of the position taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in connection with this motion.


An hon. MEMBER:: What dilemma is there?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is clear that until the Prime Minister made his statement this morning there was some uncertainty as to what the government's attitude would be on this question, whether or not it would be called a vote of want of confidence. Since it has been indicated that it will be regarded as a vote of want of confidence, the dilemma of the hon. member for Fraser Valley has arisen.
Reference has already been made to what happened last year, Mr. Speaker, but I think we should remind ourselves of the facts with the record before us. Last year a similar situation arose when a motion was moved-[DOT]


An hon. MEMBER:: Repetition.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Dispense.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -which was not entirely in accordance with government policy.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is already on the record.


Edmund Davie Fulton: At one time it was suggested that it might be made a free vote. I understand that the minister of reconstruction (Mr. Howe) this morning stated that he did not suggest that it might be a free vote. I have in my hand Hansard for August 27, 1946, in which it is reported that Right Hon. C. D. Howe stated at page 5431:
Nevertheless the government has no objection to an expression of opinion from the members of the house. I suggest that the vote should be a free expression regardless of party. The various members represent various economies in this country, and an expression of this kind should be the expression of the individual opinion of every hon. member.
Then he went on to say at page 5432:
It will be in effect an expression of the opinion of members of this House of Commons that the subsidy policy of the government should be continued indefinitely.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read the whole of it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I suggest that there was no reason for the Prime Minister to make this motion one of want of confidence, except that he knew that the government's lack of action would be criticized by a majority of members in the house if it were allowed to go as a free vote.
The Minister of Veterans Affaire (Mr. Mackenzie) has criticized all members who support this motion because he says it will be the first time in thirty years that veterans affairs have been made the subject of politics. I do not accept that statement for a moment. For myself, my vote in support of this motion will be a mere indication of the fact that I am not satisfied with the lack of action shown by the government in dealing with this question. Particularly is that so since the ladies themselves were down here this session asking that some action be taken in this regard; so the matter certainly was brought to the attention of the government and nothing has been done about it. For these reasons I am going to support this motion if it is put to a vote, as I hope it will be.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Since my name has been mentioned several times-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: You have already spoken.

Pensions and War Veterans Allowances


George Alexander Cruickshank: On a question of privilege-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: Order. Is the hon. gentleman raising a question of privilege?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Yes; and I do not need any assistance from those members on my own side who come here only once a month. The previous speaker said the Prime Minister had ruled that this would be a vote of confidence. That ruling had not been made before. And since the hon. member for Kamloops made some reference to the hon. member for Fraser Valley let me tell him that my leader has been leader for twenty years, and this party has not had five leaders in five years.


William Scottie Bryce: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to get the floor for so long that there is practically nothing left for me to say. Everything I intended to say when I first rose at half-past eleven this morning has been said. On previous occasions I have left veterans affairs to the younger men who fought in the last war, but this matter affects my buddies of a previous day, the widows of many of those men, and those who are unemployable, between fifty and sixty years of age. I feel very strongly on this question, and I feel ashamed of the House of Commons today that politics should be brought into the consideration of this matter. This is something for the benefit of the men who offered their lives for us, and it should be kept on a much higher plane than that; yet here we have sunk to such a level that we are discussing matters of elections in connection with it.
People are suffering today in an attempt to live on S31 a month. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) said anyone supporting this amendment would be hurting the veterans. I can assure my right hon. friend that I have never hurt any veterans and never will; but I am supporting this amendment. I belong to the legion, and I have dozens of branches in my constituency. I have here a letter from the legion that has not yet been placed on record, and I am going to read just two paragraphs, because I know time is very valuable today. Every hon, member of this house has received a copy of this leter, which states:
'Before the session closes the Canadian Legion requests members of parliament to consider the plight of unemployable, totally disabled pensioners, and pensioned widows with children to support.
That is something worth while for this government to look after. Then the letter concludes with these words:
We would, therefore, ask you to make this cause your own, so that the matter shall be dealt with before parliament prorogues.
It is because of this letter that I feel justified in rising today and suggesting to the government that something should be done; and I intend to support the motion.


Major James William Coldwell: I regret exceedingly that in the last hour or so the debate has taken the course it has taken. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has placed us in the position that whether or not we might have felt the purpose of the amendment had been served, we must now ask for a recorded vote of this house.
The resolution is very simple. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) said it was an amendment to the budget. It is nothing of the kind. If you will look at the resolution you will see that it merely states:
This house is of the opinion that the government should give immediate consideration to the amending of the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act so as to provide increases in the basic disability pension, the war veterans allowance, and the allowance to veterans widows and orphans, to enable those receiving these pensions and allowances to meet the increased cost of living.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has not read all the motion. He has read part of it, but not the essential part. I would ask him please to read the part he left out.


Major James William Coldwell: All I left out were the first words, which are:
That all the words after the word "that" to the end of the question be left out, and the following words be inserted instead thereof.
That is, those words would replace the words, "that the Speaker do now leave the chair."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The motion was that the house should go into committee of supply in order that the government of the country might be carried on.


Major James William Coldwell: We are not interfering with going into supply.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, yes, you are.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, we can always find technicalities to excuse ourselves when we want to do something other than the thing we should do. However, altogether apart from that, the intent of the amendment is exactly as I stated it, and it seems to me it would have been very simple indeed for the government to give the assurance for which we asked.
750	COMMONS
Pensions and War Veterans Allowances___
After all, in April of this year, due to the policy of the government in removing controls, the cost of living jumped almost two points. In May the cost of living increased almost to the same extent. In fact the cost of living has risen sharply over the last few months and indeed since the end of the war. Consequently, having reached this point in the session, I think we are justified in asking that this be done, since no provision is being made anywhere in the measures now before the house, as far as we can tell, for meeting this very urgent situation. So I say that since the Prime Minister has thrown out the challenge we cannot do other than accept it.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I have just a word or two to say with regard to this amendment. It has been said that the government has been very generous, more generous than any other government in the world, and that may be true. What I regret is that the government has been generous to too many people, and there has been no complaint from anyone in the opposition when outsiders were given the preference in regard to everything. Therefore I find not that the government has not been sufficiently generous but that it has been too generous to one class of people. That is why the cases of some of our own soldiers should be adjusted.
The amendment asks for increases: first, in the basic disability pension; second, in the war veterans allowance; and third, in the allowance to veterans widows and orphans. It is not a question of increases to all but a matter of adjusting some pensions and allowances which have not been fairly established by the department. My great objection to the Department of Veterans Affairs is that it is a department where wrongs are not redressed; and they are not redressed because the minister seems indifferent to what goes on in the department. When my hon. friends speak of the high cost of living, it is true. Why is it so? It is the old story; it is on account of taxes. Why do we have taxes? We have them because of expenditures. When we were protesting against some expenditures running into billions of dollars all my hon. friends of the Conservative party, of the C.C.F. group and of the social credit group voted for those expenditures. I do not see how they can oppose government policy when they vote for increases in taxes, for increased expenditures and for increases in the cost of living.
Moreover, I cannot understand the logic of other parties which put candidates in the field against the government candidates.
[Ma. Coldwell.]
We had a by-election in Halifax and I remember saying to one of my good Conservative friends-


James Horace King: May I call the attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that we are discussing an amendment.


Jean-François Pouliot: Every hon. member has been speaking of the high cost of living. If you look at the amendment you will see that it has the cost of living as its basis. First, pensions are mentioned; second, allowances are mentioned and, third, allowances are mentioned again and it is said that they should be increased in order to meet the higher cost of living. The opposition parties are not logical in putting candidates up against the government and in opposing government policy in the house as they are doing by this motion. I am explaining what it is.
They are opposing government policy in the house today. This is the same thing as happened during the by-election. They all vote with the government on the main issues and then afterwards those issues are contested in the different elections. They seem to forget the votes they have cast in the house in support of government expenditures because they criticize them afterwards when they go to the people. They say, "This should not be done, that should not be done." How can they do that? As sensible men how can they swallow everything in the house and vomit it up outside the house? That is what they are doing all the time. When some hon. members try to protest against expenditures it is useless. It is always good to spend money.
We now have the results which were foreseen for a long time by a few of us. We were called all sorts of names because we spoke our minds. We supported a wholly Canadian policy, a policy that would put Canadians before all others. How is it that our returned men and the widows and orphans of ex-service men cannot get'enough? It is simply because we have put foreigners, strangers and outsiders on an equal basis with those who served in the Canadian army, and sometimes we give them preference. That is why I objected to it.
I do not think the remedy is in an amendment like the one brought forward by the hon. member of the C.C.F. party. They are surprised when someone speaks to them in the language of common sense and shows them how they are acting contrary to their former votes. I can do that because I voted against it, but those who voted for it cannot

Pensions and
War Veterans Allowances
do it. I have the right to do it and I do it, not with joy but with regret. I should be delighted to err but I cannot.
I have no sympathy whatever for the Minister of Veterans Affairs and I do not think he deserves any. I appreciate the stand taken by the Prime Minister when he said in his own language that he was not going to be blackmailed by anyone, that he wanted to wait for the opportunity to make an announcement. That is the language of a leader. His policy is not going to be dictated by those who vote against it in the house, by those who belong to other groups. He should listen to his own supporters. He should draft his policies after consulting his own supporters. How is it that a young Conservative member gives a lecture to the Prime Minister because he has not answered properly a question put before the house by the C.C.F. group? The Prime Minister used the language of Asquith: he said, "Wait and see."
A lot has been done for the returned men, and I do not think they can complain. There are some wrongs which should be redressed; probably 10 or 15 per cent, but the soldiers have been well looked after theoretically. Some credit must be given to the government. I tell my hon. friends that I am not concerned about an election. If an election occurred tomorrow I would be in the hands of my electors. If they vote for me I shall be proud to represent them; if they vote against me, I shall return home and make more money with my law practice.
The question is not one of an election. The problems of the soldiers, the veterans, and their widows and orphans should not be made a political football. The last reason why I am bound to oppose this amendment is that I am anxious to get on with the estimates. I shall not say one word more. I want the estimates right away.


Mr. HARRIS (Grey-Bruce):: I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Mr. CHEVIUER:: I was paired) with the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Casselman). Had I voted, I would have voted1 against the amendment.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: I was paired with the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Breithaupt). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I was paired with the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. McGarry). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. McLURE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Dionne). Had I voted, I do not know how I would1 have voted.


Mr. STOKES:: I was paired with the hon. member for Ohamibly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. MENARY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cape Breton North-Victoria (Mr. MacLean). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. LACOMBE:: I was paired not with the hon. member for Champlain but with the hon. memlber for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand). Had I voted, I would have voted1 for the amendment.
Motion (Mr. Mackenzie) agreed to, and the house went into supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.


DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
JiS'i. Departmental administration, $1,651,360
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): With the consent of the committee I wish to make a brief introduction to the presentation of the estimates of veterans affairs, which have been ready for over three months. It may be of assistance to hon. members if I make this brief statement regarding veterans affairs as a whole. The figures which I shall quote include the supplementary estimates which were tabled a few days ago. These aggregate $4,925,000, almost entirely for hospital and other treatment purposes.
The estimates now before the committee for all activities of the Department of Veterans Affairs for the fiscal year 1947-48 aggregate $450 million. The total estimates for 1946-47 were $749 million. The decrease is $299 million. These figures include statutory items as well as items to be voted. They also include, in addition to normal government services, the amounts required for loans and investments. A very large amount of the

decrease is due to the fact that the payment of war service gratuities is now very nearly completed. There are also substantial reductions under a number of headings as follows:
Treatment and pension examinations for world war II		$21,000,000
Post-war discharge rehabilitation
benefits	  24,230,000
Hospital accommodation and facilities	    13,000,000
Grants to veterans settled on provincial lands	 1,000,000
Grants to Indian veterans settled
on reserve lands	 1,000,000
However, Mr. Chairman, largely because of an increase in the number of veterans entitled to war veterans allowance and to pension, there are certain votes in which the estimate for 1947-48 is greater than the estimate passed last year. We have been able to reduce the requested appropriations for all administrative items other than those related to the payment of pensions and war veterans allowances. Increases in these two items are directly related to the increased number of veterans who will be receiving benefits under this legislation.
While there is a very substantial reduction of $299 million in the estimates for the Department of Veterans Affairs this year, it is appropriate that I should assure the committee and the country that this reduction is due entirely to the fact that certain services and payments related to the demobilization period are very nearly completed. These reduced expenditures do not reflect any impairment in the high standard of services which parliament has authorized for war veterans. There is not, and there shall not be, any falling off in the quality of services which this country has rightfully insisted shall be available to former members of our armed forces.
I want to say a word about pension and to give a fairly graphic picture to the house. The total amount provided in the 1947-48 estimates for pensions for both world war I and world war II, is $80,750,000. Our appropriation for 1946-47 was $74,750,000, and the actual expenditure was $70,748,000. On May 31, 1947, there were 181,200 pensions in force representing an annual liability of $70,725,000. The pension liability is increasing at the rate of approximately $800,000 a month in Canada. Our estimated expenditures under this head for 1947-48, are based on the belief that this rate of increase will continue throughout the fiscal year.
I come to the question discussed earlier this morning of war veterans allowances. Let me give just a few facts. The four votes

Supply-Veterans Affairs
providing for funds necessary to meet payments on account of the allowances authorized by the War Veterans Allowance Act total $14,480,000. Our estimate for 1946-47 was $14,180,000 and the actual expenditures were $12,000,000. On May 31 there were approximately 31,350 allowances in effect representing an annual liability of approximately $14,750,000.
It is necessary, sir, to provide funds to meet the liability we have under the act, although from actual experience we usually find that the full amount is not required because of the fact that recipients receive and report other incomes thereby permitting a reduction in the amount of allowances payable. There has been a steady increase in the amounts payable under this act for several years, and it is expected that this trend will continue owing to the fact that veterans of world war I are now entering the age at which they will be entitled to receive benefits.
Coming to the important question of treatment, the department's medical treatment services have been raised to a very high standard and have received commendation from many sources, especially one from Winnipeg the other day, from the Canadian Medical Association. During the fiscal year 1946-47 it was necessary to expand our treatment facilities rapidly to ensure that veterans might receive treatment of the high standard to which government policy entitles them. The several votes, including the supple-mentaries, providing funds necessary for the department's treatment services covering operation of hospitals, payments of allowances to veterans receiving treatment, and construction of hospitals, total the very great sum of $65,300,000. The decrease this year in our treatment service is $31 million. The actual expenditure was $78 million last year. Our hospital facilities are being improved and modified as rapidly as possible under present conditions, and the estimate of $10 million for this purpose represents our anticipation of the extent to which during the current fiscal year we shall be able to carry on with the construction of new hospitals, extensions to existing institutions, and modernizing the present premises.
It will be necessary during the year to close a number of hospitals which were opened primarily to meet the peak load during the demobilization period. These hospitals are being closed only after the number of patients reaches such a low figure that continued operation of the hospitals is not justified, and then only when other facilities for proper treatment of veterans are available in the area concerned or in adjacent areas.
In regard to benefits, a study of the department's estimates will show that provision is being made for the fiscal year 1947-48 to the extent of $94,850,000 for post-discharge rehabilitation benefits. This compares with the 1946-47 figure of $96 million, although our estimate last year was $119 million.
During the current fiscal year many veterans will reach the end of the period during which they have entitlement to certain benefits under the veterans rehabilitation act. This applies particularly to out-of-work allowances and in a lesser degree to vocational training. It is expected however that expenditures on account of "benefit awaiting returns" will continue at a high rate as veterans become established in their own businesses and upon farms.
Expenditures on account of university training are expected to reach a peak during 194748 at a sum in the neighbourhood of $39 million. The amount required for this purpose will, however, decline in future years as veterans complete their courses or cease to have entitlement to assistance. It has been gratifying to observe how remarkably well student veterans have done in their courses at the several universities across the whole dominion. They have ranked high among the winners of scholarships and prizes in our Canadian universities. I am confident, Mr. Chairman, that as a result of what this parliament has done, the contribution of these veteran graduates to the welfare of Canada will be such that the expenditure in training will always be regarded as one of the most profitable investments this country has ever made.
There is, sir, cause for gratification in the fact that the contributions to the unemployment insurance fund on account of veterans is continuing at a high rate. The significance of this fact is that the veterans of Canada are finding their place in the industrial life of this country. The Veterans Rehabilitation Act provides that when a veteran has spent approximately three months in insurable employment the Department of Veterans Affairs shall pay into the insurance fund a sum equivalent to the contributions which would have been paid had the veteran been engaged in that employment during the period of his service in the armed forces. Up to March 31, 1947, contributions amounting to $10,280,000 aad been paid on behalf of more than 136,000 veterans. We estimate that we shall require $15,000,000 for this purpose during the present fiscal year.
I now come to gratuities. This is what the people of Canada have done. Payments on account of war service gratuities to which
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Veterans Affairs
[Stage Direction]
veterans are entitled under the War Service Grants Act had reached the total of $453,350,000 on March 31, 1947. That is what the people of Canada have done, and rightly done, for those who served during the war and saved us. The amount paid during the last year was more than $221,000,000 for war service gratuities alone. Those moneys are paid over to the veteran in a series of monthly instalments immediately following his discharge. We now find that these payments have very largely been completed. This is a statutory item and only a fragmentary percentage of the original liability remains unpaid.
We did something else in this parliament, and we were the only country in the world that did it; I refer to reestablishment credits payable over a period of ten years. The amount of credit entered up to the account of veterans under the War Service Grants Act is slightly in excess of $365,000,000, which they can use for ten different purposes decided upon by this house in its wisdom. The amount to which veterans are still entitled as shown in the books is $191,000,000. Under the terms of the legislation this amount is available to them at any time within ten years from January 1, 1945, or the date of the veteran's discharge, whichever is the later date. The extent to which payments may be required during the coming year is impossible to estimate with precision, since it depends upon the impulses of possibly several hundred thousand veterans. The item is statutory. In making up the estimates we have thought it wise to count on a somewhat heavier demand during 1947-48 than was experienced last year.
Just one word on the Veterans Land Act. We have discussed it many times already during this session, and possibly I should not say much more. The settlement operations under the Veterans Land Act have now reached large proportions. The point I want to leave with the committee is this. We had some trouble with our housing, as hon. gentlemen know, but the larger operation has been tremendously successful. Up to April 30 of this year, qualification papers have been issued to 63,535 veterans. Loans and grants had been approved to a total of $128,746,308.
Percy Ellis Wright: Just at this point may I ask if the minister has the figures as to the veterans who have actually been settled?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No. I will get them. These were applied as follows: 14,817 farmers, $70,300,058; 10,990 small holders. $56,833,696; 427 commercial fishermen, $1,612,554. That makes a total of 26,234 veterans who had obtained financial assistance under the

Veterans Land Act up to April 30 last. It is expected that by the end of the present fiscal year this number will be over 35,000. The veterans established under the act are meeting the terms of their agreements with complete satisfaction. For the last fiscal year-and I wish the committee would note this-95-2 per cent of maturities were paid by our settlers on the land; that is, world war II settlers. Repayments, including initial deposits, totalled $12,068,297. It will be observed that the appropriation asked for in connection with the administration of this act closely approximates the sum voted last year.
That, sir, is a synopsis of the activities of what I believe is today the largest department in this government, a department which, I may say, has received the kindly support of every party in the house, and certainly from my colleagues and my leader it has received the most marvellous and inspirational encouragement. If after thirty years in parliament I shall find it necessary to leave active public affairs, I shall never be so proud of anything in my life as of the work I was privileged to do during the last twelve years for the ex-servicemen of the Dominion of Canada.
Mr. WHITE	(Hastings - Peterborough):
This morning I suggested to the minister that there should be a standing committee on veterans affairs, and this afternoon I understood the minister to say he was in favour of such a committee. I wonder if the minister would go a bit further and say he will have such a committee set up early next session.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As the Prime Minister said, no single minister makes a decision on behalf of this government, but it is my intention to recommend to my leader and my colleagues that we have a committee next year.


George Stanley White: I thank the minister, and I know if he recommends it we will probably have a standing committee of the house on veterans affairs. It is hardly necessary to review the work of the veterans affairs committee during the two years it sat. As I said this morning, however, if this committee had been set up this session probably the motion and debate that took place today would have been avoided. Many times since last session the agitation on the part of various veterans' bodies in regard to the basic rate of pension must have been brought to the attention of the department. It has been brought up in the house many times and has been very actively discussed, particularly since last session, by branches of the legion all over Canada. I have noticed

Supply-Veterans Affairs
press comments and reports covering large sections of this province, indicating that various branches of the legion have passed resolutions to be forwarded to the minister advocating an increase of from 25 per cent to 33J per cent in the basic rate of pension. Before the minister's estimates are through I should be very glad if he would make some statement as to his attitude or feeling in the matter of an increase in the basic rate of pension, which rate I understand was set about 1920 and has not been increased since.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If my hon. friend will permit me I should like to give him the figures, and they very largely bear out what he has just said. In 1925 the cost of living index was 119-8. In 1939 it was approximately 100. On March 1, 1947, it was 128-9, and on April 1, 1947, it was 130-6. The increase between 1925 and 1947 was 7-6 per cent. The increase between 1939 and March 1, 1947, was 28-9 per cent, and the increase between 1939 and April 1, 1947, was 30-6 per cent. The annual pension liability, as I said, was $70,000,000. The cost of a 7-6 per cent increase would be $6,000,000. The cost of a 28-9 per cent increase would be $23,000,000.
Perhaps while I am on my feet my hon. friend would permit me to give the corresponding figures with regard to the war veterans allowance. The cost of living index in 1930 was 120-8. In 1939 it was approximately 100, and on March 1, 1947, it was 128-9. The increase from 1930 to 1947 was 6-7 per cent; the increase from 1939 to 1947 was 28-9 per cent. The annual war veterans allowance liability is $14,000,000. The cost of a 6-7 per cent increase would be $938,000, and the cost of a 28-9 per cent increase would be $4,046,000. War veterans allowances have been increased from $20 to $30.41, an increase of fifty per cent, or more than the increase in the cost of living from either 1930 or 1939.


George Stanley White: I thank the minister; but when he got up I thought he was going to give us his attitude or his feeling toward an increase in the basic rate of pension. The figures he gave as to the increase in cost of living may be very interesting, but personally I have not much faith in the figures as to the cost of living as shown by the bureau of statistics, because I believe any housewife in Canada, no matter in what part of the country she lives, will tell you in no uncertain terms that the cost of living has increased far more than is shown by the figures issued by the bureau.
The minister said the veterans allowance had been increased from $20 to $30.41, an increase of 50 per cent. I would say to him 83166-3671
at once that when the allowance was fixed at $20 it was far too low. The fact that there has been some slight increase, even though that increase amounts to 50 per cent, does not mean that the rate being paid today is at all adequate. The situation becomes more marked when you compare soldiers' pensions to old age pensions. As the minister knows the rate of old age pensions has greatly increased; and in Ontario, the province with which I am most familiar the mothers' allowance, workmen's compensation and similar allowances have been increased over the years. Surely the minister would be the last to say that the basic rate of pension or veterans' allowance should be lower than the allowance paid by any other department or any province. This morning I mentioned briefly the case of the widows of pensioners with a disability of fifty per cent. My understanding-and if I am wrong I hope the minister will correct me-is that on the death of a fifty per cent disability pensioner his widow will continue to receive something like $40 to $60 a month as a pension. If the pensioner has a disability of less than fifty per cent his widow will receive no pension, unless she comes under the provisions of the War Veterans Allowance Act.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If I may correct my hon. friend, just to keep the record straight, in the first case mentioned the widow is entitled to a pension of $60 a month.


George Stanley White: That is where the disability is fifty per cent or more?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Correct.


George Stanley White: I am quite in agreement with that. There must have been some reason for fixing fifty per cent as the point of division, but it seems to me that when the husband dies the widow is more than ever in need of a pension, and should be entitled to it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is fixed at fifty per cent because then there is a presumption that death was due to service.


George Stanley White: I will not quarrel with that, either. But on even more than compassionate grounds I would say that if during his lifetime a man was in receipt of a pension of only five per cent or ten per cent or anything up to fifty per cent, on his death the widow should be entitled to more than she receives now, which I believe is something like one-third the pension which was paid to her husband. If the department realizes and admits that the
Supply-Veterans Affairs

widow is entitled to a pension at all I cannot understand why, after the death of the pensioner, his widow should not be entitled to an adequate pension without having to apply under the War Veterans' Allowance Act, in which case she is met with this most unfair means test. I hope the minister will make some statement on this point which I consider to be very important.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I interrupt again? I am just trying to be helpful. If death is due to a disability attributable to service, then usually a pension is granted.


George Stanley White: At this late date, as far as the veterans of the first war are concerned, you will find that the members of the pension commission are as hard as the granite which comes from the land where the minister comes from.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think the pension commission are very kind-hearted people.


George Stanley White: I should like to mention a matter which came up on June 9 when the Minister of Finance had his budget resolutions before the house. This had to do with part of the reestablishment credit which is paid to a veteran attending university. The details may be found on page 3942 of Hansard. I referred to the case of a married veteran attending university who was receiving $60 per month-say he receives $60 during the university period. His wife is working. The Minister of Finance told me that in computing the amount of income tax payable by the wife she would deduct from the $600 the veteran received an amount of $250, and all over the $250 would be deducted from the exemption of $1,500 allowed to the wife and she would pay tax accordingly.
The Minister of Finance pointed out that this particular wife was not supporting her husband because the husband was getting the allowance. I tried to point out to the Minister of Finance on that occasion that this was not a matter of a husband receiving income or salary, that the student veteran was actually receiving a part of his reestablishment credit. As I understand it, no part of a gratuity, reestablishment credit or any benefit received because of war service is taxable in any way.
I understand further from the Minister of Finance that a student veteran who took a job during the summer and earned $500 or $800 or whatever it might be would have to add to that amount the $600 he was receiving as a reestablishment credit in computing his income tax. If that is so, I think it is most
(Mr. G. S. White.]
unfair to the veteran. The minister knows that many representations were made in the veterans committee that the $60 a month was not sufficient. If the minister knows anything about conditions in Toronto as far as board, transportation and other things are concerned-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It would be $80 a month.


George Stanley White: In this case the wife was working and he got only $60. I think the minister will find that it would be most difficut to get along on $60 a month. I heard the minister refer once in the veterans affairs committee to the time when he went to school. I agree with him because I know when I went to school $60 would have been a great deal of money. Unfortunately today in Toronto, and I think this would apply to practically every university town, $60 a month is quite small.
The veteran should be encouraged to take employment during the summer in order to earn money to help him through the next year. He must also provide for the time when the allowance of $60 a month will run out because his period of entitlement may be only twelve months or so. If what I say is correct and if the explanation given by the Minister of Finance is correct, many of the veterans attending university are going to be sadly disillusioned about the $60 a month they are getting.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I thank my hon. friend most sincerely for his observations. I shall renew my investigations of the situation which he has described.


George Stanley White: I appreciate what the minister has said but I think he should go farther. These men will be taxed for their earnings in 1946 and they will be subject to tax for this year. The minister may recall the item which appeared in the press of yesterday that tuition fees at the university of Toronto were being increased by at least twenty per cent. I will leave it at that and hope that the minister will make an investigation into this unfortunate matter. If he finds the facts are as I have stated them I hope they will be corrected.
Just a word about the pension commission which the minister says is very kind-hearted. I have never found them to be that way. The minister will recall that the old question of preenlistment disability came up at many meetings of the veterans affairs committee and was the subject of discussion along with the question of the benefit of the doubt. Can the minister assure the committee that the

Supply-Veterans Affairs
pension commission are dealing fairly with the veterans in connection with preenlistment disability?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I happen to know every member of the pension commission. They are all men who served; they are comrades of my hon. friend: and of myself. I know how sympathetic they are. The chairman is present and I know how sympathetic he is to the 'type of case mentioned by my hon. friend. I can assure him that every sympathy and consideration will be given to preenlistment conditions.
Mr. WHITE OHastings-iPeterborough): That sounds very nice if that is actually the way it works out. I should like to explain what often happens. When a veteran is up before this kind-hearted pension commission he is often faced with his medical sheet or other records and he is shown where he answered a question asked by a doctor or some other examiner. That answer probably referred to a difficulty that occurred many years ago but we find this kind-hearted pension commission instantly pouncing on that one point and taking the position that whatever the present disability is, it is due to a preenlistment condition which was not aggravated by war service.
In many cases information is obtained from the soldier in connection with these matters in a rather unfair way. He is not told that anything he says may have some bearing on a claim he might make for pension in the future. When these cases are taken up a letter comes back from the pension commission relating the condition to something back in 1932, 1935 or in the 1920's. It is stated that in the opinion of the medical officers of the pension commission that is responsible for the present condition. If a pension is granted it is on a small scale because they claim that practically the whole disability is dlue to something that happened before enlistment. The medical examination of any soldier who joined the army in 1942 was a great deal stiffer than the examination the minister and I went through in 1914. The soldier was examined thoroughly in every way by specialists. Every part of his body was examined, and he was X-rayed, and it was pretty difficult to put anything over. The soldier got a more thorough examination than he would get if he was applying for a policy of $5,000, $10,000 or $25,000 from any insurance company in Ontario. I say to the minister again that after the soldier has had this most thorough medical examination and has been accepted in the army with A-l category, anything that happens to him after
that should be attributed to his war service irrespective of what the kind-hearted pension commissioners may say, irrespective of what documents the- medical officers of the pension board may sign, and a pension should be awarded1 to the soldier on the basis of his disability.
At -the conclusion of his remarks the minister referred briefly to the Veterans Land Act. I for one would like the minister to make a further statement on veterans housing, which is a very important matter, not in any one isolated spot but across the whole dominion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A complete and comprehensive report on veterans housing has been prepared and is now available, and when we come to that item I shall be only too glad to table it or to let any hon. member of the house have a copy of it. It deals with every single project in every province in the dominion and1 with what has been accomplished, and the general conclusion of that report is that the repairs will be completed at the end of this month of July. I have not the report before me at the moment but I shall be glad to table it at the commencement of proceedings tomorrow, if we last that long.


George Stanley White: Would the minister make a statement on one further matter which I brought before the house some two or three weeks ago in regard to the Veterans Taxi Owners Association of' Montreal? At that time I understood the minister to say that an investigation was being made or a report was being obtained, and I rather expected that following that the minister would make a statement to the house. I noticed a press dispatch from Montreal dated yesterday which stated that Major Ferland, formerly with the Department of Veterans Affairs, had been before the court on that day and that one Colonel Hay of the Department of Veterans Affairs had made the statement that at the time this taxi association was formed Major Ferland was an official of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and further that many of the veterans involved in this taxi association had called at Major Ferland's office in the Department of Veterans Affairs to pay their fees. I hope the minister has the report or the particulars, because these boys are anxious to know just what the Minister of Veterans Affairs is going to do to help them.
I hope the minister will also tell the committee whether or not he favours and will advocate an increase of the basic rate of pension and the rates under the War Veterans Allowance Act.
5758.
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: la regard to the first question, I have received a report, -which I have not under my hand but of which I shall be glad to send my hon. friend a copy, in regard to the Veterans Taxi Owners Association. There are two angles to the situation, with which I was not very familiar. In regard to increasing the basic pension, that ^ is a matter of government policy which will be considered during the recess and wifi be further considered by the special committee on veterans affairs, I hope, which will be set up early next session.


George Stanley White: Would the minister say he was sympathetic to recommending an increase in the basic pension? Surely he will go that far. He can only speak for himself.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Chairman, it is approximately one year ago that the veterans committee completed their work on the veterans charter, and I think generally speaking, we all felt that we had completed a pretty good job in so far as the programme of rehabilitation for the veteran of world war II was concerned. But the minister will remember that many members expressed a good deal of dissatisfaction with the programme for the veterans of the two wars. We realized that there was no chance of a veteran of the two wars being able to take advantage of the Veterans Land Act on account of his age, and we also realized there was not the opportunity for the older veteran to get employment today in competition with younger men. However, while we were generally satisfied with the programme of rehabilitation for the veteran of world war II, we were not by any means satisfied with the pension bill which was submitted to the house. The minister will remember that the pension bill which was submitted to the house last year did not represent the unanimous view of the members of the veterans committee. It did not even represent the will of the majority of that committee. As I said this morning it merely represented the will of the government as put forward by the Minister of Veterans Affairs. As I intend to deal with this subject at some length I shall refresh the memory of the house as to what took place at that time.
A draft bill was submitted to the veterans affairs committee, and- we spent many days and weeks considering that draft. Finally we completed a bill that did receive the unanimous approval of the members of that committee on every main point. Then we held meetings in camera and the minister told

us that the government was not prepared to accept the amendments we had made to that draft bill, and in view of the fact that the amendments we had moved would have involved an increase in expenditure the minister had the power to veto those amendments. It will be recalled that some of the Liberal members of the committee then substituted a number of amendments, and as there was a sufficient number of Liberal members on the committee to force those amendments through, they carried. Therefore the bill submitted to the house was a bill that represented the opinion of the government rather than the opinion of the veterans committee. It is important to keep that point in mind, because from time to time we are going to hear in this house that that bill was recommended by the veterans affairs committee. That bill did not represent the majority opinion of the members of the veterans affairs committee. I remind the committee of that, because until the amendments we originally made to the draft bill are incorporated in the Pension Act and until certain other undesirable features are dealt with I am afraid that many veterans will fail to get a square deal under the Pension Act.
Two of the main points at issue were the insurance principle, which was reinstated in the act, and the question of cases of preenlistment origin. There is still a good deal of dissatisfaction on that question. The figures given to us at that time were that at the end of December, 1945 , 7,810 men had been refused pensions on the grounds that their disability was of a pre-enlistment origin. These men had1 served overseas, were classified as fit on enlistment and had been discharged as unfit. Many members of the veterans committee have come in contact with veterans who they found had been severely penalized as a result of that ruling. The great majority of the committee were of the opinion that an applicant's condition as recorded at the time of enlistment should be presumed to be his actual condition. I remember that the hon. member for Vancouver South moved an amendment along that line and it received the support of the committee but later on was ruled out. Further, in that connection we were of the opinion that any subsequent deterioration during service should be recognized as the result of that service and consequently a veteran should be pensionable for that impaired condition unless that condition had been recorded prior to enlistment. We had already struck out the words "wilfully concealed". However, as I say, the government was not prepared to accept that amendment.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
A change was made in the section dealing with the benefit of the doubt, and in the present act that section is section 62, which I shall read. It is supposed to give the veteran the benefit of doubt. It states:
Notwithstanding anything in this act, on any application for pension, the applicant shall be entitled to the benefit of the doubt, which shall mean that it shall not be necessary for him to adduce conclusive proof of his right to the pension applied for, but the body adjudicating on the claim shall be entitled to draw and shall from all the circumstances of the case, the evidence adduced and medical opinions, all reasonable inferences and presumptions in favour of the applicant.
But as I shall show later on, apparently cases still come before the pensions commission in *which the veteran does not appear to receive the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore if the pension commission feel that even though they give the veteran the benefit of the doubt they are not able to award a pension there is another section under which the pension can be granted on compassionate grounds for meritorious service. I refer to section 21. Section 21 reads:
The commission may, on special application in that behalf, grant a compassionate pension, allowance or supplementary award in any case which it considers to be specially meritorious, but in which the commission has decided that the applicant is otherwise unqualified to receive such an award or supplementary award under this act.
With sections 62 and 21 one might argue, surely the interests of the veterans are fully protected. When we were discussing this matter in the committee we were asked to wait and see how these sections, or section 62 as redrafted, worked before going any farther. But section 62 does not appear to carry very much weight with the pension commission, and the commission seems to be loath indeed to u,se section 21. It seems to me that the Department of Veterans Affairs invariably uses the war veteran's allowance to take care of such cases. It must be remembered that the war veterans allowance does not provide anything like the same amount of protection that the pension does. In the first place the amount is less; in the second there is a means test applied to the war veteran's, allowance, and in the third place the dependents of a pensioner are protected to a far greater extent than under the war veterans allowance.
When the veterans committee sat in 194546 its whole time was taken up with work on the charter. We knew very well that if we started to deal with individual cases we would have so much work on our hands that it would bog down and we would never complete the charter. Therefore it was agreed that at that time we would not deal with any individual
cases. But as I have already mentioned, when dissatisfaction was expressed the minister suggested that we should wait for a year to go by and see how the charter as it is now constituted worked out in the interests of the veterans. A year later many feel that there are certain sections of certain acts that should be amended, and at the present moment I have especially in mind the Pension Act. I should like the minister to say whether it is his opinion that when the veterans committee is set up next year-I understand that he is going to try to set up the committee next year-it would not be possible for that committee to make a new departure. I think that committee could act as a kind of board of review to deal with individual cases to see just exactly how the veterans charter is working out in actual practice. I suggest that the various veterans' organizations throughout the country be allowed to bring forward their strongest cases. Then we could act as a kind of board of review to see whether or not the charter is working in their interests, and if we were satisfied that it was not, the government should be prepared to pass the amendments which are necessary to make it work better.
The minister knows that in the past it has never been my practice to recite individual cases in the house. Personally when I brought cases before any branch of the Department of Veterans Affairs I have received every consideration; but on the other hand the number of cases with which we can deal are limited, as the minister knows. I think he will agree that it should not be necessary for any veteran to bring his case before a member of parliament. He should be able to receive the same satisfaction by bringing up the case himself as when he brings it to the attention of a member of parliament, and it does not seem to me that that was always so. Therefore at this time I wish to cite the case of one old veteran who I believe has failed to get the benefit of the doubt or to be dealt with as a meritorious case. While I do not like to take up the time of the committee at this stage of the session, I think I am justified in taking a fair amount of time to recite the case of John V. Thom, M.M., 21st battery, C.E.F., in the war of 1914-18. His regimental number is 86684. I may say that this case was referred to me by Mr. Walter H. Kirchner, M.C., D.C.M., a veteran of 1914-18. Whem Mr. Kirchner brought that case, to my attention I asked one or two people just what kind of organization the Canadian Combat Veterans Association was. They stated that it was not a very strong organization and did not represent a very large number of veterans.
Supply-Veterans Affairs

Therefore I mentioned that fact to Mr. Kirchner and I received this letter which in fairness to Mr. Kirchner I think I should place on record to show what backing Mr. Kirchner has in bringing forward this case and others at this time.
Dear Mr. Quelch:
In view of the fact that the representations I am making concern the well-being of certain classifications of the disabled men of two generations of combatants, may I cite other more powerful numerical groups who by their actions vouch for my bona fides. The Canadian Combat Veterans Association Incorporated was formed in the year 1937, and we are now in the eleventh year of our history as an organization whose work is confined to one particular sphere, namely, the implications of the Military Pensions Act where its democratic administration is concerned.
Our charter is granted under the Societies Act of British Columbia. Our membership under the charter is confined definitely to the men (and women) of world wars I and II, who have actually seen service in the forward areas of war. We have no "honorary" membership, neither do we canvass membership. Those whom we admit have to be recommended by our membership, and we are very particular in this regard to see that our charter is not violated.
Regarding funds from other sources:	In the
year 1941, when I gave evidence before the parliamentary committee on veterans affairs, the dominion command of the Canadian Legion, through their president, asked if they could make a donation towards the expenses of our representations, which was accepted and acknowledged by letter. The dominion command of the Army and Navy Veterans' Association, Inc., also made fairly substantial donations at the same time, and subsequently their provincial command, in British Columbia. Donations have also been received from units of the Canadian Legion, both in Vancouver and throughout the province. Donations have also been received from other responsible veteran groups-all unsolicited, as our records will testify. Copy of the letter passed to you, from the pension adjustment officer of the Army and Navy Veterans Association, in British Columbia (Mr. J. H. MacLeod), is a more recent contribution from one of the numerically powerful veteran groups. The latter donation is important because the representative of the unit concerned is undoubtedly one of the ablest advocates in the dominion on the military pensions legislation.
The donations which have been made to us as an association from the two senior and numerically strong veteran groups is due to the fact that some of the vital matters I have presented to the membership of the House of Commons require specialized knowledge of the legislation in certain spheres, and my position in this regard, as the secretary of the Canadian Combat Veterans Association, is generally accepted among veterans' associations throughout the dominion.
As to my personal status, the brochure of April, 1947, which is in the hands of the membership of the House of Commons, makes this clear.
Thanking you, . . .

And so on. I want to refer to the letter which he mentions as having been written by Mr. J. H. MacLeod, secretary of the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans' Association of Canada. This letter reads:
Dear Comrade Kirchner:-I have for acknowledgement your letter of the 12th, with enclosures, for which many thanks.
It is pleasing to note that your latest crusade has reached its culminating point. Let us hope that you will again be successful in extracting further concessions from those in the seats of the mighty for the amelioration of our deserving comrades in distressed circumstances.
The necessity for drastic revision of the Pension Act and treatment regulations becomes more apparent every day.
We now have on our hands worthy veterans of both wars: men with meritorious front-line service, in many cases pensioned for wounds, who are refused treatment for neuro-psychosis, epileptic and other conditions which, on any reasonable construction, must be referred to the stress and strain of war. These men are being thrown on relatives, or on the community at large, for treatment and maintenance. All too many are finally relegated to mental hospitals (insane asylums) because of the department's obstinate stand in these matters. Surely the time has arrived when something must be done to remedy these obvious defects in our Pension Act and in its administration.
I quoted that letter to show that Mr. Kirchner, in bringing forward these cases, does not represent merely the Canadian Combat Veterans' Association, but has a great deal of backing from the Canadian Legion and the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans' Association of Canada.
Coming back to the case of Mr. John Thom, this man enlisted on November 12, 1914 in the artillery and served overseas in the 21st, battery, C.F.A. He went to France on January 18, 1916 and served in France until December 29, 1918. He saw action for the first time on the Ploegsteert front, was awarded the Military Medal for action on Vimy Rjdge, was buried by the explosion of an ammunition dump, and saw service at Passehendaele, Amiens. Arras and on the Drocourt-Queant line. He was discharged in Canada on April 5, 1919, after three years service in France and four and a half years altogether.
I would like to read to the bouse Mr. John Thom's medical history as given by himself. I could put it in my own words but I think it is better to read his own statement so that no one can accuse me of having distorted it in any way. Here is an example of a man who enlisted in a good state of health, having a strong physique. He bad a splendid war record and then failed to get a square deal. Let me read the medical history of Mr. Thom, from 1919 onwards:
First I want to point out that at no time has there been any dispute regarding the extent

Supply-Veterans Affairs
of my sickness, and that since November, 1928,
I have been regarded as 100 per cent disabled; in fact, when my financial circumstances, six years ago, made it necessary for me to apply for the war veterans' allowance, it was only a matter of form granting me the same. (2) At my date of discharge, April 5, 1919, my medical history sheet shows that I had defective hearing of the right ear, caused by my being in an explosion in the summer of 1917-which left me unconscious for hours, and damaged my inner ear. (3) One month after discharge I went to work with the C.P.R. dining car department, running from Vancouver to Winnipeg. On these trips I began being bothered with severe headaches and dizzy spells; and of course my hearing was bad. As these spells became more frequent I called at the Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment (S.C.R.), and asked them to check over my ear. The doctor's report was that there were scars on the ear drum, but that not much could be done about it. As time went along these spells became more frequent, and much more severe, until in the summer of 1925-after one severe attack, in which I became unconscious, the ear became badly infected and started to discharge. When I reported to Dr. De Muth, the C.P.R. doctor, he sent me to Dr. Grant Lawrence, the ear specialist. As my ear was in such a bad state it eventually affected my eyes. (I have now almost lost the sight of my left eye.)
(4)	By this time I found I was unable to carry on with the C.P.R., so I got leave of absence and went into the hotel business, in Vancouver, for myself. Although I was making a nice return out of the business I eventually had to sell out as the noise and excitement connected with the hotel business seemed to aggravate my head condition.
(5)	About this time (1927),! was still attending Dr. Grant Lawrence, with my ears and eyes. As the trouble seemed chronic I decided it was a matter for the pension board. My complaint was headaches, dizziness and deafness. In a very short time I was granted a 10 per cent pension for otitis media, retroactive to my date of discharge.
(6)	By the spring of 1928 I thought I was a little better and took a job as sales manager for the Dominion American Industries Limited, but as soon as I started to work I began getting worse again, having to miss every other day at work; and although the company was very nice about it, I could see that it wasn't fair to them, so I resigned in November, 1928. It was at this time, on applying to the Pension Department that I found out my mistake: in my ignorance of medical terms I thought that otitis media included my whole head condition, but I was informed that it was only the hearing, and that was what I was pensioned for, and not the headaches, etc.
(7)	Eventually they decided to give me a hearing, at which they decided to give me a five per cent increase for otitis media-but that the cause of the headaches, etc., was neurasthenia. As I had been in Shaughnessy hospital several times, and nothing seemed to be done for my head, a friend of mine made arrangements for three of the leading specialists to examine me and find out the source of my trouble; the three specialists were: Dr. Des Brisay-Diagnosis specialist; Dr. F. Emmons, brain specialist; Dr. Grant Lawrence, ear, eye and nose specialist.
(8)	As their report made it clear to me that my ear condition was the cause of my headaches and eye trouble, and that it was the headaches that were the cause of the neurasthenia, I asked the department to give me a hearing in front of a quorum.
(9)	Eventually the hearing was held with Colonel Cy Peck, V.C., and another gentleman sitting on the board. At the hearing, as you will see by the evidence on file at Shaughnessy, the three doctors when asked if the otitis media was the cause of the headaches, etc., they definitely stated, "Yes"; and Dr. Emmons explained in detail how the headaches were caused.
Colonel Cy Peck, V.C., seemed so convinced that when we asked to cross-examine the departmental doctors he said that would be unnecessary-as there was no room for argument. You can imagine my surprise when I received the decision from Ottawa, when they did not even mention the specialist's evidence, but stated that some Doctor Baillie of Christie street hospital, Toronto-who had never seen me, or examined me-had decided that my headaches were not caused by my ear trouble-and so the board decided not to give me any increase on my pension.
As I thought that the court reporter might have made some mistake in taking down the evidence, I went up to Shaughnessy, and as I am not allowed to see my file personally, 1 asked Mr. Derby, district administrator, if he would mind reading the evidence, as I was sure there was some mistake somewhere. But the evidence was correct, so the slip must have been somewhere else. Of course, knowing Mr. Derby's official position I didn't embarrass him by asking his opinion, but I could see he was just as surprised at the board's decision as I was.
After that, I applied to the appeal board, and asked to be notified when it would come up at Ottawa, so that I could have someone to represent me. They agreed to do so, but the first thing I knew, the case was over, and as far as I know I wasn't represented by anyone.
There is just one more item that I would like to draw to your attention: it is regarding the War Measures Act, which doesn't allow any pills which contain any ingredients required for war purposes given for non-pensionable disabilities. As I get the pills for my headaches, I was notified; but as soon as I showed Doctor Jones at Shaughnessy, Doctor DesBrisay's report, he immediately notified the dispensary that I was entitled to the pills, and to fill my prescription. Now, I don't think that if a man of Doctor Jones' standing, after reading Doctor DesBrisay's report, comes to the decision that my head trouble comes from my pensionable disability, that a Doctor Baillie of Toronto- who has never seen me-is qualified to pass an opinion in the negative with the same evidence in the matter of my pension.
The whole point that I think is so unfair is that the board took the evidence of one doctor, who had never seen me, against three specialists, who had thoroughly examined me. And, if their evidence hadn't been as conclusive as it was-I was still entitled to the "benefit of the doubt" clause in the Pension Act, which my war record certainly entitled me to.
I should like to refer to the evidence of these three specialists to whom Mr. Thom refers in his statement. The three specialists
Supply-Veterans Affairs

mentioned were: first, Doctor W. F. Emmons of Vancouver. According to the evidence given to the Canadian pension commission in 1938, Doctor Emmons was a graduate of McGill, 1924; three years on staff of McGill, physiology, and five years at Mayo clinic studjdng neurology. Practised in Vancouver for past six years-that is, years prior to 1938. Examined patient J. Thom in 1935. I shall read only the opinion of Doctor Emmons at the end of his statement. It is as follows:
It is my opinion that this man is suffering from intermittent attacks of severe vertigo due to inflammatory irritation of the right vestibular apparatus, which are a definite and integral part of the former right otitis media, for which he is already being pensioned. It is quite probable that the neurosis and headaches are attributable to the fear of the attacks of vertigo which, in turn, are definitely connected with his otitis media.
Then, Doctor Grant Lawrence, Vancouver, according to the evidence submitted to the Canadian pension commission in 1938, was a specialist, eye, ear, nose and throat; graduate McGill, 1917; post-graduate work, New York, Vienna, London; sixteen years' practice Vancouver. In his statement, and again I will just give the final paragraph, he states:
All hearing tests indicate a chronic otitis media, probably involving the inner ear and bony labyrinth. His attacks of iritis and headaches are suggestive of a foci of infection, and I would consider his ear as the probable cause.
The last specialist was Doctor DesBrisay of Vancouver who, according to the evidence submitted to the Canadian pension committee in 1938. is a specialist in internal medicine; graduate McGill, 1917; after overseas service in 1919, one and a half years' internship at Vancouver and Chicago; two years in Mayo clinic in medicine; three years Lockwood clinic, Toronto; five years assistant professor of medicine at Dartmouth, New Hampshire; practised internal medicine, Vancouver, for past eight years-that is for eight years prior to 193S. Here is his statement, and again I just read the opinion at the end of it:
Opinion:	Chronic otitis media, with labyrinthitis and associated headaches.
I believe that this man's headaches are due to the ear condition. I would advise extraction of the questionable tooth, because of the history of iritis. I do not think that the tooth could have any bearing on the headaches.
There you have two of the doctors saying that the headaches are due to the condition which is pensionable, and the other doctor saying that in his opinion the headaches are probably due to that cause.
It is interesting to note that the appeal board which granted Mr. Thom's application to have his case reopened drew special atten-
[Mr. Quelch.l
tion to the evidence of these three specialists. The decision handed down by the appeal board in January, 1945, states:
The appeal board doth order that this application be granted.
The members of the appeal board were J. K. Matheson, H. A. Bridges and R. J. Gordon. Then under the heading of "Reasons for decision" we find this, and I will just read the last paragraph, unless the minister wants me to quote the whole statement. The last paragraph reads:
While, in some respects, this application is one which might be dealt with on a "consequential" basis by the Canadian pension commission, the board has finally decided that a prima facie case for leave to reopen has been made out, particularly having regard to exhibits 36 and 37, in the summary of evidence, and the evidence of Doctors Grant Lawrence, H. A. DesBrisay and W. F. Emmons, at the quorum hearing.
The application for leave to reopen is therefore granted.
Then the pension commission wrote this letter to Mr. Thom after his case had come before them:
Ottawa, August 9, 1946.
Mr. John Thom,
3852 West 29th Avenue,
Vancouver, B.C.
The commissioners have reviewed your application for entitlement in respect of Nervous 'Condition.
After careful and sympathetic consideration of the evidence and record before them they are regretfully of the opinion that the condition has no relation to your service, and therefore, it i3 not pensionable. Their decision follows:
The applicant served from November, 1914 to April, 1919, with service in France.
He is in receipt of pension at the rate of twenty per cent for chronic suppurative otitis media, incurred during service. He is now claiming in respect of nervous condition.
There is no reference to any nervous condition during service, or post-discharge, until 1927. The commission is not able to find evidence to connect this condition with service, and rules

Nervous condition-not attributable to service.	*
R. Simpson,
Assistant Secretary.
The commission apparently completely disregarded the evidence of the three specialists giving his nervous condition as a pensionable disability. I think it is of special interest in view of the fact that the appeal board definitely drew the attention of the pension commission to the evidence of those three specialists. I have in my hand a letter which seems to have a bearing on this matter. It was written by J. Z. Taylor, chairman of the Canadian pension commission, dated Nov-

Supply-Veterans Affairs
ember 27, 1934, and addressed to the present Minister of Veterans Affairs. The letter reads:
Dear Captain Mackenzie, -
re Lieut. Walter H. Kirchner, M.C., D.C.M.-


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. member is taking up an individual case which, of course, is his right. But I am advised that in this case the pension commission has granted entitlement for neurasthenia incurred during service. The pension is to be effective twelve months prior to the date of the decision; and the actual degree of disability from the neurasthenia is to be assessed as quickly as possible.


Victor Quelch: When was that decision
made?


Walter Adam Tucker: The decision has been made, and this just brings up the question of what little progress we can make if we take up individual cases. This gentleman was given the right to apply for a second hearing, and these things naturally go ahead in the ordinary course of events. If we are to try to review every single pension case I do not know when we shall get through. The hon. member has already spoken for forty minutes. I do not want to make any complaint about that, but I suggest that other hon. members know of cases which they have an equal right to bring up and read to the committee at much greater length. The hon. member also knows that these matters are confided to a judicial commission, and that this has been done with the idea that there should be no interference on the part of the government with the commission. He also knows that the minister has said he will recommend that a committee be set up next year which can look into all these individual cases. In the light of all this; in the light of the decision rendered in this particular case, which shows that these matters are going through in the ordinary course of events, and since the hon. member has taken forty minutes to deal with a case in which entitlement has been granted in the ordinary course of events, I appeal to the hon. member to let these items go through. Then, if he does not think these matters are being dealt with properly he may take them up before a committee which can deal with them much better than they can be dealt with in this house.


Victor Quelch: I have been in the house since 1935, and this is the first time I have brought up an individual case. We spent two years in drafting a charter for the veterans. Many members of the committee expressed the opinion that the Pension Act was not
satisfactory, and that veterans would not get a square deal under it. We were told to wait for a year to see how it would work out. I am giving as an example a case in which I consider a man has not received the benefit of the doubt under section 62. It is all very well for the parliamentary assistant to say this case has now been dealt with, but this matter has been under consideration since 1927. How long does a veteran have to wait to get justice? This case was first brought up in 1927, and now we are told the man may receive a pension. The granting of entitlement does not necessarily mean he will get the pension he should get. It does not necessarily mean he will get a pension for the full disability; we have to wait and see the attitude of the pension commission. I realize that since I have spoken for forty minutes I can continue only with the unanimous consent of the house.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; we are in committee.


Victor Quelch: If I cannot go on now I shall have to rise again in a few moments and continue my presentation of the case. Therefore I ask that I be allowed to conclude now, because I can finish in a few minutes and save a good deal of time.


Walter Adam Tucker: You have the right now because I made an interjection.


Victor Quelch: I should like to read this letter from Mr. Justice Taylor, because it seems to imply that when an appeal board directs the attention of the commission to certain specific evidence they should give every attention to it. I forget just what point I had reached in reading the letter, so perhaps I had better start it again:
Captain The Hon. Ian A. Mackenzie, M.P. Vancouver, B.C.
Dear Capt. Mackenzie:
re Lieutenant Walter H. Kirchner, M.C., D.CJ1.
I have your letter of the 16th November.
I have just had an opportunity of reading the reasons given by members of the pension appeal court for setting aside the decision of the quorum of the commission. I presume a copy of these reasons have been sent to this officer and that you have had the opportunity of seeing them.
The decision, as I know you thoroughly understand, is binding upon the commission and while the court has granted leave for us to entertain a fresh application, in the hearing of that application we must carry out the suggestion offered by the court.
In the event of the case reaching the appeal court for a second time we would be subject to rather severe criticism if we reheard the case without trying, at least, to obtain the evidence which they suggest is available.
Supply-Veterans Affairs

In this case the pension commission had the evidence before them, but it did not seem to Carry very much weight with them, though that evidence was given by three outstanding specialists. I realize that some of the statements I have read into the record may be questioned, so I should like to put on record a number of questions which perhaps the minister could answer when we come to the item dealing with pensions. In addition to placing the questions on Hansard, I shall send a copy to the minister, because they are lengthy. In order to complete the history and clarify the whole case, these are the questions I should like answered:
Did John V. Thom, M.M., No. 86684, 21st Battery, Canadian Field Artillery, enlist in the 1st great war, November 12, 1914, at Regina, Saskatchewan, classified physically AX, with no mental or physical defects; age twenty-two?
Was he discharged April 9, 1919, completing four and a half years of service?
Did he spend three years of this time in France as a combatant, in the forward areas of war, identified with the great battles of the Canadian army corps, and decorated with the Military Medal for bravery?
Was he wounded May 12, 1917, but remained on duty in the line?
Did he suffer attacks of dysentery in September, 1918?
Was he blown up and buried by an exploding ammunition dump, from the direct hit of a German high explosive shell?
Was he dug out of debris and earth by his comrades, in a semi-conscious condition, sick and vomiting and subsequently evacuated to a rest camp for several weeks to recover?
Does his medical and military record and personal narrative of events show he never has recovered from that experience, although carrying on again in the line until the war ended?
Did other members of his battery suffer similar injuries from the exploding ammunition dump ?
Were several men of the battery killed by the same explosion?
Are sworn affidavits of eye witnesses to these events recorded on John Thom's departmental file and in the files of the Department of National Defence?
Was he certified by departmental specialists, February 24, 1919, as suffering from deafness in the right ear as a result of a burst ear drum from the ammunition dump explosion?
Do not departmental files record a discharging right ear, with increased defective hearing, from demobilization in 1919 to April, 1927, at which time John V. Thom was granted a ten per cent pension for C.S.O.M. (deafness), as incurred on service?
Did John V. Thom claim pension for the following medically certificated conditions, arising out of his head injuries, as symptomatic of a general condition of total disability?
(a)	Persistent, severe headaches
(b)	Dizziness and vomiting
(e) Nervous prostration
(d) Labyrinthitis and

(e) "General Neurosis" associated with chronic suppurative otitis media. (Neurasthenia)
Does John V. Thom also suffer from the complete loss of sight in the right eye, as part of his head injuries, but for which he is not pensioned ?
Did the Canadian pension commission arbitrarily rule out of his claim all organic conditions of disability for pension consideration, and did they compel John Thom to apply for one condition, specified by them, without the organically related symptoms to support his claim?
Was this condition, specified by the Canadian pension commission, classified as "neurasthenia"?
Was it arbitrarily related by representatives of the commission to a functional (presumptive) instead of an organic basis?
Was the functional condition of neurasthenia related by the pension medical examiner (Dr. B. F. Keillor), Shaughnessy Hospital, Vancouver, B.C., to alleged (presumptive) economic conditions and as unrelated to the injuries sustained by John Thom in service?
Did Doctor William Baillie, departmental psychiatric consultant, who has never seen John Thom personally, submit as "evidence" to the Canadian pension commission his opinion based solely on a statement alleged by Doctor B. F. Keillor to have been made to him by John Thom?
Did John Thom submit evidence to the Canadian pension commission denying the statements attributed to him by Doctor B. F. Keillor and submitting documentary evidence in proof they should have been expunged from the records as falsities?
Did the Canadian pension commission accept Doctor William Baillie's opinion, based on Doctor B. F. Keillor's challenged statements, to outlaw John Thom's pension claim as a total war disability?
Was John Thom described as in the "psychiatric" classification by departmental medical personnel (psychiatric services), and was this classification used for several years to effectively deny either John Thom or his legal representatives access to the departmental files to secure definite information as to the liaison between Doctor B. F. Keillor, pension medical examiner, and Doctor William Baillie, departmental consultant, regarding the outlawing of his pension claim?
Did three British Columbia medical specialists, including a brain specialist of Mayo Brothers standing namely Doctors R. Grant-Lawrence, H. A. DesBrisay and Dr. W. Frank Emmons, certify John Thom's condition of the total disability as directly related to his departmentally-recognized war-disability condition?
Is Dr. H. A. BesBrisay, one of the three mentioned specialists, a recognized specialized departmental consultant?
Has John Thom been a total disability since the year 1927?
Was he subsequently compelled by economic circumstances to accept the war veterans allowance to supplement a 15 per cent disability pension award in lieu of a 100 per cent pension as of right?
Was the case of John V. Thom finally outlawed by an appeal court of the Canadian pension commission in the year 1939 after repeated

Supply-Veterans Affairs
court findings, and subsequent ap-peals of the legal representatives of the applicant refused to re-open the case?
Was the case again re-opened by his subsequent legal adviser Walter H. Kirchner, M.C., D.C.M., pension adjustment officer, Canadian Combat Veterans Association Incorporated, on representations based upon proved irregularities, as cited?
Did the appeal court commissioners granting leave to re-open John Thom's ease direct the attention of the Canadian pension commission to the medical evidence of the three British Columbia medical specialists, the "instructions" of the appeal court being, in part:- "Canadian Pension Commission"
Appeal Board, January 9, 1945.
"The present appeal board has made a careful study of the complete details of the application, and has also had the advantage of the report prepared by members of the appeal board, who heard the applicant, as stated above. The board has also carefully noted the communication from the pension medical examiner, Vancouver, dated October 22, 1940.
"While in some respects, this application is one which might be dealt with on a 'consequential' basis, the board has finally decided that a prima facie case for leave to re-open has been made out, particularly having regard to the evidence of Doctors Grant-Lawrence, H. A. DesBrisay and W. Prank Emmons, at the quorum hearing. The application for leave to re-open is therefore-granted." *
Will the Minister of Veterans Affairs instruct the Canadian pension commission to abide by the appeal board's findings of January 9 and adjudicate on John V. Thom's case accordingly?
In view of tlhe file I have read-I 'have a very full file here from which I have just read briefly-it does seem to me that section 62, giving the benefit of the dou'bt to the veteran, apparently means nothing. Further, it seems to me 'that section 21, which provides for compassionate grants in meritorious eases, is not- being observed by the pension commission. Surely the minister must admit that this would have been a splendid case where section 21 could have been used to give a man a pension when the pension commission had found that they did not think he was justified to receive one as of right. Surely he should have been awarded one on compassionate grounds.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall take only a minute of the committee's time. My hon. friend raised four points. The first point which dealt with section 62. which is the benefit of doubt section, and section 21, which is the meritorious award section, will be dealt with briefly by my parliamentary assistant. May I point out to my Ihon. friend that dual war veterans have aid the rehabilitation treatment and pension entitlements available to world war II veterans. In addition they have special entitlement under the War Veterans Allowance Act whereby service anywhere qualifies them. They have class 6 treatment or domiciliary care under the meritorious service clause.
There is a special officer at D.V.A. head office to render service and advise on any problems affecting them, and there are special counsellors and interviewers in each D.V.A. district office. There are special officers who pay attention to their employment needs at each regional office of U.I.C., Department of Labour, national employment service. There has been a dominion-wide campaign under way to obtain reserved jobs in industry for older veterans and 'they also receive a preference in 'the corps of commissionaires by virtue of age.
I should like to say a further word about the second point raised by my hon. friend, that of employment for older veterans. In order to assist older veterans to obtain employment, the Department of Labour and voluntary agencies throughout the country were asked to support a campaign for the employment of veterans of fifty years and upwards. Full cooperation was obtained.
Now for the figures. Veterans with service in both wars who were registered as unemployed on April 1 numbered 9.262. New registrations in April and May were 7,611. This gave the aggregate registrations to May 31 as 16,873. Those who found employment in sixty-eight points only through our activities and those of the Department of Labour numbered 9,399. Since this last figure of those placed in employment does not cover all registration points in Canada, it is evident that approximately 10.000 older veterans successfully found employment during the first two months of the campaign. The number now registered as in search of employment has been materially reduced, notwithstanding the 7,611 new registrations.
We are greatly indebted to the many agencies, mostly voluntary, who set up 'this amazing record by successfully attacking the myth that older veterans are not a good employment investment. We intend to continue our work along these lines, because large numbers of the veteran population of Canada will reach the over forty-five age mark each year for the next twenty-five years. I think we are travelling along the right lines.
The third point mentioned by my hon. friend was the question of the charter. We shall be only too glad to examine how effective has 'been the work of the great committee which sat last year in bringing about re-establishment reform for our exservice men. That can easily be included in the terms of reference to that committee.
Supply-Veterans Affairs

As his fourth point he raised the case of John Thom. This veteran's champion has abused me pretty bitterly, and he has abused one of the best friends the returned soldier ever had, the hon. member for Vancouver South. I do not think I will say any more about that. I should like to get the advice of >the medical men in this house, because I know nothing about medioine myself except what I take occasionally. This is a most involved case. The hon. member's long dissertation has been rendered unnecessary by the fact that- entitlement has been approved and assessment will be established. I think I have dealt with all the points raised by my hon. friend.


Victor Quelch: I think the minister will agree that it has taken a long time because the case was first raised in 1927. It should not be necessary for a veteran to have to wait for eighteen years in order to get a square deal. I am very glad to hear that even at this late day the case is going to be dealt with satisfactorily; at least I hope so.


Mr. BENTLEY:: I shall not be as long as my hon. friend because he said a great many things with which I agree, neither shall I attempt to deal with everything in the veterans estimates with which I should like to deal. I am sure that other hon. members will be dealing with some of these matters and there is no need to repeat. I should like to deal with something that specifically comes under this administration item.
Before I do that, I want to refer to a statement which the minister made today. I want to assure you Mr. Chairman, that while I am physically hot and uncomfortable there is no emotional heat in me. I am not going to be critical or set myself up as a judge. I am simply going to state a case and ask that something be done about it.
I want to remind the minister that while what he said was substantially correct, that the veterans committee did agree on the final draft bill and agreed at that time that this was the report of the committee, we also agreed with the minister that when the matter came up in the house one member from each party would state his party's view briefly. I at that time was chairman of the caucus committee of the C.C.F. and made the statement on behalf of our party. The statement I made was this, that we would not offer any further criticism of anything that was done by the committee or the government, but. we would watch the operations of the veterans charter and reserve the right to bring to the government's attention at. the next session, meaning this session, any things that we felt 
were not working out properly. I am proud of the humble part I had in the preparation of the veterans charter and I want to give credit to the government and to the minister, who has, I believe, an expansive sympathy and a good heart for the veterans, for the things that they have done. He and the government deserve a tremendous amount of credit, and I am proud of being a humble citizen in a nation that is willing to subscribe to these things.
I assure the minister that I shall make no comparisons between Canada and. any other country. I am not interested in a comparison between what Canada is doing for her veterans and what some other country may be doing. I am simply interested in what Canada can do for her own veterans as well as her own citizens and do it willingly and gracefully, as she has done these things willingly and gracefully, and I am proud, as I say, to be a humble citizen of such a country.
Before I go further, I want to pay a tribute to the minister and his departmental officials. In the few individual cases that it has been necessary for me to take up with the department on behalf of some veteran., I have received nothing but courtesy and help, and in every case where the condition complained of could be corrected within the framework of the act, that was done. Unfortunately one or two could not be corrected and, when the next veterans committee sits, amendments will have to be made to the act to permit the officials to correct these conditions.
Having said that, I think everybody, including the minister and his officials, will recognize that we would not be a human society if, no matter how carefully our veterans legislation or any other legislation were drafted, certain individuals at some time, in fact quite frequently, who claimed benefits under the act did not feel that they were not getting the treatment they should get, and the officials would be less than human if they claimed that in every case where dissatisfaction arose the applicant was wrong and the official was right. That would be a kind of society we cannot yet visualize. So I want everybody to realize that in what I say this afternoon I am. speaking in no spirit of criticism whatever. I am not being critical and I shall not attempt to judge. I am simply going to state a case.
I shall give an individual case, but it is a key case typical of a small group of people who were prisoners of war in Japan. I shall not read the whole deposition. In order to save the time of the committee, I shall summarize it.

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would the hon. member be kind enough not to give names, but to give the initials and regimental numbers.


Thomas John Bentley: I am sorry I have not the regimental numbers. This is the case of Armourer Sergeant T. O. Jacobson, of the Royal Rifles of Canada, first battalion, C.A.SE. The case was submitted to me by Mr. Walter Kirchner, secretary of the Canadian Combat Veterans Association. I also have the letter written by Mr. Kirchner to the hon. member for Acadia, which has already been read to the house and which it is not necessary for me to read again, except to say that in the citations which Mr. Kirchner makes as to the veterans organizations which have supported him, I cannot entirely overlook the evidence submitted by Mr. Kirchner on behalf of his organization, even though that evidence may conflict with that of the officials of the veterans affairs department. I am not judging who is right or wrong; I am simply saying that the evidence has sufficient weight to merit attention.
Briefly, this is t'he history of Armourer Sergeant T. O. Jacobson's case. He joined up in the summer of 1940 at military district No. 12 in Regina. His medical examination was thorough and proved him to be in the highest medical category. He went to Saskatoon for training and from there to Valcartier and then to Quebec city. In October, 1941, he had completed his training in the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps and was attached to the Royal Rifles of Canada as Armourer Sergeant. He left with the Royal Rifles of Canada for Hong Kong shortly afterwards. I am sorry I cannot give his regimental number.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have it here on file. It is L-50094.


Thomas John Bentley: At Hong Kong he took
part in the resistance battles at Suymun, Tai Tam Yap-we heard something about yapping the other day-Wanchai, Chek-i-wan, Chico, Pal, Villa, Stanley Village, Repulse Bay and Fort Stanley. I am a little more at home with the last three names.
On December 23, 1941, he was wounded in the right leg and left wrist and, while trying to reach an ambulance service, he was 'blown over a ridge by shell fire, landing on a rocky ledge twelve feet below. If you fall twelve feet onto a rock you do not have to be wounded or blown by shell fire to be hurt. You are badly shaken, even though you are in the best of health. Two days later, along with other survivors, he was made a prisoner of war of the Japanese. From then on, his history was one of disease, hard work, ill treatment by his captors, and near starvation,
with little medical attention. In his deposition he goes into that in greater detail, but I am trying to save the time of the committee and I assure hon. members that what I am stating is in line with the soldier's deposition to me.


Walter Adam Tucker: I wonder if I might
interrupt the hon. member. This is a case very much like the last one in which the pension commission carefully considered the symptoms and came to the conclusion that the man was very likely suffering from amoebiasis-I may not have pronounced it right, but everybody knows what it is.


Thomas John Bentley: Say it in English.


Walter Adam Tucker: Amoebic dysentery, a
tropical disease which naturally is not common in Canada and which, if the diagnosis is definitely confirmed, entitles the man to pension according to his degree of disability. This is another case that has been going through the ordinary course of procedure by the pension commission, and demonstrates again that we can, if we wish, spend a great deal of time in discussing these matters on the floor of the house. But it does not have so very much effect, because. these matters are being considered as best they can be by the commission under the ordinary machinery and procedure which are set up by parliament. I mention that because it may shorten the hon. member's remarks.


Thomas John Bentley: I will be just as brief as I can. Unfortunately the parliamentary assistant did not touch on the exact point I want to get at, because I cannot do it until I go a little bit further into this history. That is the reason I am making the summary. However I am glad to be assured by the parliamentary assistant that this man's case is actually being dealt with. I am afraid that, while it may not be too late, it is later than it should be.
I want to go on with this little summary. After the war, this man was repatriated, of course, and landed in Victoria in the fall of
1945.	That was nearly two years ago. He was given his first forty-two days debarkation leave, but had to go back to the hospital at the end of thirty days. From then on, it has been a succession of in and out of hospital and on and off work. Late in October,
1946,	a year afterwards, he went back to Shaughnessy Heights hospital and was given check-up tests by a psychiatrist. In this particular check-up-I must refer now to the man's actual statement and point out the things that are objectionable-the features that appear to be objectionable to this man and his
Supply-Veterans Affairs

sponsors-and, if true, I think they would be objectionable to most of us-are these.
He says:
I was given to understand that it was more a case of what he-
He is referring to the psychiatrist, -described as emotional instability; that we Hong Kong men more or less imagined we had these pains, aches and feelings of numbness, and that by now we should be well recovered from our past conditions and ailments. That is not only happening in my case but in other Hong Kong prisoner of war cases. We are told now that we are only suffering from a case of nerves, and that, in spite of our complaints to the contrary, our condition is good, in spite of our sore backs, stomach upsets, sore, burning, and aching feet.
He goes on a little bit farther, but I shall not give it all.
These same doctors do not seem to realize that the Japs spent four years doing everything in their power to break us down by starvation, exposure, brutality and beatings, and aided by all kinds of diseases and plagues; and, under those conditions we are supposed to have made a comeback to physical fitness in the period of twelve months.
That is the key part of the objection that this man is making, and if he is correct I think he is making a justifiable complaint. That does not indicate to a layman like myself that, now the commission have discovered he has this particular type of disease which was mentioned a few moments ago by the parliamentary assistant, that can be the only disability from which a man who went through that experience would be apt to be suffering.
If the man's statements are true, I feel, and I am sure other hon. members must feel, that there is something more which can be done for this man than to treat him as he claims he is being treated. He goes on to say further:
About the middle of January, 1947, I was approached by Dr. Margetts to take the pyn-thotol test . . .
This, I understand, is a truth serum, and he claims now that he did not want to take it. He claims that he insisted that that particular kind of test was given only to murderers or suspected murderers who are being given a severe examination. He claims that, by refusing to take this test, he was cut off immediately from insulin treatment. If that is true it is a serious charge.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: By whom, by our department?


Thomas John Bentley: Yes, by the hospital authorities at Shaughnessy Heights or wherever the psychiatrist was doing his work. That is what he claims. He goes on to say:
I was boarded by Dr. Palmer.

Then he goes on to say:
I was weighed by Dr. Palmer, wearing at the time full army battle dress, boots, underwear, shirt and heavy socks.
He claims that the doctor put down his weight without counting the weight of his clothing, and told him that he was gaining in weight, although he had not gained nearly as much as he should have. At that time he claims he was also told by Doctor Palmer that he had recovered from all the ailments and vitamin deficiency, beri-beri, pellagra, malaria, dengue fever, dysentery, diarrhoea, jaundice, back ailments, bad eyesight, loss of weight, sore, aching and burning feet; tightness of muscles and cords; lack of sense of balance. He says he was discharged from hospital and pronounced cured in April, 1947, but still claims he is unfit.
The parliamentary assistant has just told us that the case is being considered, but something must have happened to get the case considered if the man concerned states the case correctly up to April. As I say, I am not trying to judge whether he has stated it correctly or not, but I am saying the case is too serious, and the charge as made in the long depositions is too serious, to be lightly passed over. Even if there is a partial element of truth in it, the man should have more sympathetic treatment from the departmental, medical and other men who are working in that particular hospital.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I interrupt for a second. Is it not more important to get entitlement and assessment at once? We could then have a committee of this house go thoroughly into any suggestion of impropriety in regard to treatment.


Thomas John Bentley: In the main, I think I can agree with what the minister suggests there. I could cite a lot of other cases, but I am not going to do so because I do not think it would be fair to the committee, and I do not think it is of any use. I just want to mention this to the government. In the light of these and many other charges which have been made by Mr. Kirchner, secretary of the Canadian Combat Association, I suggest to the government that they should be investigated. When I say that I want you to know, Mr. Chairman, and the minister to know I am extremely jealous of the honour and position of the officials of the department. I would hate to have a false charge made against them by anybody in this country. But as I said, the weight of evidence here indicates that a lot of people feel there is something in these charges, and some veterans-

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am sorry to interrupt, but I think Mr. Kirchner came before our committee in regard to certain other statements that he had made. I did not say a word in regard to these, but the committee dealt with them.


Thomas John Bentley: I am trying to be helpful and not take too long. I have a great admiration for the work that is being done by the department. I do not want to see any official or the minister himself charged unfairly, but when we get the kind of statements that have been made in these charges it is bound to have an effect on a lot of citizens and veterans in this country and raises a certain amount of-if not actual doubt-of question in the minds of some of the rest of us. I believe that some kind of investigation or hearing should be held so that these people who are charged would have an opportunity publicly to state their position and to clear themselves of these charges.
I am simply anxious to have the minister look into the matter at once. I do not think it should be left to a parliamentary committee next session to bring these people here. The matter should be cleared up immediately, either by a small committee composed' of all the parties in the house or by a completely independent committee, so that we can get the public denial properly. The minister and his assistant have the denial, but I have not got it where I can take it to a legion branch and lay it before them. I think the public should have it. I am not making charges, nor am I spreading charges on the. record. I think that, in the interests of all concerned, the matter should be cleared up, and if there are guilty parties they should be isolated and removed from positions where this kind of thing can be done.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As far as we are concerned, I would welcome a committee of three doctors from this house to go into the suggestions that have been submitted, and I would suggest the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann), the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) and the hon. member for Inver-ness-Richmond (Mr. McGarry). They could meet sometime between now and the next session and call in whom they want and submit a first-class report.


Thomas John Bentley: That is quite a concession for the minister to make and I appreciate it, but I would ask him to go one step farther and include a member from this end of the house-because we have no doctors-to consider the layman's point of view.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Absolutely, yes.


Thomas John Bentley: If the minister says he will do that, I have nothing further to add except thank you.


Walter Adam Tucker: I appreciate what the hon member for Swift Current has said about clearing up the charges that have been made, and the minister's suggestion is a good one because it would enable us to have the matter clarified. The department is determined that these prisoners of war shall be properly looked after, and they are called in every six months for examination, whether they apply for pension or not, to make sure that there is nothing wrong with them, for which they might be entitled to pension. In this particular case, the reason Mr. Jacobson has obtained his entitlement is attributable not to complaint, but to that policy. Regarding all these cases of Mr. Kirchner, the investigation head of the Canadian combat association, and the Canadian pension commission has taken up thirty cases with him. He has intimated that there are twelve others he wishes to take up. Whenever he wants to take them up with the pension commission they are prepared to go into them with him.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: As a war veteran and a former member of the veterans affairs committee, I take a great and particular interest in the Department of Veterans Affairs. I wish to say a few words on this item this afternoon. In fairness, I think I should say that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has a warm heart, which occasionally, perhaps, causes him to commit verbal indiscretions in the house, but at the same time it has been responsible for his taking a broad, human and sympathetic interest in the welfare of the veterans of the country.
In my opinion, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, during his term of office to date, has rendered a great service to the veterans of Canada and has been a great credit to the office he holds as well as to the present administration. In addition to that I should like to express my appreciation of the courtesy I have received from the officials of his department, and of their great interest in the cause of the veterans. There are some departments of the government that could well take a course in human relations from the officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I have had occasion to take up a number of cases with the various departments, and I have found the officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs most cooperative and painstaking and given to the examination of questions in the greatest detail in order to find a satisfactory solution of the problems that confront them.
i

Supply-Veterans Affairs
I am not going to take up the time of the committee this session to go into details regarding the many matters I should like to discuss. I support whole-heartedly the proposal made for an increase in pension rates and for increases in war veterans allowances, the arrangements with respect to widows, and further advantages to merchant seamen. I support whole-heartedly all the proposals made today and on previous occasions.
I believe the Canadian people are willing to pay for these increased benefits that are being advocated1 at the present time, but we must at the same time be prepared in 'this house to support a budget that will pay for these increased costs to the government of the country. Might I suggest what I would do if I were minister of finance; because, of course, I could never be minister of finance. My wife says that- I am a poor chancellor of the exchequer. If I were minister of finance, however, I would bring down my budget with alternative proposals.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think you would make a very good minister of finance.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I would place before the house a budget to provide for the payment of old age pensions, war veterans allowance and pensions on the present terms, but I would also have alternative proposals that would allow for the payment of pensions on a scale advocated by the members-in some cases advocated by the members of all parties- and then we should have in crystallized form something that could foe placed squarely before the house so as to ascertain whether the house was willing to vote a budget to pay these increased costs.
I am happy to hear there is to be established next session a committee on veterans affairs to deal with these problems. I am sorry it was not set up this session, but if it is set up next session and these various proposals are brought before that committee, evidence should be heard from those advocating them, and I am sure that in a cooperative, non-partisan spirit, such as has been shown in these matters in the past, a satisfactory solution can be found which we can place before the house and the people of the country.


Mr. LENNARD:: There are one or two observations I should like to make, one of them being in connection with the overseas fire-fighters. Last year I had something to say on this question. To me it is stupid that the overseas fire-fighters are denied the civil service preference. I know of several cases where these men have applied for positions with the government as fire-fighters and

have been denied the chance to secure them because they had not the overseas civil service preference. That is not businesslike. I do not think it is either economic or sound, from a business point of view, that a professional fire-fighter should be denied a job with the government in his chosen profession on such a ground as that.
There is another matter I wish to take up. I refer to girls who served overseas with the Canadian Red Cross. If my memory serves me correctly, nearly every member of the veterans affairs committee was of the view that the Red Cross girls who served overseas should receive all the privileges accorded other auxiliary services. The presentation of a brief representing their interests was done without their knowledge and was grossly inaccurate. That was presented on July 15, 1946, I think it was, last session before the veterans affairs committee. On that occasion, Major-General Browne and Mr. Norman S. Caudwell, K.C., presented that case. I believe Mr. Caudwell presented the case. He seems to have greatly misinformed the committee. I presume the department have received this brief. Mr. Caudwell stated that many of the girls, especially in the first period of enlistment, were from well-to-do families. As a matter of fact, of the draft of eighteen girls to go overseas, fifteen gave up positions from which they earned their living. There was another thing which Mr. Caudwell stated which was not accurate. He said they served as voluntary workers and that, while overseas, for pin-money they received from the Canadian Red Cross $30 a month. They did not receive S30 a month. They received twenty-five shillings a week, which amounted to something less than $30 a month. They received $260 a year in Canadian funds.
Mr. Caudwell also stated that they received $150 allowance to buy civilian clothing, which they did not receive. Actually each girl was given thirty days' leave with pay on her return to Canada, and that is all.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I interrupt my hon. friend, just in order to be helpful?


Frank Exton Lennard: Yes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If and when the committee is established next year the cases to which he refers-the Red Cross and the others-will be considered by the committee.


Frank Exton Lennard: That helps things a good deal. I shall now be through in about a minute. I am pleased to hear that statement from the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and I am sure that these people will receive justice.

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Mr. LOW:: I just wish to take three or four minutes to put before the minister a particular case. I do not intend to go into any detail, but there is a point which I should like to make. This is the case of Frank W. Connorton.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is his number?,


Solon Earl Low: Regimental No. V-52017. This is a case of spinal fusion which appear? from the evidence to have resulted from a technical error in administering a spinal anaesthetic at the time of an appendectomy performed in June, 1943, while Connorton was in the naval service. He had evidently enlisted in January, 1943. The claim is made by the department that Connorton's condition is of pre-enlistment origin. The validity of that claim has not been established so far as I have been able to determine by scrutiny of the evidence. The details of the evidence, together with two affidavits which I have in my possession, completely refute the department's claim and seem to substantiate the contention of the veteran that his injury was sustained while he was in service; and further that his present helpless condition is a direct result of the medical bungling at the time of his appendix operation. I should like to read this one Short affidavit which was supplied by the Vancouver Engineering Works. It reads as follows:
To Whom It May Concern:
Re Frank Connorton
I wish to state that Frank W. Connorton worked with me in his capacity as an apprentice machinist, from the year 1941 up until the time he left the employ of the Vancouver Engineering Works to enlist in the R.C.N.V.R.
His duties as a machinist called for the physical stamina of an able-bodied man at all times; in fact, from his activities here I have always considered him physically well above the average fellow employee engaged in this class of heavy lifting work.	_
Frank Connorton was a cheerful, willing and able worker, well liked, as those who were his fellow employees can testify.
Yours very truly,
Vancouver Engineering Works, Ltd.
William Dalglish,
Machinist.
That certainly testifies to the physical condition of the man prior to his enlistment. Within months after his enlistment, an appendectomy was performed. At the time of that operation a medical student jabbed his back eight times with a needle before he could achieve anaesthesia, and the man suffered after effects; at least, that is his claim. Evidently he feels aggrieved. This is the point I should like to make. The Minister of Veterans Affairs has been eminently fair in
handling the situation here this afternoon; and I believe I must compliment him on some fine work done in his department. But if a man such as Connorton feels he has a case for damages, I wonder if it would not be possible for the minister to grant him a fiat to sue the crown and establish his case in the exchequer court where evidence can be taken under oath. It seems to me that would be a good way of disposing of a case such as this. I would ask the hon. minister if he would not take that suggestion under consideration and possibly give this man a fiat to sue.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask my hon. friend a question, for information purposes?


Solon Earl Low: Yes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has this man appealed his case to the existing organization, the Canadian pension commission?


Solon Earl Low: Yes. I understand that the disabled veterans association has taken up the case.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But has he appealed to the pension commission?


Solon Earl Low: I do not know that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That procedure would not cost him anything. I should be glad to recommend to my colleague, the Minister of Justice, a fiat to the exchequer court, but I think the other procedure should be tried first.


Solon Earl Low: I think that is wise and that, if he has not tried' it, he should.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would my hon. friend be kind enough to check that?


Solon Earl Low: I will check that.


Walter Adam Tucker: I have a report here, according to which there apparently was one Canadian pension commission ruling on May 10.
1947.	Of course he would have the further right of appealing, and so on. There, all his expenses would be paid and everything like that. That would be much better than going into court.


Solon Earl Low: Very well. _


Percy Ellis Wright: I was sorry when earlier today, on the amendment which I introduced, the Department of Veterans Affairs was brought into the discussion. It was not my intention to bring it into the discussion at that time. I must say that as far as the Department of Veterans Affairs is concerned, and as far as the minister is concerned I, like all other members of the house, have always received every consideration.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Thank you very much.
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Percy Ellis Wright: The cases which I have brought to their attention have been dealt with promptly; much more promptly probably than cases are dealt with in a great many other departments of the government. I think the minister has his department well organized. I do not altogether agree with him in his argument with regard to there not being a necessity for the raising of our pension basis at this time. He quoted figures from 1920, showing that the cost of living at that time was as high as or higher than ait the present time. I agree with that. The cost of living was higher at that time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: When pensions were stabilized in 1925, they were slightly higher; but I think the figures which I gave here-I have not them in front of me at the moment -show that there was a tremendous increase in the cost-of-living index between 1939 and 1947. I was trying to make out my hon. friend's case for him.


Solon Earl Low: I must have misunderstood the minister. I thought he was arguing the other way.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: When my hon. friend reads Hansard tomorrow, I think he will find that what I say is correct.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am glad to know that the minister's argument was as he has stated it. I would also bring to the attention of the committee that today our whole Canadian standard of living is higher than it was ten, fifteen or twenty years ago. I think we all enjoy a better standard of living today. We have more cars, more radios, more refrigerators and more of the other amenities of life than we had then, and it is only fair that the pensioners and others should enjoy these things with us. So I think there is a good argument for increasing certain of these pensions.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I be permitted to interrupt to repeat what I have already said today. According to the information given me, the cost of living index in 1919, at the time of the first bonus of twenty per cent, was 126-5. In 1920, at the time of the second bonus of thirty per cent, it was 145-4. In 1925, as my hon. friend knows very well, the bonus was included in the scale of pay, and the cost of living index was 119-8. From 1935 to 1939 it was around 100. On March 1, 1947, it had gone up to 128-9. The increase from 1925, when the consolidation of the bonus was accomplished, to 1947 was 7-6 per cent. Then these are the figures I want to emphasize. The increase from 1939 to 1947 was 28-9 per

cent. The annual pension liability, based on this year's estimates, is $80,750,000, including both wars. The cost of an increase of 7-6 per cent would be $6,232,000, and the cost of an increase of 28-9 per cent, representing the increase in the cost of living from 1939 to , 1947, would be $23,698,000. Is that quite clear now?


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes, it is; and I think the people of Canada would be quite willing to spend any additional amount necessary to give our men and women who went overseas the same standard of living that is enjoyed by the rest of us. I think that is the principle behind all the veterans legislation, to deal fairly with them and see that they may enjoy the same things we enjoy.
I should like to say just a word in regard to the setting up of the veterans committee I have been one of those who believed that should be a standing committee of this house, not a committee just set up at the pleasure of the government from year to year, or in certain years when they might feel it necessary to do so.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I again interrupt my hon. friend, in a desire to be helpful? There is another virtue in that suggestion. In addition to reviewing legislation from year to year, that committee could deal with the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs. There was some criticism this morning to the effect that those estimates were too long delayed. They could be considered by the committee and completely disposed of, as they were practically disposed of last year. That is another virtue to the suggestion made by my hon. friend.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am afraid the minister is making my arguments for me on most of these matters. As I was saying, I have been one of those who believed there should be a standing committee of the house on this matter, and I think probably the government are going to move in that direction. I hope so, anyway; and I hope that when we come back next year this committee will be set up. From what has taken place in the house today, the need for such a committee is quite evident. I think the Department of Veterans Affairs have exercised genuine care in trying to secure suitable personnel, but today they have some eight thousand people working for them in all parts of the dominion, many in executive positions. It would be humanly impossible for them to be able to choose that number of employees who would reflect the opinion of the department itself. People are bound to come into the department with ideas of their own, ideas at variance with those of the members of this house and the

Supply-Veterans Affairs
members of the veterans committee which drafted this veterans charter. So in a standing committee of the house those matters can be talked over, and I believe that committee can be of great assistance. I do not think it should be a committee to criticize. This morning the minister more or less accused me of introducing a resolution for political purposes. That has not been my object since coming here, and I do not think I can be accused of doing that either in this house or in any committee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I interrupt
again? I have the highest respect for my 'hon. friend, as I think I said this morning. What I stated then was that the possibilities and implications of the resolution were such that it might be construed as being possessed of political purposes or political motives, because it was a straight vote of confidence on a matter affecting the veterans.


Percy Ellis Wright: I can assure the minister
that the motives were perfectly honest as far as I and this group were concerned.
The minister has been agreeing with me so much that I think I shall introduce another subject and see if he will agree on that. In my estimation there was perhaps one weakness in the veterans charter. It is not a matter of vital importance at the moment, but it will become such within a few years. That is the matter of the education of the children of deceased veterans. No doubt many of these widows will marry again, and the time will come in the not too distant future when the matter of the education of these children will have to be dealt with by this parliament. I hope that in the veterans committee next year the matter can be discussed and some measure provided under which the children of deceased veterans will be able to take advantage of what would have been the rights of their parents had they lived. I believe that suggestion is only fair.
When the minister was dealing with the operations under the Veterans Land Act and the small holdings scheme he gave certain figures. Here again I believe there are conditions which oould very well be discussed in a committee. I am not going to introduce individual cases here. I do not think this is the time for that, because it is late in the session, and when the committee is set up next year we can probably deal better with these matters.
However, there is one point in connection with veterans' reestablishment in regard to which I think something should be done before next session. That is the matter of grants to veterans who undertake cooperative farming. There has been one little difficulty in
this regard which I think should be ironed out. I refer to the case of a veteran who, after joining a cooperative, finds himself unable to agree with the others engaged in that undertaking, and wants to withdraw. I believe provision should be made whereby the land of the veteran will remain in the cooperative, because the whole business of that organization, the machinery and equipment the cooperative possesses, is acquired on the basis of the total land in the unit. If one member is allowed to withdraw his land another may do the same thing, and the result may be that the equipment will not be of the value it should be to the organization. I believe the minister is going to agree with me again.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I point out to
my hon. friend what we have already done in his own province in the matter of cooperatives? On February 19 of this year the provincial legislature passed the following resolution:
That this assembly, recognizing that veterans' land settlement is an urgent problem which, while primarily a federal responsibility, is nevertheless the concern of both federal and provincial authorities urge:
(1)	that the dominion and provincial governments give special assistance to communities in which veteran settlement of a pioneering nature is taking place;
(2)	that the government request the dominion government to bring in legislation to amend the Veterans Land Act to provide for:
(a)	The payment of grants to veterans' cooperative farming units in lieu of the V.L.A. credits of the veteran participants;
(b)	The purchase of land by V.L.A. for the purpose of establishing veterans cooperative farm units.
Similar proposals were considered by the House of Commons committee on veterans affairs, of which my hon. friend was a member, in 1946. That committee declined to agree to the principle embodied in paragraph 2(b) of the resolution passed by the legislature. In December, 1946, andi January, 1947, there were negotiations between Hon. J. H. Sturdy, minister of reconstruction, and rehabilitation of Saskatchewan, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. As a result, regulation 39 under the Veterans Land Act was adopted by order in council, permitting the director to advance up to $1,200 per veteran for the purchase of farm or forestry -equipment for the joint use of veterans cooperatively developing adjacent individual holdings under lease from the province, provided that the veteran had a right to purchase his holding and was not obligated to farm cooperatively.
The Hon. Mr. Sturdy, on behalf of the Saskatchewan government, signed an amendment to the agreement between the director
Supply-Veterans Affairs

and the Saskatchewan government giving effect to this regulation. Subsequently, further representations were made asking the dominion to make grants to cooperative farming organizations of veterans sponsored by the province.
On June 16 the director addressed the Saskatchewan convention of the Canadian Legion in Moose Jaw. He referred to the Saskatchewan government's proposals and said:
1.	The agreement between the dominion and provincial governments provides-
(a)	the province to make land available to
a veteran under 33-year lease with right to
purchase pr not to purchase.
(b)	the director to grant up to $2,326 in
chattels and equipment per veteran.
2.	Under this agreement 537 veterans have been established on provincial lands in Saskatchewan up to April 30, 1947.
3.	The province has made representations asking that the director make grants to cooperative farming societies whose by-laws provide that land chattels and labour be pooled and that if a member withdraws or is expelled he cannot withdraw his land.
4.	Such grants are not permissible under the Veterans Land Act, and consequently provision for them cannot be made in an agreement be-twees the two governments.
5.	Hence, if in the agreement between the province and an individual veteran there are provisions which conflict with the terms of the Veterans Land Act, the director could not legally make grants to such veterans.
I understand from my deputy minister that further applications came in yesterday from cooperative organizations in Saskatchewan and are being considered at the present time.


Percy Ellis Wright: It was the last provision the minister has read in which I was particularly interested. I realize that the minister and his department have gone a long way in this matter. However, there is the final point where six, eight or ten men wish to form a cooperative and to get a grant of S2,520. The veteran is guaranteed that, upon his withdrawal from the cooperative, he will get out anything he has invested. It is considered that it is not fair that such a person should be able to withdraw his land, and it is urged that the land should remain in the cooperative. Otherwise, as I have said, this action completely breaks up the unit, and it becomes impossible to operate it in a cooperative manner because a particular piece of land may be one which is essential to the cooperative as a whole.
I would ask that the department give serious consideration to this. If it cannot be done under the act as it now stands, then I suggest that the act should be amended at another session of parliament. The department may not agree with what is being done in Saskat-

chewan; but we are part of Canada. We have decided we want to do things in a certain way; the veterans themselves have decided too, that they want to do things in a certain way. No veteran is being forced to go into cooperative farming, and it is only upon request that this type of unit is being set up. Where it is being set up at the request of veterans, and wdiere the people of Saskatchewan have decided they would like this particular way of farming and way of life, then, when there is a guarantee that the veteran will suffer no loss, I say the Department of Veterans Affairs should give consideration to meeting their request.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I can assure the hon. member that the department will review most carefully the entire situation.


Joseph Henry Harris: The minister and his organization will remember the difficulty they had in Toronto back in 1943 and 1944 in connection with the handling of soldier patients. At that time some 12,000 subscribers had just completed a million dollar asset in the form of a hospital extension, which they were good enough to turn over to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
It has been the privilege of the subscribers who put up that million dollars to give service during the time when it was so badly needed when Sunnybrook was under construction. That time has now expired, and it is found necessary to evacuate the premises formerly occupied. One of the finest hospital buildings in Canada has been occupied by the patients of the department, numbering at times up to 240, and it has given service to the extent of over 100,000 patient-days a year. It not only gave hospital service, but there was added the service given by the community by serving four meals a day when only three were required, and other matters of that kind.
The entire community took a great interest in this work, and did w'hat we believe was a good job for the veterans who came back at that time from overseas. On July 1 those buildings were evacuated. The buildings have been subjected1 to four years of heavy wear and tear. On behalf of those 12,000 subscribers who put their private funds into that investment, I believe I need only mention that these buildings must be rehabilitated, and1 I feel sure the department will put them back into proper condition.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I interrupt the hon. member at that point? In the first place, the department is under a deep debt of gratitude to the hon. member, personally, for making available to us the facilities of

Supply-Veterans Affairs
the Toronto EJast General Hospital at a time when we needed hospital accommodation badly for our returning soldiers. Second, may I say to the hon. member that the condition of the hospital at the present time is being investigated by the Department of Public Works, and the proper conditioning will be done.


Joseph Henry Harris: I have one other observation, and it is this. In the rush of getting equipment to service this building, certain equipment was received from the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is now subject to four years depreciation, and I would ask the minister to see to it that the department does not declare this equipment, of all kinds, as surplus, and turn it over to War Assets Corporation to be traded out or sold out. I suggest that he leave as much of it there as possible, in the economic interests of Canada, rather than advertise that partly used equipment as surplus.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at seven o'clock.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: We are on item 454, departmental administration.


Thomas Langton Church: By leave of the committee, may I suggest that consideration be given to an honorarium for our present Deputy Chairman. He has worked very hard in hot weather for five or six weeks. I know he refused one before, but I should like to have this suggestion given consideration again.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I know you feel embarrassed. I am very grateful to the hon. member for Broadview for his suggestion. As a matter of fact an honorarium was suggested to the hon. member for Huron-Perth, but he declined. I think it could be done under the estimates for legislation if that is the committee's wish. I think that this time a measure of coercion and compulsion should be used which would be agreeable to all concerned.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I agree with the hon. member and the minister that our Chairman should be compelled by the house to accept what the house is so willing to grant. We never had a better chairman and if we could just keep him here all the time we would get through much sooner.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be very glad to take the matter up if that is the wish and will of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I just associate this group with the suggestion that has been made, and thus make it unanimous.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Thank you very much. I shall be very glad indeed to see that the suggestion of the hon. member for Broadview is brought to the attention of the government when we reach the items under legislation.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, there are two or three questions I should like to place before the minister. This afternoon most of the su'b-. jects having to do with this department have been covered, and, I think, covered effectively, but I should like to have a statement from the minister with regard to these points. The first one has to do with a suggestion which was made by the Canadian Legion. Some weeks ago they presented a brief to the cabinet, and on July 7 they sent a copy of the brief to the members of the house, or possibly only to the members who served on the veterans committee last year. I think they have put their finger on one of the most important problems at the present time, and that is whether or not further consideration should be given to that group of Canadians who have suffered the most as a result of war service, or certainly have suffered as much as anybody else and perhaps more. The two groups to whom they refer are, first of all, pensioners who are so severely disabled that they are unable to do any work at all; second, the widows with young children to support who have no other means than the pension and family allowance.
These proposals were put forward to the committee last year, but it was more or less a new thought at the time and probably there was not as much consideration given as there should: have been. The legion are suggesting that the pensioner who is unable to1 work should be given a supplementary grant or pension of $25 a month provided that he is certified as unemployable by a competent medical authority.
With regard to the widows and children the legion asks that, while the children are growing and receiving an education, either the widow's pension be substantially increased or the children's allowances doubled. I believe that under the present rates the widow of a man who was killed overseas gets a pension of $60 a month, and if she has one child, an additional $15; for the second child, an additional $12, and. then $10 for each subsequent child. In addition to that she gets the family allowance. The legion suggests that during the period when the children are growing up and receiving their education the widow's pension should be at least at the present single man's
Supply-Veterans Affairs

100 per cent rate, $75 a month, if the rates payable for the children remain the same. In such a case a widow with one child would receive an annual pension and child's pension of $1,080. The other suggestion would be to double the children's allowance. There again the annual income would come to $1,080. These figures are where there is only one child.
That submission is made with a tremendous amount of public opinion behind it. The legion does not make recommendations of this type without having had them thought over carefully by their branches from coast to coast, and I think that, by and large, they represent public opinion on veterans affairs. I understand that the other soldier organizations which are also doing a splendid work agree with this submission. The suggestion is that something should be done without delay, that it should not be left over for another year. The brief concludes with these words:
We are also convinced that the tax-paying public of Canada, of which veterans form a very substantial part, will wish this obligation undertaken in behalf of those who have suffered most as a result of war services.
I can add nothing to that submission. Will the minister answer it?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, as far as I can. I am very grateful to my hon. friend for his constructive suggestions. I did have an interview with the Canadian Legion some time ago, and they also interviewed the Prime Minister and the cabinet with reference to the very points my hon. friend now raises. I received notice that my hon. friend was going to ask a question with reference to preenlistment condition not aggravated during service.


Howard Charles Green: That question is coming later.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend asked with reference to those pensioners who are unable to work. We are doing a lot of constructive work now under Eddie Dunlop, a blinded ex-service man himself, who, as my hon. friend, who is a front line soldier himself, knows, is in charge of the casualty and rehabilitation section and is placing many of the heavily disabled men in employment.


Howard Charles Green: These men to whom the legion refers are pensioners who are certified by a doctor to be unable to work.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. Of course that is a special case, different from what I had in mind. I was talking of the mem who are seriously handicapped and1 who can get placement in employment.
The next question had to do with widows of men who were overseas, with young

children to support. I think there is a terribly strong moral appeal, and also a national appeal on their behalf, and I can assure my hon. friend that we shall give, it-I do not like the word "consideration" because I think there is a parliamentary falsification to it-anxious attention and assiduous care, as much as we can and as soon as we can.


Howard Charles Green: Is there something that can be done before next session? There can be no legislation now for perhaps nine or ten months.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As I understand' the difficulties, it affects the whole basic pension scheme and may require legislation at the next session of parliament, but we shall look into it most carefully and sympathetically and see if anything can be effected by regulation, because I know my colleagues are sympathetic to the last point mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver South. Whether we can do it by regulation I am not sure, but in any event it will not be forgotten but will be carefully remembered.


Howard Charles Green: The second question has to do with war veterans allowances. There is a principle that must be settled with regard to war veterans allowance, and I think it is this, whether or not the government accepts full responsibility for the recipients of that allowance. Mention was made earlier in the day of the fact that the position is now such that in some of the provinces war veterans allowance recipient cannot get as much as the old age pensioner. In Ontario they get $9.59 a month less. In British Columbia there is the difference between $30.41 and $38.75, and there is a difference in several other of the provinces. Personally I have always understood that the veteran getting war veterans allowance is solely the charge of the dominion government. We are entitled to know whether or not the government is still acknowledging that responsibility because, if it is, there can be no doubt that war veterans allowance recipients should be put in the same position as the old age pensioner. The allowance was originally intended to be an old age pension for the veterans. It was made payable at age sixty on the basis that he had become preaged because of his service. It is now in a most unfortunate position, because I can assure the minister that- in our own city of Vancouver there are many of these war veteran allowances recipients who are not able to exist on the present allowance. Here again the time element is of the utmost importance.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I say at once to my hon. friend that there is no question whatsoever-

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Howard Charles Green: I also include the widows who come under the War Veterans Allowances Act.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They have been fairly well treated in the last two years as a result of the advocacy of the hon. member for Davenport. I think the vote is $2,100,000 this year for widows and children, which can help quite a lot; whereas they were not getting a single cent two or three years ago. That is what this parliament did for them. I think that is a real improvement. In regard to the general basic rates for veterans allowances, I agree at once with my hon. friend that it is entirely a federal responsibility; it was a federal act when enacted in 1930. The improvements were all made by the various federal parliaments and federal governments from that time until now. What the ultimate plan may be with reference to approximate equalization with old age pension rates I am not in a position to say. It is a matter of government policy to be decided but I can at least assure my hon. friend that the question will receive the most careful attention of the administration as soon as possible.


Howard Charles Green: The dominion government is accepting full responsibility?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It always did.


Howard Charles Green: For the war veterans allowance recipients?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It always did.


Howard Charles Green: And still is?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Certainly.


Howard Charles Green: A word with regard to the pension payable to merchant seamen. I hold in my hand the last edition of Veterans Affairs. This is a semi-monthly publication got out by the minister's department and an interesting publication it is. This issue is dated July 15, 1947. I find practically half of the front page taken up with an article entitled "Schooner Thought U-boat Victim". It describes an appeal to the appeal board of the Canadian pension commission against the adverse decision made by the pension commission in the case of a Canadian who was on a Newfoundland schooner which was lost en route from Newfoundland to a point, I think, in the West Indies. His widow's claim for a pension was disallowed on the ground that it had not been shown that the death of her husband was directly attributable to enemy action. This case shows more clearly than any argument a member could make on the floor of the house that the present law with regard to paying pension to the dependents 83166-368
of a merchant seaman who lost his life or to a merchant seaman -who was disabled is far, far too strict. First of all, it requires that the injury must have arisen from the direct result of enemy action. The second thing is that there is a time limit of one year for the application to be made. I will just ask the minister to read his own magazine, and when he reads that story I am quite sure he will be convinced that there must be an amendment made to the act. I think it is called the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act. I will not go into the matter any further this evening, but the whole story is in the minister's own paper. I hope that there will be no further opposition from the government to having that act amended.
Another group whose position should be further considered are the men who flew transports across the Atlantic. They do not get the benefits recommended last year by the committee. I believe it has now been clearly established that they were treated by the British government as though they had been in the forces and that they were given medals for their service. I would ask the minister to give us the assurance that their case will be placed before the committee when it sits next year.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Certainlj'.


Howard Charles Green: Finally, I should like to refer to the ruling that men are not entitled to pension because they had a pre-enlistment condition. When the committee sat last year we were given figures made up by the Canadian pension commission, which showed that up to December 31, 1945, there had been 7,810 men refused entitlement on the ground that they had a pre-enlistment condition which was not aggravated by service. That number comprised men who actually got abroad. They had gone to Great Britain or some other theatre of war, subsequently were discharged as unfit, and yet it w'as held that because they had a pre-enlikbment condition they were not entitled to pension. The same statement gave ithe figure of 54.207 for men who had service only in Canada. They had enlisted as fit, served in Canada and were discharged as unfit, and yet W'ere ruled ineligible for pension because it was found that they had a pre-enlistment condition. That made a total of about 62,000.
Tonight I am not going into the fight we had last year over the question, but I still think the government was wrong in refusing to make a change and write a presumption into the Pension Act. I should like to get the figures from December 31, 1945, until the present time. I wish to know the additional

Supply-F eterans A flairs

numbers who have been ruled against on the ground of a pre-enlistment condition, divided into those who served overeeas and those who had service only in Canada, so 'that the figures given to me tonight can be added to the figures given to us by the pension commission last year.


Walter Adam Tucker: The pension commission were so taxed in giving effect to the various amendments put through, and in the new applications they had to deal with, that 'they have not those figures available, but they will be obtained as soon as possible and given to the hon. member. Of course this is also a matter that will be of interest to the committee when it is set up next year.


Howard Charles Green: Have I to wait until next year for the figures?


Walter Adam Tucker: No. They will be obtained and given as soon as we can get them from the records division.


John Bracken: I wish to thank the hon. member for Fort William for permitting me a minute at this .time. I wish to raise this matter now in support of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver South. It relates to veterans allowances. I can save time and make my own point clear by reading a brief extract from the letter of a world war I veteran that has been on my file for some time. If I read it the position will be clear. It supports the position which the hon. member for Vancouver South 'took and which those on this side took in this morning's debate. It states:
I am calling to ask you to try and clear up a somewhat ambiguous situation which has arisen out of the recent amending of the old age pension provisions. A war veteran who is in receipt of veterans allowance is placed on the Indian list as far as old age pension is concerned. That veteran cannot qualify for old age pension benefits. His veterans allowance is at present $30 a month. If nothing is now done we will have an unjust discrimination as between the ordinary pensioner and the aged veteran, particularly in Ontario. There before another year rolls around we will have the ordinary pensioner with a monthly income of $40 and the aged veteran with an income of $30 a month. Surely if there is to be a difference the veteran should be the favoured one.
He goes on to refer to a statement supposed to have been made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, that the government did not intend to open up this veterans legislation this year. He says that if this is not done the Old Age Pensions Act should be amended so that the veterans should be assisted and not be at a disadvantage.
I present that letter to emphasize the point taken by the hon. member for Vancouver
[Mr. Given.1
South. My understanding is that the minister says he is unable at this time to give a positive statement that any greater financial aid can be given, but that he is saying that the matter will receive consideration after prorogation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. I wish to thank my hon. friend for his constructive suggestion. The difficulty is that the federal authority is not aware of what the various provinces will do by way of supplementing whatever grant is made in the form of old age pension, and by January next, when I hope we meet again, the situation will have become stabilized and we shall be able then to assess the contributions made jointly in regard to old age pensions by the dominion and the provinces and to meet the point raised in the communication the hon. member has read.


John Bracken: I have one observation to make with respect to that. The minister himself said that this matter of war veterans allowances was entirely a matter of federal responsibility. I trust that, whatever action is taken or not taken by the provinces with respect to old age pensions, it will have no bearing on the question of the dominion government dealing justly with the war veterans.
Mr. MclVOR: In the last few years I have had considerable trouble with veterans of the first war, and I speak now to give a little bit of advice to those who have been in the same position that I have been in. I have had case after case straightened out and those old veterans will agree that my plan was sound. My plan was to write to the deputy minister or especially to Brigadier-General Melville, chairman of the pension commission, and give him the particulars. Do that and you will get a reply by return mail. Not long ago an old veteran gave me language plainer than polite. I have had cases straightened- out in a very satisfactory manner, and I would say to hon. members that what is even better than making speeches in the House of Commons is to get in touch with the chairman of the pension commission.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I wish to ask
the Minister of Veterans Affairs if he would consult the appropriate member of the cabinet-I imagine it is the Minister of Finance-and also the wartime prices and trade board with respect to houses which have been bought by veterans, which were tenanted, and possession of which they could not obtain. Those who bought houses before July 26, 1945, are able to apply for possession of them; but the other fellows who were late in coming back, later than those who

Supply-Veterans Affairs
could take advantage of that provision, find themselves in the position I have indicated. Some of them perhaps did not understand the regulations, but for one reason or another they bought these houses. I have received many letters and am going to read extracts from a couple of them to show what it is all about. I quote from one:
Why are young Canadians disgusted? Why do they want to go to the U.S.A.? Here are some of my reasons:	Housing restrictions-veteran's family, seriously disrupted by six years separation while in the service, frozen out of a tenant-occupied home. This same tenant sat quietly on civvy street during the war and still is-while my family, and hundreds like us- still scratching for inadequate accommodation. The one feature was aggravated reestablishment more than any other.
That is just one letter. I will read part of another:
. . . my husband had joined the R.C.A.F. immediately at the outbreak of war. Our home was broken up for six years, as I followed him in Canada.
After buying a tenant-occupied home because the tenants told the agent he wanted him to find them a house to move into, we find they immediately changed their mind and informed us they will not buy for several years when prices are reduced.
Those are only two examples of many letters I have received. I spoke over the radio on July 1, asking the young men and women not to go to the United States. These letters are in reply to that appeal. They all give the same reasons. The veterans cannot get the houses which they have bought. It seems to me that they deserve some attention and that regulations should be made in order that they might be able to get possession of the houses for which they have paid good money. I would ask the minister if he would not use his good auspices with the proper authorities with a view to having the regulations changed so that these people will be able to get their houses.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I wish to assure the
hon. member for St. Paul's that the weighty assignment which he has placed upon my shoulders will be discharged by the officers of the department as far as possible. We have already made representations in the direction he has indicated.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I want to have some information about what is done by the department, and the question is not merely regarding the spending of money. It is as to what is done with the money which is spent. It is a simple thing I want to know.
I was told today-and it was a surprise to ' me-that members of parliament insisted on having veterans affairs estimates brought down earlier than the others; there were 83166-368*
some answers for that. But I remember distinctly that when the estimates of the department were brought in for the first time, they were just like a flying cloud. When I rose to ask a question-this is about a month ago; I have not looked up the record, but my recollection is clear about it-I was immediately told that there was nothing before the chair. It had all gone away-phut!-like that. I have waited for a month now, and tonight I want to get some information.
In the first place, my idea is that all the money which is spent for veterans is well spent, provided that it is spent on men who have been in the Canadian army. But that is not what is done. My fear is that most of the grants of the Department of Veterans Affairs are expended in another branch of the immigration business, and that veterans who never belonged to the Canadian army-veterans of the imperial army or some other one, or erven of the home guards-are brought in and given the advantages of the legislation which has been passed to help Canadians or members of the Canadian army. I remember having seen in the press something about the visit of the minister to the estate of the Duke of Sutherland or someone else in England or Scotland; it was somewhere in the British isles. Afterwards we were told by the press that, as a result of the visit, 30,000 men of the imperial army would come to Canada as immigrants.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not want the minister to laugh, because I am serious; and when I am serious, I mean it. I want him to be polite. I gave him a lesson today and1 I did not use all of my repertoire which is parlia^ mentary. But I want the minister to be polite, if not for the last time, at least for the first time this session. I mean what I say.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: So do I.


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister means
nothing.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member means less to me.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Now, there is progress for you. We understand what the minister has said. As a rule, I cannot understand what he saiys and that is the reason why I object to it. When he mumbled an answer of some kind and I asked the Minister of Labour and the then secretary of state what the Minister of Veterans Affairs had said, they told me they could not understand him, and they were quite close to him. The minister can say anything to me; provided that he
Supply-Veterans Affairs

speaks intelligibly I Shall be satisfied. But I want him to speak the English language correctly. That is all I want him to do.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I speak it better than the hon. member does.


Jean-François Pouliot: Certainly. It is the minister's own language. He took honours in college, and it would be shameful if he could not speak his own language better than I can.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is not my own language.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is the language of those Who burned the house of his great grandmother.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us rise and report progress.


Jean-François Pouliot: That being said, it is only a preliminary. I want to get some information with regard to the mysteries of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Members are easy to satisfy. They hear a grunt of some kind and they say, "He is so clever; he is a nice fellow. I am satisfied." I shall not be satisfied with a grunt. I want more than that. I want an explanation and I want figures. I am not referring to figures of money but rather to figures of results. I want to know how the money has been spent. I want to know whether those who have taken advantage of this legislation are Canadians or blokes. The question is a simple one. When I use the word "blokes" I do not mean those who were bom outside of Canada. I mean those who are migratory birds, those who come here just to take advantage of the money which is voted for Canadian purposes. That includes people who were born in any part of the world, but who have come to Canada to settle down and make in Canada a home for themselves, their children and grandchildren. I do not want to be misjudged or misunderstood. I want to be clearly understood. I want to know what has been done with the money which has been voted and which runs up into such high figures. I want to know how many people have been benefited by each one of the acts which were passed last session. I want to know how many people who were in the Canadian army have received advantages and benefits from any of those acts. I want to know how many others, non-Canadians, have benefited from each one of those acts. To save the time of the committee I will mention the chapters of the statutes of 1946. They are chapters 36, 43, 52, 59, 62, 63. 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74 and 75. It is just a question I was asking the first time the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs were brought in; and after I rose to my

feet I had only time to begin to ask my question before I was told there was nothing before the Chair. It was gone-phut!-just like that. I want that information now, please.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Right away sir; it is all here. All beneficiaries were Canadians born or domiciled in this country prior to service in the imperial or allied forces. The beneficiaries under each act have been classified as having served (a) in Canadian forces; (b) in British forces; (c) in allied forces. Pensions, world war I: Canadians, 87,318; others, British domiciled in Canada, 250; allied, 34, or a total of non-Canadians of 284 as against a complete Canadian total of 87,318. World war II: Canadians, 87,558; others, British, 135; allied 3, or a total of 138 as against an all-Canadian total of 87,558.
War veterans allowance: Canadians, 25,112; others, British, 916; allied, 215, or a total of 1,131 as against an all-Canadian total of 25,112.
Veterans Land Act: Canadian and British, 25 188; allied, 36. The number of British were estimated at 100 to 150, and the details are not exactly available in regard to that total.
Out of work allowances, under the legislation passed by this parliament: Canadians, 156,912; others, British, 65; allied, 40, or a total of 105 as against an all-Canadian total of 156,912.
Vocational training:	Canadian, 85,848;
o.thers, British 42; allied, 36, or a total of 78 as against an all-Canadian total of 85,848.
Awaiting benefit returns: Canadians, 43,227; others, British, 5; allied, 24, or a total of 29 as against an all-Canadian total of 43,227.
Temporary incapacity, one of the special benefits this parliament has arranged: Canadians, 5,178; others, British, 0; allied. 0; as against a grand Canadian total of 5,178.
University training for our young men: Canadians, 54,968; others, British, 44; allied, 37, or a total of 81 as against an all-Canadian total of 54,968.
Gratuities-and this is perhaps the most crushing reply given by these figures to the suggestion that has been adduced so unfairly in this house: Canadians, 941.311; others. British, 3,285; allied, 403, or a total of 3,688 as against a Canadian total of 941,311.
Reestablishment credits, and the only country in the world to have done this is our country of Canada: Canadians, 650,000; others, British 129; allied, 232, or a total of 361 as against a Canadian total of 650,000.
Business and professional loans, which are under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of Finance: Canadians, 2,024; others,

Supply-Veterans Affairs
British, 4; allied, 3, or a total of 7 as against a Canadian total of 2,024.
The Veterans Insurance Act: Canadians, 11,222; others, British 25; allied, 0, or 25 as against a Canadian total of 11,222. The few British I have mentioned as entitled to these various benefits were Canadians who served in the Royal Air Force and saved England and freedom in the battle of Britain.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wonder if the minister made these calculations himself. Did he personally check the records of these thousands of people?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The calculation was made under my direction by trusted and worthy officers of the department.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, but the minister
knows no more about the matter than I do. They were prepared by his staff, but he has never checked them. What surprises me is that the figures run to even thousands. It is not a case of odd numbers at all; it is 500, 1,000 and so many thousands.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: Except for the last figures. The large ones are all that way; they are even 500's or even 1,000's. But now I want the minister to understand my point of view, and I am sure he will relish it. It will not take me long to explain it. He said that men who belonged to the British army were defending liberty throughout the world. That is true, but my point of view is that the men who served in the British army ought to be paid pensions by the British government. We are looking after our own people; why should we pay pensions to men who served in another army?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: These are all Canadians, every one of them.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is all right, but they are Canadians who were not in the Canadian army but in another army. The minister knows very well the number of those who served in the imperial army and who now want to take advantage of the Canadian pension scheme in order to get more money. Some of them are men Who have never been in Canada but who want to come here as one wants to go to a garden of Eden, to a promised land.
This whole matter should also be considered from another angle, in regard to those who signed for overseas service and those who did not. This is the military preference as established by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the old Department of Pensions
and National Health. It is to the effect that a man who was in the home guard in England, a man who was always near the gate of his garden all the time, was entitled to an overseas preference over a Canadian who had been in the Canadian army, who had followed the instructions of his superior officers, who had been to Kiska, who had been to Labrador, but who had not signed for overseas. The gallantry of a man was not to fight in battle, was not to isolate himself from his family, to suffer the cold or heat of distant parts of the hemisphere; it was to sign for overseas. I know men who suffered from paralysis, who suffered from double rupture, who suffered from heart conditions and who were completely unfit, but who signed for overseas service in the expectation of having a discharge. But at the same time they were given a button to show itheir gallantry when they signed enlistment papers for overseas. They were gallant, they were courageous because of the stroke of a pen.
The others were not given the same advantages as the former ones because they had not signed for overseas. At the present time there are a large number of soldiers who have done their duty and who have obeyed the orders they have received from their superior officers, but who have been guilty of the crime of not signing the form to serve overseas. It was a great crime which deprived them of the preference and even of the benefits of certain legislation.
I bring this matter to the attention of the minister, so that in the millennium some change will be made in the absurd provisions of the Civil Service Act. I am not in a hurry for my answer; I shall be satisfied if it is tabled at. the beginning of the next session. But I would ask the minister to table a list of the individual names of the men included in each of the totals he gave not long ago. I want to know the true addresses of each of those men included among those thousands of men mentioned not long ago and, as I say, I shall be satisfied to have that information at the beginning of the next session. Now that the calculation is made, it will be easy to give that list, because if the work of the Department of Veterans Affairs has been well done the list is now ready; and that list will have been made in several copies so that it will be easy to table one copy at the next session.
I say to the minister that I always act in a friendly spirit and in a friendly disposition. I am not impressed by high position or high-sounding titles. That means nothing to me, because I am a democrat. I do not see what
Supply-Veterans Affairs

advantage it is for Canada to have minister who is a member of the privy council at Westminster. It means only that he is an English minister.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: More like a Scotch minister, I should say.


Jean-François Pouliot: But I take that view, the Canadian view. I am not impressed by the fact of his being a privy councillor. One cannot serve two countries; one cannot serve England and Canada at the same time. If one is created a right honourable he might be tempted to serve England first, before Canada, and my idea is that Canada should be served first. However, that is only a matter of opinion.
I will tell the minister what, among other things, is wrong in the Department of Veterans Affairs. I do not wish to be unfair to anyone in that department. The fault is that when a decision is made it is impossible to have it reconsidered favourably. I have in mind particularly the case of a cousin of mine who served in North Africa for several years. He was there, and in that country there were tarantulas and snakes; indeed, it was like some departments in that respect. They did not have a very pleasant life over there. My cousin was there for a long time, and he had some trouble with a bureaucrat in Quebec city who went to England just for a Cook's tour. I now make a comparison between a man who served in the air force and who wanted to take advantage of legislation which would make his life more pleasant and which would improve his condition-a real soldier-on the one hand, and on the other hand a bureaucrat who went to England for two months at the end of the war and thereby qualified himself for overseas service. I find that pretty hard to digest. I have asked questions about that man; I shall not name him tonight. But I want him to bend before the authority, and that authority I would name as the superior officer in the department. I want justice for the man I first mentioned.
Some people are under the impression that because a man has been wearing a uniform he is a full-fledged soldier. I am not. I have never been in the army, and I am too old now to serve in it, but I have served, the soldiers. I have been a servant of the people and of the returned men. I have petitions right here in Ottawa. There is a Victoria Cross winner right here in th'e building, and I looked after him. And when another Victoria Cross winner from British Columbia was in trouble he sent me an S.O.S. down the river. I must give credit

to the minister for having fixed him up. Nevertheless it was a great honour for me to receive word from that gentleman who was a distinguished soldier from British Columbia and brought glory to Canada in the first war.
That man was completely abandoned. However I am not going to tell the story, because it is known to hon. members. But what I have said indicates that I am sincere when I say I look after those men. I do it for their own good and for the country's good. I do not want any fascism in this country; I do not want any communism; I do not want any subversive ideas. I want order and authority.
I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, and the minister, that if the men are not fairly dealt with, anything can be expected from them. I say that in all honesty; and I want the minister to understand well that when representations are made to him or to his most intelligent and capable parliamentary assistant, or to the deputy minister, or to the head of the pension commission, we should have some satisfactory replies.
Since this is either the last day or the day preceding the close of the session, I shall not insist any further in what I am saying. But I tell the minister again that in the future he has to be polite, and he must understand that while he is a right honourable he is still the servant of the people, just the same as are other members in the house.


Mr. McKAY:: Despite anything that may have been said in debate, I feel that in many respects the minister has done a good job in the Department of Veterans Affairs. If he has not done a better job it is probably due to pressure from the treasury board. However, the government in that regard will have to accept the responsibility for anything that has not been done in the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I hope what I have to say next will not prove contentious. I feel that at this time the government should give consideration to the arranging of an excursion at substantially reduced rates to the battlefields of Europe for the next, of kin of Canadian boys who are buried there. Such an excursion at reduced rates should be planned for not later than 1948, when I believe shipping ought to be available.


William Henry Golding: I would ask the hon. member to deal with this item.


Eric Bowness McKay: I would ask the minister if there is any other item on which I could bring this up. I shall 'take only a moment or two. I believe that this opportunity to visit the graveyards of Canada's sons who are buried

Supply-Veterans Affairs
on 'foreign soil should be granted to the next of kin, most of whom I feel are financially unable to make 'the trip. Such an excursion under the sponsorship of the government would be a fine gesture on the part of a grateful country toward these families who have sacrificed so much for Canada.


William Henry Golding: Order. I do not see how the hon. member can relate his proposal to the 'Department of Veterans Affairs.


Eric Bowness McKay: Where else can I bring it up, Mr. Chairman, if not here? I think it should be under the veterans affairs department.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: When the Vimy pilgrimage in 1936 was arranged the present deputy minister was chairman of the committee and I was minister of national defence in charge of arrangements. Personally, Mr. Chairman, with your consent and the consent of the committee, perhaps the hon. gentleman might be allowed to speak briefly.
Mr. MoKAY: I consider it the duty of the government to those who have lost their sons or husbands or fathers overseas to do everything possible to see that 'they have at least one opportunity to visit the graves of their loved ones who lie over 'there. That is all I have to say upon that subject, Mr. Chairman.
I now wish to associate myself with 'those who have spoken 'this afternoon and (this evening urging the minister to give serious consideration to raising the basic pension, not only for the disability pensioners, but for recipients of 'the veteran's allowance and the widow's allowance. We all know that the cost of living has gone up and is continuing to rise. We also know that the United States has increased its pensions by 20 per cent. I have been informed that the cost of living in the United States has gone up so much that the veterans pensions were inadequate. I do not for one moment suggest that Canada up to now has not done as well as the United States with regard to pensions. Canada has done a good job, but the rising cost of living makes it very difficult for our pensioners ito carry on. It is ridiculous to suggest that anyone can live on $30.41, which is the amount which the war veteran receives under the War Veterans Allowances Act. The widow of a deceased veteran who receives only $60 a month is receiving altogether too small an amount. If she has two children she receives an additional $27. That does not go very far these days in providing shelter, food, clothing and medical care. So I appeal to the minister to do everything he can to see that the basic pensions for these groups are raised and raised without delay.


Victor Quelch: The minister will recall that last year a number of us accompanied him to the veterans health and occupational centre at Billings Bridge and were favourably impressed with the lay-out, recreation facilities, treatment, meals and accommodation. This session a couple of the veterans from there came to see me. They reminded me that the minister, when down there, had told them that if there were any complaints they should let him know. They said they did not like to bother him and asked me to take their case up. I took it up with the department and it was straightened out satisfactorily. Last night one of them said that twelve others would like me to take their cases up. I said I did not think that was the right channel. I would suggest to the minister, if he will accept my suggestion, that he send one of his deputy ministers to Billings Bridge to see these, men, investigate their complaints and try to get to the bottom of the trouble.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That will be done right away.


Victor Quelch: I can give the minister the name of the man to get in touch with. The complaint is that a man is given twelve months class 2 treatment, and at the end of the twelve months the doctor recommends that he get an additional six months, but the administration at Aylmer forces him to sign a statement that he will accept class 3 instead of class 2 treatment.


Mr. BLAIR:: There is one clause in the Pension Act which should be given consideration. It is with regard to pre-enlistment disability. The way that is interpreted by the board is this. Suppose a man comes up during the war or following the war for duodenal ulcer. His history was taken overseas in hospital, and the attending doctor takes the case history something like this:	"Have you
ever had stomach trouble before?" "No." "Just think it over." "Well, I did have stomach trouble ten years ago, but I got some treatment for two or three weeks and it all cleared up." Then down on his history sheet goes the item; "Stomach trouble, 1935." He comes up for pension for duodenal ulcer, and the pension is refused because of that item on his history sheet. The pension board say, "We cannot do anything for you. You had stomach trouble in 1935. Pre-enlistment disability." So he is only pensionable for aggravation. I assure the minister that the;e are plenty of these cases happening
Supply-Veterans Affairs

where the pension, is refused on just as flimsy a thing as that, where the soldier overseas, with no thought of concealment wilfully or otherwise, foolishly gave one of these details which went down on his history sheet. If this debate goes on here for two or three days more everybody in this house will have nervous indigestion, but that should not preclude us from being pensioned for duodenal ulcer. I assure the minister that I have many cases where the ruling made by the pension board is pinned on just as flimsy a pretext as that. The history may show a duodenal ulcer ten years ago. There is no reason why the pension board should claim that that is a perfect history. It was not confirmed by X-ray; there was no confirmation, no diagnosis made at that time. Unless such diagnosis is confirmed, either by X-ray or doctor's certificate or by admission, the applicant should not be refused a pension. Therefore I claim that this clause is being badly interpreted by the board. I assure the minister that I am absolutely honest in this matter. There has been no attempt by me to obtain pensions under that ruling. To be honest about this matter, I assured myself that these cases were being unjustly dealt with. The presentation of these cases before the house gains nothing whatever. Very few of them are couched in language we can understand, and it is difficult to decide just what should be done when they are presented before the house.
I was interested this afternoon in the presentation of cases by several hon. members, but I could not form any opinion, and I have been over the files of some of these cases. I came to the conclusion that we are dealing with psychoneurosis, which brings me to another clause which, I think, should have freer interpretation than is given at the present time. A man with psychoneurosis, provided that it is due to battle fatigue or whatever it may be

and much has been written about it at this time-suffers the tortures of the damned, possibly worse than a man who has a combat injury. Yet it is a difficult matter to interpret, and is very difficult for the pension board. I will make an appeal to the minister and to the pension board. I think the part dealing with psychoneurosis should not be just cast aside, and say that he is just a neurotic. A person who is suffering from psychoneurosis is undergoing a worse disability than a person who has lost a leg or two legs. I ask the pension board to deal kindly with these cases, to look into them, and if there is any suspicion that it is due to war service the individual concerned should be given the full benefit of the doubt.

I leave that other matter for the consideration of the committee, because I realize that we discussed it for two days in. the pension committee. I do not blame the pension board, because we created that act and wrote in that clause, but I feel that many applicants for pension are not receiving a fair deal under that clause and that we should rewrite it. It should be broadened and there should be a clear way of interpreting it in order to assist the pension board. They cannot do anything with it at the present time, because they turn up the history of these cases. Every one of us has suffered disabilities or sickness. You can get hundreds of histories from any one of us if you tried. We should be very careful in interpreting that and not pick up something for which there is no proof whatever. A war disability should be proved by X-ray, a definite statement of a doctor, or an admission from the applicant himself.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I say one word? Any suggestion my hon. friend would care to offer to the department will be truly and sympathetically considered.


Clarence Gillis: I have a few remarks to make on this item. I am going to reserve most of what I have to say for the estimates as we go through them. But there are two or three matters of an administrative nature that I should like to bring to the minister's attention at this time. First, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the last speaker. The subject he discussed was raised in the veterans affairs committee and discussed at great length. I refer to the matter of preenlistment disabilities and disabilities of a congenital origin. I thought we had ironed that out in 1941 when the pension committee sat, when we removed that clause from the act. That gave the pension commission authority to rule on disabilities that may have been of a congenital origin or, in other words, inherited. We removed that clause from the old act in 1940. Apparently the commission still adjudicates along these lines. I am not going into that any farther; the last speaker dealt with it effectively. I know the minister will give it serious consideration.
There is, in my opinion, one admission in the minister's estimates. There is no provision for relief for service personnel who are not in receipt of a pension and who cannot secure employment. I raise the matter now, because in my own constituency the last figures I saw about a month ago showed there were 2,600 veterans of the war just ended unemployed. Their out-of-work benefits have run out. They are not eligible for unemployment insurance.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
They cannot secure employment. I think the government should accept some responsibility. Even before the war, the department did provide some unemployment relief for an exserviceman in that category. That is no longer in existence. I am just going -to leave it at that with 'the minister. Here is a category which does not come within the scope of the regulations in any way, shape or form. lit is a serious problem, and until such time as these men can find some gainful employment

they are registered for employment-some means of relieving their situation should be considered.
Another thought I should like to leave with the minister is this. I understand that ithere is still a large number of service personnel who were discharged for misconduct whose cases have not been heard. The -board of review did an excellent job in straightening out what, in my opinion, was an injustice. Many of these misconduct charges were uncalled for. Gratuity was granted. I understand that the board is to be wound up.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not for some time.


Clarence Gillis: I aim satisfied with the minister's assurance that iit is to continue. I understand that there are some 4.000 files yet to be examined.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They will have
finished their work before they are disbanded.


Clarence Gillis: I have another matter which is of an administrative nature. The minister and I have discussed' this before, but we did not come to any conclusion on it. I refer to the department's proposal ito close the D.Y.A. hospital at Sydney, Nova Scotia. I understand that the department have come to a definite decision that that hospital is to close. I wish to get some further information from the minister. I should like to inform him that this business of concentrating in Halifax, in Camp Hill hospital, all veterans requiring hospitalization will, in my opinion, create a hardship and a great disservice to the service personnel on Cape Breton island. Fifty-two per cent of all the pensionens*in Nova Scotia reside on Cape Breton island. To get from Cape Breton island ito Halifax you must travel 360 miles. The people whom you are to continue to treat in these departmental hospitals will be those who are in receipt of pension. With fifty-itwo per cent of them in that end of the country, I cannot understand why there is any justification to ask these pensioners who will be requiring treatment in the years to come to leave itheir homes and go to Halifax, to break with their families with no chance of seeing them. A lot of these people 83166-369
will spend a long time in these hospitals during the next fifteen or twenty years. We still have veterans of the first war in -military hospitals across Canada. The hospital at Sydney is well 'equipped. If the department has definitely decided to close it I am protesting, because I think we are fully justified in asking that it be maintained where it is. If it is to be closed I should like to have from the minister definitely thait it is, itlhe approximate date and what disposition is to be made of the hospital and equipment when and if it folds up.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As far as I can speak with accuracy at the moment, the number of patients on June 21, 1947, was ninety-five; the number of beds was 200. The percentage of occupancy was forty-seven per cent. The department intends to review the whole situation next September and come to a definite conclusion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
455. District administration, $5,374,160.
Mr. BLACKMORE:: Before the item
carries, I should like to make a remark about two topics. In the first instance, I believe the expression "pre-enlistment disability" has outlived its usefulness and should be stricken from usage in all matters pertaining to veterans affairs. It should never have been used with respect to the first great war and certainly it should not- be used at the present time. It is just a means of cheating deserving men out of what they deserve and we should no longer use it. As nearly as I can make -out, from the studies I have made of the matter, we are beginning to use psychiatrists. That is another way of cheating deserving men out of these benefits which they deserve. I suggest to the minister that he discontinue 'the use of psychiatrists, because it is cheating men out of their deserts.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I say to my hon. friend-I -think I should reply to every question asked-the question of pre-enlistment disabilities is one of the most difficult in pension administration. It was enacted and reenacted by parliament year after year. I think it is a question which might well be considered by the next committee that is set up to deal with veterans affairs.


John Horne Blackmore: I simply say that
if the soldier was well enough -to be accepted into the army that is justification for his receiving a pension if anything happens to him through his service. There should be no question about the matter any further. That should be enough. If we accept men into the army we must take full responsibility


SEYISID EDITION'
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Veterans Affairs
[Stage Direction]
for any bit of money they might get from the state which somebody thinks they might not have earned.
John Oliver Probe: Under district administration, I wish to have a question answered by the minister. This items shows a reduced budget for the ensuing year of $674,000, which bears out the minister's contention in his preliminary statement that the activities are lessening to some extent. I notice there are also big drops in, the other items enumerated on page 257 of the estimates. On the other hand, there is an increase which I should like to have the minister explain. There may be a good reason for it. Last year provision was made for six district administrators and. for the next year the minister is providing seven. He has also included an administrative assistant and has increased1 the number of assistant district administrators from one to three and the purchasing agents from three to four. Why is it that, with a diminution in the work, there is not, as I suggest there should be, a diminution of staff, particularly in the higher-paid brackets. In the case of purchasing agents I notice it is proposed, to buy $50,000 less in supplies in the ensuing year than in the year before.	[DOT]


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am not an expert, but I understand that they are coming into permanent positions and-, as such, must be shown in a different category from what they were before as temporaries. There is no change at all in the establishment.


John Oliver Probe: There is little change in the amount for temporary assistance.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is the department considering putting veterans who are in the district offices on a somewhat more permanent basis? At the present time they do not know whether they will be there a week, a year or what. Should they not be put on a civil service basis? How are they dealt with?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have been pressing for that very thing for some time past, and the civil service commission is just commencing to review the situation in accordance with the suggestion made by my hon. friend.
Item agreed1 to.
457. Treatment services, $20,150,640.


John Oliver Probe: The minister said this afternoon-and the statement was received with much satisfaction,-that, owing to -an- improvement in the physical condition of those veterans receiving treatment, there is a closing down of hospitals across the country. I presume the minister has some policy with respect to those hospitals that are closing
IMr. Blackmore.]
down. In view of the shortage of hospitals across Canada, is some provision being made so that the hospital facilities of the department, which are admirable, as most of us know, may be leased to local authorities at a dollar a year or some nominal sum?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. Discussions have been going on for some time. They give preference to civic or local hospitals for facilities which were available bo be used, by the Department of Veterans Affairs.


John Oliver Probe: The minister is to be congratulated on that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Most of them were unsuitable for permanent hospitals.


John Oliver Probe: The minister is aware that discussions have been going on between his department and the government of Saskatchewan with respect to the treatment of veterans receiving war veterans allowances. The government of Saskatchewan has a hospitalization plan in which those in receipt of war veterans allowances receive hospitalization from the government of Saskatchewan for the nominal sum of $2.50, and there were negotiations with respect to the federal government assuming that cost. What is the present policy of the government with respect to hospitalization for those in receipt of war veterans allowances, and their families? How is that looked after? Under what conditions do they receive it? Second, what has been the progress of the negotiations between the Saskatchewan government and the federal government?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: To answer the second question first, the negotiations with Saskatchewan are proceeding quite satisfactorily and, I trust, will be fruitful of success. The other question was, what is the policy of the administration with reference to the treatment of those in receipt of war veterans allowances who are hospital cases?


John Oliver Probe: And their families.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They will be hospitalized, according to the regulations of the department, in the best way possible.


John Oliver Probe: What are the regulations?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is in the veterans
charter.


John Oliver Probe: I want it on the record. Do they get hospitalization only for war disabilities?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No. If my hon. friend will be good enough to read the copy sent him he will find the answer.

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Mr. ADAMSON:: Is it the intention of the department to continue to use Christie Street hospital as an out-patients hospital because of its convenience to down-town Toronto?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I would not pretend for one moment to be a medical expert, but the intention of the department, as I construe it-and I must not be understood as suggesting that this is accurate-is to have Christie Street hospital in operation until we are able fully to occupy Sunnybrook. I personally made a suggestion to the mayor of Toronto, and he and the city council are anxious to avail themselves of the facilities of Christie Street hospital, once the Department of Veterans Affairs do not require these facilities. What may take place I dare not predict, but that is how the situation stands at the present time.


George Stanley White: I wish to ask the minister a question in regard to item 458 (SO, salaries of commissioners. There is a small increase. I am not objecting to that, but I presume the commissioners received an increase in salary owing to the greatly increased cost of living. If that is correct, I wonder how the minister can justify not making an increase in the basic rate of pensions and an increase in the amount of veterans allowances. I wish the minister would explain why the commissioners received this increase. Is it because of the increased cost of living?


Clarence Gillis: You are off the item. We are dealing with treatment services and you are starting another discussion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am informed that the salaries of the commissioners are statutory.


George Stanley White: What is the increase of $15,500 if it is not an increase in salary?


Walter Adam Tucker: It is an increase made last year when we increased it in the Pension Act.


George Stanley White: An increase of what?


Walter Adam Tucker: An increase last year by the Pension Act.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: By parliament.


Clarence Gillis: Can the minister inform the committee what percentage of the medical officers in departmental hospitals are parttime officers?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Speaking in broad and general terms, about fifty per cent.


Clarence Gillis: As the minister will remember, back in 1932 we had a thorough discus-83166-369J
sion in the house about that. At that time I thought the consensus, including that of the minister, was that in so far as possible the departmental hospitals, after this war was over, would be staffed with full-time medical officers.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We changed the whole medical policy of the department about two or three years ago. We obtained the complete cooperation of the finest specialists in Canada, of the Canadian Medical Association, and of every single university medical faculty in the Dominion of Canada. We have part-time consultants there. We have three forms of treatment: one in the home, one in the office and one in the hospital. It is expensive, but it is, I believe, the finest treatment ever given to ex-servicemen anywhere. We may have to curtail. I think we shall be compelled to cut down later on.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is not too expensive for the job which is being done.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Clarence Gillis: Anyone who has had any experience as a patient in a military hospital will, I think, agree with me, that he spends most of his time sitting on a bench waiting for one of these specialists to come in; and when he does come in, he gets a cup of tea and is in a hurry to go out. I think a medical doctor who takes on the responsibility of looking after a section of patients in a military hospital for the next few years in which these men require treatment, should at least be on full time and go in there at nine o'clock in the morning. He should at least put in civil service hours. It is not a nice thing to be sitting on a bench all day waiting around.


Walter Adam Tucker: Is that the way it is done at Sydney?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have been in this for a long time. We had full-time medical officers before the last war and they were greatly underpaid. We did not get the best men. I do not say that with any disrespect at all, but they were not paid a sufficient salary. This time we have endeavoured to revise the whole policy. If anything happens in the lovely place called Sydney, and any doctor or specialist comes in there and keeps the met waiting while he gets a cup of tea, I should like to be apprised of it.


Clarence Gillis: I am not- referring to Sydney. There is a good set-up there. I hope it is retained. I am referring to Camp Hill, because I myself visited Camp Hill in 1945 just prior to the finish of the war. There I saw
Supply-Veterans Affairs

young fellows lined up on a bench from nine o'clock in the morning until four o'clock in the afternoon, without lunch or anything else.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: When was that?


Clarence Gillis: Just before the finish of the war.
M.r. MACKENZIE: That condition would not be found now.


Clarence Gillis: They went away without seeing a doctor and) came back the next day.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was quite true for a while. What my hon. friend has said is quite true; that was the situation for about six or nine months. It is not so now.


Clarence Gillis: I am quite satisfied if the minister says everything is going on all right now. I will have a look at Camp Hill on my way home and will drop the minister a letter.


George Stanley White: Did I understand' the parliamentary assistant to say that the act was changed last year and the commissioners' salaries were increased?


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes, by section 3, subsection 7 of the Pension Act. It increased1 the chairman's salary to $9,000, which was formerly toy order in council; the deputy chairman to $7,500 and1 the commissioners to $7,000.


George Stanley White: What were their salaries before the change?


Walter Adam Tucker: They were $7,000 and


George Stanley White: Then my question to the minister would be the same as it was before. I suppose these increases were given to the commissioners on the ground of an increase in the cost of living today.


Walter Adam Tucker: These increases were given during the war because there was so much more work to be done. They were given during the war by order in council and confirmed by statute.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I understand that the commission or the board, I should say, keep in touch with the children's aid societies across the country and ask them to handle certain cases in their districts, having regard to pension money. Am I right in that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, my hon. friend is quite correct. That is in the case where a pension has to be administered and there is not a responsible parent.
[Mr Gillis.]


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is right.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In such case it is often entrusted to one of these philanthropic societies.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I suggest to the board that, when they ask a children's aid society to do that, they do not just write them, telling them to look after this case, but that they give the children's aid society the details of why they have been asked to do that. I understand that in the past the children's aid societies have not been given the details of the case, and that makes it difficult and awkward for the societies.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I agree with my hon. friend. Has he a single case in which, to his knowledge, that was not done?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The Peterborough Children's Aid Society of which I am a life member and director.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will my hon. friend
be kind enough to write me about that at his convenience?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I will do that. I just
wanted to ask that the details be sent out to these other societies.


Walter Adam Tucker: The practice is to send
out the full details. If there is a case in which it has not been done, if it is brought to the attention of the minister it will be looked into.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
/ !>
1. War veterans' allowance hoard-administration, $199,733.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I just wish to ask for
a little bit of clarification. I would ask the minister to answer the following questions: What is the maximum of war veterans allowance to the veteran? To his wife while the veteran is living? To the wife in the event of the veteran's decease? If he has a pension for disability of $22 a month, does he get that in addition to the war veteran's allowance? Is he allowed to draw pension in addition to the war veteran's allowance? Would the minister answer those questions?


Walter Adam Tucker: The war veteran's allowance, in the case of a single man, is $365. He is allowed an income from any other source of $125, and then casual earnings of $125 in addition to that.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That would make $250
he is allowed extra?


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes, and investment income of $25. That is a total of $640. A

Supply-Veterans Affairs
married man in receipt of war veteran's allowance is allowed $730, plus income from other sources of $250, plus casual earnings of $125, and the $25 unearned or investment income, a total of $1,130.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And in the event of his
death what would his widow receive?


Walter Adam Tucker: In the event of his death, his widow gets 'his allowance for one year. After that, if she is qualified, she goes on the widow's allowance; and if she has dependents she gets the $730.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the pension of $22
a month die with him?


Walter Adam Tucker: No, she would carry on
with his pension for one year.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I mean his war disability pension.


Walter Adam Tucker: In regard to the disability, if it is not due to the war-


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, his disability is due to the war, and he gets $22 a month.


Walter Adam Tucker: If he dies as the result
of a war disability, the widow is pensioned. If his disability was greater than fifty per cent, she receives a pension.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am not quite clear
yet. We start with a man drawing war veteran's allowance of $30 a month. The wife also would receive an allowance of $30?


Walter Adam Tucker: No; as a married man he gets an allowance of $730. It is not like the old age pension; the wife does not have to be sixty or seventy years of age for him to get the full $730.
Mr. AlacNICOL:	During all this time he
is drawing $22 a month war disability. Is he allowed to do that in addition to war veteran's allowance?


Walter Adam Tucker: The additional income may, of course, be a pension. If the widow is entitled to go on drawing an allowance, owing to the circumstances under which it is being paid, then she can draw that allowance up to the amount I have indicated. That is, she can have an income of $250.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In the event of the death of a man who was drawing the war veteran's allowance, what does the widow get?


Walter Adam Tucker: On the death of the husband, who was entitled to the war veteran's allowance, that allowance continues with her for a year. In regard to a pension, if that pension was payable in respect of a war disability of over fifty per cent or if he died on account of the war disability-


John Ritchie MacNicol: He only got $22 a month.


Walter Adam Tucker: It does not matter. It might be that death would be due to the war disability.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, it could be.


Walter Adam Tucker: Then she would receive a pension after the death of her husband. Of course, if the disability was less than fifty per cent, or death was not due to war disability, the pension payable dies with the husband.


John Ritchie MacNicol: As I understand it now, upon the death of a veteran drawing a disability pension of $22 a month as a result of the war, apart from the war veteran's allowance the widow would be entitled to continue to draw that $22, would she?


Walter Adam Tucker: As I have said, it dies with the man unless he died as a result of the war disability.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He has to die as a result of the war disability?


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes.
Air. AlacNICOL: Would she not continue
to receive the war veteran's allowance?


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes, she would get the war veteran's allowance, but the pension would die with the man unless his disability was over fifty per cent, or unless he died as a result of his war disability.


Air. CASE:: There was a provision I should like to have clarified. A widow who was receiving $40 a month could not engage in any occupation. If she were eligible for a pension of $60 a month, however she could engage in an occupation and earn money for herself. What is the present situation in that respect? I know I had one or two of these cases corrected, and I should like the position clarified now.
Air.. TUCKER: As the hon. member will remember, that was one change we made in the War Veterans Allowances Act. A person such as the hon. member describes with no dependents can draw $125 extra income and $125 casual income. If she has dependents she may have $250 extra income, $125 casual income and $25 unearned income.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: But is $40 a month the level at which she is prevented from engaging in any occupation?


Walter Adam Tucker: The question is whether or not she has dependents.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: She would have dependents.
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Walter Adam Tucker: Then, she would be entitled to draw $730. In addition she could earn $250 plus $125, and have $25 in unearned income.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Once again I should like to renew a plea which has been made every year since I have been here, in behalf of the imperial veterans, those men who served in the first world war from 1914 to 1918, who came to Canada and have lived as Canadian citizens ever since, making their full contribution to the life of this country. I am not going to spea'k at length on this matter, but I want to sajr this. I have not previously expressed myself on the matter of the many increases in salary which have lately been granted, but it seems to me that if we can grant pensions of $3,000 to diplomats after five years of service; if we can increase the salaries of the leaders in the other place, we can at last afford to pay the war veterans allowances to these old and comparatively few veterans who, in the first war, served alongside our own soldiers. Many of the benefits given under the veterans charter of Canada are generous, but I feel that the continued denial of this small concession to these men under the circumstances is narrow-minded and mean, and I renew the plea to the minister to extend the war veterans allowances to imperial veterans who have been in Canada for a specified number of years.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I find no fault whatever with the advocacy of the hon. member for Kamloops. I have frequently stated my personal policy on this matter, but perhaps the committee will pardon me if I restate it in the space of about one minute. This matter came up before the veterans affairs committee last year, and the stand I took at that time was endorsed by that committee. Very simply my stand was this. Before we extend the war veterans allowances to imperials-and I was born over there-we should give it to all Canadians who served in England, in Canada or in a theatre of actual war. That should be done before we extend the allowance'to any imperial, even though he may have been domiciled here before July, 1930, which is the advocacy that has been made on their behalf. I have nothing but the greatest admiration for those gallant imperial soldiers, but I am a Canadian through and through. Many of our men could not get overseas through no fault of their. own, but they served in khaki, they served in the forces; and I say it is wrong to give the veteran's allowances to imperials before you give it to every single Canadian who served in the forces.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then why not give it to all those Canadians?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We certainly are not doing it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I say, do it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I will support my hon. friend in that as far as I can, but that is the policy I have been trying to advocate with the government. I have made no secret of it; I have mentioned it everywhere, on every platform.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Let us go the whole way and pay a pension to everyone.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think it might be a fine scheme of social security to give it to those who served in Canada, those who served in England and those who served in any theatre of actual war, and also to the imperial veterans. But it would not be the war veteran's allowance any longer; it would be a part of the great social security system in Canada.


George Stanley White: I should like to ask the minister a question in regard to the pensions advocates. Will he explain the information at page 261 of the estimates which places the pensions advocates at various grades. First, will he explain the way in which they are graded as grades 1, 2, 3 and 4. I bake it that these pensions advocates are members of the bar and are devoting their full time to this job, with the exception, of course, of those who are operating part time. If these rates of pay are correct I say they are totally inadequate for the service these men are rendering. I would suggest that pensions advocates should be the best counsel procurable and should be paid salaries in accordance with the service they render. How many cases do pensions advocates handle in a year, and what success have they had with those oases?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am afraid 1 have not the information before me to answer the last question asked. With regard to the grades, I would say that it is carried out exactly the same as in respect of doctors, namely, according to qualifications and -experience. I do not know what success we shall have, but at the present time we are asking for an upward revision of the salaries of pensions advocates to which the hon. member has referred. However, that is the principle underlying the whole situation. While I have not the information respecting the number of cases handled, I believe I could get it for the hon. member.


George Stanley White: The minister is a member of the bar, himself. What would he think of engaging counsel at the magnificent salary of $2,244 a year to handle pen-

Supply-Veterans Affairs
sions cases on behalf of soldiers? I say a salary like that is disgraceful.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is that not for part time?


George Stanley White: No, it is for a pensions advocate, grade 1. Yet, on the next page higher salaries are shown for pensions advocates on part time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We are not satisfied with those rates in the department and we are trying now to have them increased. I am in agreement with the observations of the hon. member.


George Stanley White: What are the duties of the pensions counsel whose salary is set down as S3,720?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I thought there was no provision under that item.


George Stanley White: The minister is right; I was looking at the amount for last year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
462. Veterans insurance, $116,271.
Eric Bowness McKay: I am wondering if, in issuing these policies to veterans the age of seventy years rather than eighty-five might be considered as maturity date. Most people do not reach the age of eighty-five, and certainly veterans with disabilities may never reach that age. I would suggest that some change be made in the plan of issuing these policies so that they would retire at the age of seventy.


Walter Adam Tucker: As the hon. member will find if he refers to the booklet with respect to veterans insurance, there are many different types of insurance. There, is a 15-payment life policy, a 20-payment life policy, a 10-payment life policy, a life policy paid up at sixty-five years of age and one paid up at eighty-five. There are all kinds of different policies.


Eric Bowness McKay: I accept that explanation as far as it goes. But it seems to me that these policies are issued at somewhat lower rates than those of the line companies. It would be an additional inducement to veterans to take out these policies if the maturity date on the straight life policy were set at seventy years of age instead of eighty-five. That is out of the question.


Walter Adam Tucker: They can be obtained at sixty-five or seventy, or one can be obtained on twenty payments.


Eric Bowness McKay: The rates are prohibitive.


Walter Adam Tucker: Oh, no; I would ask the hon. member to look at the booklet.


Eric Bowness McKay: I have one.


Walter Adam Tucker: On a life policy maturing at sixty-five years of age the premium is somewhat less than a standard company can offer for the same kind of insurance.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Payments to or for veterans and dependents-
467.	Gallantry awards, $20,000.
Agar Rodney Adamson: What gallantry awards cariy monetary emolument or grants?


Walter Adam Tucker: The Victoria Cross, the Military Cross, the D.F.C., the D.C.M., the Conspicuous Gallantry Medal and the Distinguished Flying Medal.


Agar Rodney Adamson: What does each one carry with it?


Walter Adam Tucker: In respect of the Victoria Cross it is $50 per annum. That may be increased if the recipient, through age or infirmity or a cause beyond his control, cannot earn a livelihood.


Agar Rodney Adamson: How much?


Walter Adam Tucker: 
Agar Rodney Adamson: Per annum?


Walter Adam Tucker: It is a gratuity of $100 when awarded to other ranks. As I have said, the Victoria Cross carries with it an annual grant.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Cannot the Military Cross be awarded to warrant officers?


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Does it carry an award to warrant officers?


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Payments to or for veterans and dependents-
468.	Widows' allowances, world war I, $2,100,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to say one further brief but earnest word on this item, in addition to what I said this morning. Before doing so, however, may I join sincerely in the compliments which others have been paying the minister upon the way in which he handles the cases which members take up with him. Now that there are so few ministers in the house, so that what I shall say will not embarrass them, I believe I express the view
Supply-Veterans Affairs

of members generally when I say that the Minister of Veterans Affairs is the best minister in the cabinet, so far as dealing with correspondence is concerned. Any faults we find with him relate, not to the way in which he administers the legislation which comes within his purview, but rather to the scope of that legislation. In many instances we feel it should be widened.
This is one instance where earnest and, I hope, favourable consideration may be given at the earliest possible moment. This item concerns the special allowances paid to widows of non-pensioned veterans. Earlier this evening when we were discussing the general item replying to the hon. member for Vancouver South the minister said that this provision had been in existence for only eighteen months. He was not quite fair to himself when he said that. Actually it has been in existence for four years. Back in 1943 an allowance of S25 a month was brought in by the minister, and in 1944 it was increased to the present figure of $30.41 a month. Last year it was transferred from an annual item in the estimates to the War Veterans Allowances Act itself. I am sure that the minister recognizes the force of the argument which was made this morning and which is being made now, that with the old age pension up in many provinces to $35 or $40 a month it is not fair to ask these non-pensioned veterans' widows to live on $30.41 a month. They have been, in my view, most reasonable in the requests which they have made repeatedly to the government that the amount should be raised to $40. I think they would be well advised to be pressing for $50, but at least I hope the minister will soon find a way of increasing the present amount to one or other of these figures.
At the same time I hope that consideration will be given to some of the other requests which the organization representing these women has made. In particular, they have asked that this provision be extended to widows of veterans who, in the first great war, saw service only in England and did not get to the continent. They go farther knd would like to have it extended to widows of all non-pensioned veterans of the first world war. I -urge that steps in the right direction be taken in connection with this matter.
I also urge on the minister the requests of these women for consideration in the matter of hospitalization. They do not ask, as the minister, I think, misunderstood last year, to be hospitalized in the veterans hospitals, but they do ask for financial consideration in connection with their hospital needs.
This appeal on behalf of these widows is a request with which there is complete sym-

pathy in all quarters of the house. The minister earlier this evening assured the hon. member for Vancouver South that the whole question of the War Veterans Allowances Act-would be given consideration. These women are now included in that act; I hope that the minister can give us an assurance that he will do his best to have this amount increased, and when he has done so he will get still more compliments from all sides of the house. I am glad to see him nodding his head.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I associate myself with the remarks just now made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I want especially to thank the minister again for his continued support in connection with this item from the very beginning. I believe I was the first or one of the first to bring this question up in the house years ago, and from the very beginning the minister was * sympathetic. In the last two or three years when we were pressing to have the amount increased, again he was sympathetic, until now it is up to $30.41 a month. With the old age pensions act in Ontario now calling for $40 a month, I hope that the minister will consider advancing the pension of these widows to at least as much as the old age pension in Ontario, $40 a month. I also wish to associate myself in supporting the other requests urged upon the minister by the hon. member.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: These widows are all getting older and they cannot work as they used to be able to work. The widow of a man with a pension of less than fifty per cent who dies of a pensionable disability receives the full amount of the pension but if he dies from: a non-pensionable cause two weeks before he might have died from a pensionable disability she gets only $30 a month. I have always thought this circumstance was so very unfair. The minister has spoken in support of raising the amount which these widows will get. I hope it will not be long before they get an increased amount, because the cost of living is going up and they are all getting older.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister make
a comment?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The only comment
I could make is that I am deeply impressed' by the kindly remarks of my hon. friend the member for Winnipeg North Centre, by the genial cooperation of my hon. friend the member for Davenport and by the concurrence of my hon. friend the memb.er for St. Paul's.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But what about thewidows?

Supply-Veterans Affairs


John Horne Blackmore: I wish to join my
voice with those who have been advocating a fairer deal for the widows of veterans of world war I. Our treatment of them has been very shabby and constitutes a reflection on our nation as a whole. If there is anyone who is handicapped in making a living it is a widow and especially the widow of a war veteran.
I have a case which I think is worthy of consideration which has been brought to my attention. It is that of the widow of Archibald N. Forrest, 2043157, 74th Battery. He enlisted in 1916, was struck off strength in 1921. This man was hurt at Petawawa and spent six weeks in Sydenham hospital. His case was heard before the pension commission and they offered him an operation for double hernia. He asked if he might have his own doctor but was refused that privilege. He then refused to undergo the operation, because the doctors in charge would not promise him that he would be any better after the operation than before. Apparently, as a consequence of his having refused that operation, they changed his category from C-3 to A-l, according to the information given to me. How any doctor would be justified in doing a thing of that sort, I cannot understand. It made all the difference between this man being eligible for some sort of pension and not being eligible, 'because changing his category passed him as physically fit, though actually he was suffering from double hernia.
He did not try for pension again until June or July, 1937, when he filed his application through the Army and Navy Veterans. He was awaiting a medical board when he died in October. His widow has had a very difficult time and is still having an extremely difficult time, living right here in Ottawa almost in the shadow of this building. She went before the pension commission and got nothing. She tried to get into the civil service, but was told that she was too old to get in, being over thirty-five years of age. Then she set about to try to have the age limit for widows entering the civil service raised, and I understand that she had some measure of success and finally got into the service. She worked there during the war and her hekl'th broke down. She is now forty-nine years old and is unable to get any work and unable to get a pension. There she is. How we can expect a woman of that kind to live is a question to which I believe all members of the government should devote some attention. I just mention this as one case. There .are many others throughout the country.
It was a beautiful idea expressed in a general way in these words, that no one should be any worse off for having participated in the war and no one should be any better off for not having participated in the war. I believe that we should strive earnestly toward that ideal, and I wish the minister to understand that he will have my complete support in every effort he makes to give the widows of our veterans of the first war a better deal, so that they will be able to pass the remaining years of their lives in something like comfort.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Payments to or for veterans and dependents-
471. Pensions-Northwest rebellion 1885 and general, $15,000.
John George Diefenbaker: In connection with this item which has to do with pensions for the Riel rebellion veterans of 1885, I should like to know how many of the volunteers who participated in that rebellion are receiving pensions today, and also whether consideration has been given to extending these pension privileges to volunteers who served in the rebellion but were not attached to any units? I mention in that connection the case I brought to the attention of the house the other day. In Prince Albert and also in the area immediately west of Rosthern and the Duck Lake area there are a number of old men today-because, after all, sixty-three years have gone by since that rebellion-who took part in that rebellion, who maintained law and order during that rebellion, who suffered in consequence of their loyalty to the crown, but, because they were not attached to regular units are not permitted to receive any pension allowance. The other day I mentioned Mr. Angus McKay of the city of Prince Albert, a man of eighty-nine years of age, who finds himself in extreme financial difficulties. There are others in the same position. The old guard is practically gone today. There are a few left. If the minister can do anything toward relieving their situation by having them included under this head I know he would. No great expense would be entailed by his department and a great deal of good would be done.
If the minister and the committee would allow me, because I was called out of the house, I should like to refer to one other matter as well. It does not come under this head. I ask the indulgence of the committee. It has to do with the imperial South African veterans who, following the Boer war, as a result of advertising inducing them to come
Supply-Veterans Affairs

to this country, came here and established themselves. I ask that consideration be given to them so that they can qualify for veterans allowances. I am not going into a great many details in connection with the South African veterans who served in the imperial army, but I wish to quote a letter that appeared recently in the Regina Leader, which was written by Mr. M. C. Brown of Disley, in which is summarized the whole argument on behalf of these veterans. In part, he says this:	.
If we could turn the calendar back to September, 1902, we would find Aldershot, England, cluttered up with Canadian literature, asking all discharged South African vets to come to Canada and make new homes and share in this wonderful heritage. We were told there were opportunities out here and were led to believe we would receive the same treatment as their own South African veterans. When we also recollect that Great Britain paid all Canada's expenses in this war, even to the men's pay, surely they could assume a little responsibility for our welfare out here.
Then he goes on to say:
In 1930 the government introduced the old Veterans' Allowance Act. We were kept out again after being Canadian citizens for twenty-eight years. Whilst their own South African veterans have been provided with a pension in case of sickness, the imperial veteran has been relegated to relief. Our veteran societies have been trying for years to get us included in the Veterans' Allowance Act but without success.
I have also a letter from Mr. John. Nicks of Grand Coulee, Saskatchewan, president of the South African Veterans' Association, bringing the matter to my attention and, no doubt, to the attention of the minister. When the minister replies I would appreciate his dealing with the latter question as well. I want to thank the committee and you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity of bringing these two matters to the attention of the minister although strictly speaking one of them is not before the committee at the moment.


George Hugh Castleden: 
Walter Adam Tucker: Three. Two veterans and one dependent.


George Hugh Castleden: S15.000 a year for these?


Walter Adam Tucker: This takes in other things besides that. It provides for disability of veterans of the Northwest rebellion, and disability incurred by members of the active militia during service prior to August 4, 1914, and compensation for death or injury resulting

from a fight undertaken in the course of duty in the public service and for a person employed in the public service or employed under the direction of any department of the public service of Canada. This vote is for these three objects, but there are two Riel rebellion veterans and one dependent.


George Hugh Castleden: Surely if there are just these few people the plea for an increase should be granted. I know one of these chaps very well; he is a fine old chap, cheerful and interested in national and international affairs. He is a splendid citizen. He was somewhat shocked a few years ago, on the institution of these pensions, to find that when he got his pension his old age pension was cut off because, under the federal regulations, he could not be receiving the two amounts.


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. member is speaking of the war veteran's allowance. This is a disability pension.


George Hugh Castleden: Is any special pension granted to veterans of the Riel rebellion?


Walter Adam Tucker: They get war veterans allowance as well, but this vote is for pension.


George Hugh Castleden: But this is a special war pension for a member of the Riel rebellion forces of 1885. They were granted a pension four years ago.


Walter Adam Tucker: This is an actual disability pension, the same as other pensions of world wars I and II. The item the hon. member is thinking of is the war veteran's allowance. They get the war veteran's allowance the same as those who served in world wars I and II.


George Hugh Castleden: There was a special bill put through four years ago granting a pension to veterans of the Riel rebellion. What item is that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Item 605.


George Hugh Castleden: I am asking for an increase in the pension that has been given here. The cost of living has increased. These people find it very difficult to carry on with this pension. With the few people concerned I think this increase should be granted. I am sure it would have the support of everyone in the house.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not see any vote in reference to the South African veterans. The Chairman generously and kindly allowed my good friend, the hon. member for Lake Centre to discuss this matter, about which I should like to ask this question. What is the position of the South African veterans. I know a man who is married. His wife has a small income. He himself has no income. Would he be entitled to a war veterans' allowance?

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If he was domiciled in Canada before he volunteered for service.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He was born here.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is not necessary to be born here; if he was domiciled here, if living here, if his home was here before he went overseas to South Africa, then he would be entitled to the war veterans' allowance under the same rate.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The veteran is entitled to war veterans' allowance?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes; I think there are four hundred of them receiving allowances.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to bring up a matter which does not come under this item, and I have waited all afternoon to ask the question. Instead of bringing it up again, I should like to ask the question now. What is the attitude of the government with regard to the imperial veterans of the Boer war who came to Canada in 1902, 1903 and 1904 as a result of advertising that they were to be treated as Canadians who served in South Africa? Has consideration been given to allowing them the war veterans' allowance? If so, what is the present position?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The position is the same as in regard to anyone not domiciled in Canada before he went to fight in either the Canadian or the British forces or the allied forces. He must have been domiciled in Canada before he can qualify for the benefits. Those who came from South Africa afterwards are not qualified for these benefits.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the government intend to consider an extension to them?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I cannot speak for the government-


John George Diefenbaker: You are the government.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: -but what I envision and I hope will be accomplished some day- the Minister of Finance is not close, to me- is that, first of all, we shall get war veterans allowances for all Canadians who served here or in England or in a theatre of war, and that will justify us in considering the cases my -hon. friends mention, imperials and South Africans who came here afterwards in 1903 and 1904.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not surprised that there is an item of $15,000 for a rebellion which occurred sixty-two years ago, because the amount of pensions paid for the first world war amounts to over $50 million. It is in the same group of items; according to the
figures that were given earlier this evening by the minister, the number of pensioners bf tlhe first world wrar was, Canadians, 87,318, and the second world war, Canadians 87,558, and it is only a little more than 200 more for the second world war as compared- with the first. Here again I suggest to the minister that he should have a check-up made of each pensioner to see those who are really in need of a pension and those who are not; and those who are n-ot should be struck out from (the list. I do not see why the taxpayers should pay to members of the family otf one who is not in need, the more so because the granting of pensions was just like the coming of fishes. There are times for herring, and there are times when all the fish come together. There w'ere times when pensions were -awarded to anyone, even to -those not deserving, and afterwards there were times when the deserving ones could not get anything. Therefore I insist again on a check-up. I find, after thirty years, -the number of -Canadians who received pensions for world war I, 87,318, is quite -high, and the British in Canada, 250, and allied, 34, according to the figures. That number seems excessive.


George Stanley White: The minister said he would send me a -copy -of the report. Can I have it before the estimates are through?


Walter Adam Tucker: When we get -through with the estimates I will let the hon. gentleman have it.


George Stanley White: It will be too late -then.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend could have it over-night. [DOT]


George Stanley White: I thought it would be a copy I could keep.


Walter Adam Tucker: I will send it over.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is nothing my hon. friend cannot see. It is a comprehensive document, though.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans Land Actlt7)t. To provide for the cost of administration of soldier settlement; British family settlement; general land settlement, and Veterans Land -Act including engineering and other investigational planning and subdivision expenses that do not add tangible value to real property, $6,747,046.
Donald Methuen Fleming: This brings us to the subject of the soldier settlement and Veterans Land Act administration. This afternoon the minister, in referring to the settlement of soldiers on the land, used this expression: ' The larger operation has been tremendously
Supply-Veterans Affairs

successful." I must remark that that observation would not have any application to the administration of the Veterans' Land Act, or the minister has not perused the evidence taken recently before the public accounts committee concerning the administration of that act. I must be brief. To do the subject justice would require much more time than is now available. All I propose to do, therefore, is to review, as briefly as I can, some significant features in the investigation recently made on behalf of the house by its public accounts committee.
The Veterans' Land Act scheme contemplated the construction of about 2,600 units, 2,381 of which are completed in a sense. They are completed in the sense that the contractor, we are told, has left the work. The particular inquiry of the public accounts committee centred around the project at Sarnia, but I wish to make it abundantly clear to this committee of supply that that is not a peculiar situation at Sarnia. We had the evidence of Mr. Murchison, director of the Veterans' Land Act, that it was one of the worst, but he gave a list of others which he put in this category, and those among the worst included the Braefoot project on Vancouver island, the Boucherville project in Quebec, and the project at Sackville, New Brunswick. We had evidence that there were many other projects where there were units which, though not as bad as those in the category I have mentioned, were nevertheless bad. The committee was invited to continue its inquiry by reviewing the conditions at Windsor, but in view of the imminence of prorogation and the desirability of submitting a report to the house the committee felt it could not go farther.
So far as I am concerned, as a member of the committee I have had a number of letters since from veterans settled in other projects. They have been reading in the papers about evidence taken before the public accounts committee, and they have indicated that they are prepared to tender parallel evidence with regard to the conditions in the projects on which they settled.
I summarize that part of my submission in this way. The evidence that was taken as to conditions at Sarnia, while that is a particularly bad project, is nevertheless evidence that can be duplicated to a degree in many other places in Canada.
In a word, the evidence that was submitted to the committee was shocking. There is no weaker word that will begin to do justice to the evidence brought before this committee. Again, it is difficult to be brief, and I know how precious time is at this stage.

These houses have cost Canada-there are eight of them in this project-$10,100 each. To give the committee an idea of the value of these houses, we had evidence that several builders had looked at them and said they could build the houses for $4,500 each. The plan was on a cost-plus fixed-fee basis. The contractor was from Windsor. These are small houses. The largest has six rooms. Each house is either a bungalow or one and a half stories. The figure I have given includes cost of necessary repairs undertaken within a matter of several months after the alleged completion of the houses and occupation by the veteran purchasers, and also the cost of remedial drainage work which is now in course of being carried out.
There was no drainage investigation before this work was commenced; even the most elementary precautions with regard to drainage were completely ignored. The project is located a mile and a half from lake Huron outside Sarnia, but there was not the slightest effort to ascertain the water-table.
Again, the figure I have mentioned does not include one cent of departmental overhead. That figure of $10,100 consists of outlay without any regard to overhead costs in this department of government.
The house construction is of about as bad a kind as one can possibly imagine. I am sure the evidence shocked even the most hardened members of the committee. I wish there were time to review it, but I am afraid there is not. The basement had water in it all last fall, all last winter and all last spring. There were two sump pumps in the basement pumping water out, because the level of the basement floor is much too low; and of course the cost of electricity for keeping the pumps in operation was borne by the veteran. There is a hole in the basement floor. Apparently the contractor had an idea that it would be necessary to operate the sump pump there indefinitely.' The evidence concerning all the other normal features of construction is just in keeping with that. I shall just read one or two extracts for the sake of brevity. Here is one at page 516. It is from the evidence of one of the veteran owners, Mr. Cleave, who gave evidence which, I think, had a profound effect on the committee, even though he had to submit to a good deal of badgering on the part of certain members. This is one extract at page 516 of the proceedings of the committee:
Q. Can you give us the nature of the repairs? A. Yes. For example the doors did not close. Another example, my bathroom sink started to come off the wall, so they took some plaster of paris and filled the crack in behind; and there were some cracks along the doorsills and they filled those with plaster of paris. There were

Supply-Veterans Affairs
big-headed nails driven into the hardwood flooring and they attempted to countersink them and in countersinking them split the flooring; and they puttied up cracks in the chimney. In one of the houses the kitchen cupboard has started to settle, it had settled about a half an inch or more so they moved the quarter-round-they didn't move it, they hit it with a hammer and knocked it down flush again.
Here is another extract at page 518;
Q. You were cataloguing a number of things that you said were wrong with the house at the time of the exchange of the correspondence in January. I do not think you had finished when there were some other questions. A. Well, the paint job and the plastering and the taping of the joints. I mentioned that. The windows have not been fitted properly into the sashes. They leaked rain in a bad wind storm. They told one of the fellows there they did not leak with storm windows on, but he said, "Am I supposed to leave storm windows on all summer?" That was one of the contractor's workmen who said that. As to my stairway they spray-painted the house inside. The stairway is boards which have been stained and varnished, but they neglected to clean off the spray spots before they varnished. Consequently I have a lot of light paint on the stairs. It looks just like the painters had moved out yesterday and did not get around to cleaning it up. It cannot be cleaned without being sanded.
Then there were the warped doors. There was plywood that was broken in one bedroom upstairs. The bathroom sink was coming off the wall. The floors were very badly done with big-headed nails showing through which naturally you cannot resand while they are showing through.
Here is another at page 519:
A. In my house you cannot see the bathroom upstairs, but in all of the houses that have the bathroom downstairs, which I believe is in every house except one like mine, they cut off the floor joists and put in headers when they put the plumbing in. When they put the hot air pipes through in all of the houses they cut the main beam half way in two. As you know the main beam is square. They started at the bottom corner and came out at the top corner to put in the hot air pipe which means they have taken away at least half of the support of that beam.
Then a concluding one at page 520; and these are just a few samples. One could go on reading evidence of this kind interminably. At this point the witness was speaking about the condition of the floor, and saying that the floor could be moved up and down:
Q. You are waving your hands but that cannot go on the record. To what height could he move the floor? A. I do not know. He pushed his arm underneath the floor and lifted it up an inch or two inches. Since then I was talking to one of the fellows who worked laying the floors. He informed me-I do not know this-at the time the floors were laid they laid five or six boards down, pushed them together with a crowbar and then nailed the last board, and then laid five or six more and pushed them together with a crowbar.
Then I asked him a question about the septic tanks on the same page, and his answer was:
A. 5Iy septic tank shortly after I moved in stopped operating. Of course, the breather pipe off the tank is in my front lawn, and it started to overflow in my front yard. I could not have that so I went into town and I saw the veterans officer. He said, "The best thing you can do is to get a plumber to fix it and see about getting the bill paid afterwards." I went down to a plumber and had him come out and fix the septic tank. At the time he took it up he found that the tank was tipped the wrong way. It was tipped towards the house instead of away from the house, and that some of the insulation off some of the BX cable they were using in the wiring had got down when the workmen were there and plugged it.
There are other things. When they needed sand for plastering, did they go out and bring in proper sand? No, they just went out and took sand out of the backyard.
Those are the houses, Mr. Chairman, which cost the taxpayers of Canada $10,100 each, without including a cent for departmental overhead. And they are being sold to the veterans at a price of $7,800. That is the approximate or average price in this case; I am speaking in round figures. Against the $7,800 price to the veteran, a conditional grant of $1,400 is made, leaving the net price of $6,400 to the veteran. Those are houses which several competent builders had said they could build for $4,500.
WThat has happened, Mr. Chairman? The contractor never properly finished this work. That is quite apparent from the evidence. Not only that, but quite apart from the question of completion, the properties had not been in occupation by the veteran purchasers for more than a matter of several months before repairs became necessary. That is apart altogether from the cost of completion. And the repairs on this project alone, involving eight houses only, will cost approximately S6.000; that is roughly $7S0 apiece for repairs within a matter of several months after the veteran owners went into occupation. There is a situation which I say is absolutely scandalous.
What has happened since? One would have expected, of course, that there would be a substantial hold-back in cases of this kind, and that proper progress reports would have been made by competent inspectors. But what do we find? The hold-back in this case is just about three per cent of the aggregate price put in by the contractor on his cost-plus fixed-fee basis. Where are these progress reports? Well, they were not given to the committee. The director of the Veterans Land Act, who was before the committee, was
Supply

Veterans Affairs

asked to produce them, and he said that he would. But the committee had to close up its business, and they have not as yet been produced. We did have the final reports. They were not dated, but they accompanied a letter written on December 17, 1946, so we know that the final inspection must have been made before December 17, 1946. The final report in the case of each of these houses carried with it a string of matters as long as your arm, which needed to be done to complete the house; in some cases there were as many as sixteen items to a house. That was the final report. That was in December, 1946, after ninety-seven per cent of the price had been paid over to the contractor, the last payment having been made several months-I think it was four months, to be exact-before the final inspection had been made. What these inte/im or progress reports contained, we do not know; but it would be interesting to know what they contain.


Walter Adam Tucker: If I may intervene, Mr. Chairman, I am advised that those progress reports were all filed with the clerk of the committee. I am surprised to hear what the hon. member has said. Of course he was present in the committee and I was not, but I am informed by the director that he filed all those reports.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If they were filed, they must have been filed since the evidence was concluded.


Walter Adam Tucker: No; at the time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. We asked for those. The director presented a brief and we had asked for them. This was, I think, the second time of his appearance before the committee in connection with this matter. We had asked on the first occasion for a great many things, and the reports which were presented were the final reports which are not dated, but which accompanied a letter dated December 17, 1946. If these reports were filed that was not done at the time. We did not have any opportunity of examining them, or of examining witnesses on them.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am told they were filed at the second last meeting of the committee, because they had to be obtained from Toronto.


Donald Methuen Fleming: 
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Nonsense.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Did I hear the Minister of Veterans Affairs say "Nonsense"?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, you did.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, I want to tell the minister that he does not do himself justice by talking in that way in the face of the evidence that was given under oath before the public accounts committee by Mr. Cleave, a veteran, who spoke, not only for himself, but for the other veterans as well.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I know Cleave; I know the public accounts committee, and I know conditions across Canada, which is more than you know.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then I put this challenge to the minister. If he says those conditions cannot be duplicated elsewhere, let him appoint a royal commission to hear evidence in connection with all these projects.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, and keep the boys out of their homes for a year or more. That is the Tory policy.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I challenge the minister. Let us have a royal commission to look into all these projects right across Canada. Then we shall get all the facts. We have enough facts before us now to put the whole country on its guard and put this parliament on notice as to the conditions that exist there. And, as we have from the lips of the director of the Veterans' Land Act, this is not the only . project of its kind. If the minister is disputing any of these facts, then I say, let him appoint a royal commission, where evidence can be given under oath.
5S00
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, and keep the boys from their homes for another year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let him appoint a royal commission to go into all these projects. Let him take up that challenge.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is the Tory policy; let us appoint a royal commission, and keep them out of their homes for a year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I now come to the third aspect of the matter, for which parliament must accept some direct responsibility. I refer now to the administration of the department. What has been disclosed here is, I submit, negligence of the grossest variety, to use the mildest possible description. The director of the Veterans' Land Act himself admitted negligence on the part of his department.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: So did I, three months ago.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You did not admit half enough; and I do not think the minister does know half of what is available to him if he will read this evidence. The situation reveals shocking negligence in this department. Even making the most generous allowance for the fact that the projects were undertaken under pressure, that haste was a consideration, that times are not normal, these factors fall far short of explaining the result, the shocking evidence we find here. The director undertook to try to exculpate the department by saying that three officials had been let out, two of them because of incompetence in connection with supervising inspections. But that does not affect or explain the situation here.
I have referred to this matter of negligence. What is disclosed here is incompetence in this department. 'Parliament is now aware of that situation. The minister is now fully aware of the situation, and responsibility rests upon him to take action to remove incompetence in this department.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He has done so already.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, he has not; he has fallen far short of it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You know nothing about it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And I remind the committee that this is not an isolated situation. I spoke about repairs on the houses. The repairs at Sarnia will cost $6,000. We are told by officials of the Veterans' Land Act that the vast majority of the units constructed right across Canada alleged to be completed, numbering 2,381, will require expenditures on them for the purpose of repairs. The drainage prob-

lem abounds in many of these. And as to the director, himself, of the Veterans' Land Act, I remind the committee of this, that this report is one supported by the majority of that committee; and government members were in a majority on it. That committee has censured the director of the Veterans' Land Act. These are the words in the committee's report:
Your committee was not favourably impressed by the way evidence was given by Mr. Gordon Murchison, Director, the Veterans Land Act.
And that evidence referred to there was given in a hostile, belligerent and high-handed manner. It did not reveal the sympathy with the veterans that this parliament is entitled to expect of the officials administering the Veterans' Land Act. If this parliament can overlook the unsympathetic administration of the Veterans' Land Act, then I say this parliament is not doing its duty to the veterans.
I conclude these remarks by pointing to what I think must be done, in the face of disclosures which have been made. It is perfectly clear that the investigation which has been made reveals such a situation, one not confined to 'this project-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Twaddle.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What did the minister
say? If he cannot keep quiet and possess his soul in patience or restrain himself, then I think at least I should be allowed to hear what he has to say. I find that ministers opposite have the habit, because they sit next to the Hansard, reporter, of saying things while we are speaking, and having them on Hansard, which we, who have to sit in this remote corner of the chamber, cannot hear.


Douglas Charles Abbott: All he said was "twaddle".


Donald Methuen Fleming: "Twaddle", was it? Well, I do not know of any greater exponent or authority on the subject of (twaddle than the minister who has just used the expression. If he wishes to prove what he apparently is contending for in the house, then I submit to him that the way is open to him to do so. He has within his power the means by which it can be established before a proper tribunal, on evidence taken under oath, whether the facts are as he is now alleging them to be, or whether they are as testified to on oath before the public accounts eomimittee. They have made such an impression upon the Liberal members in the public accounts committee that, as between the director of the Veterans' Land Act on the one hand and the veteran Mr. Cleave on the other, they have preferred to follow the evidence of

Supply-Veterans Affairs
Mr. Cleave and have censured the director of the Veterans' Land Act.
A royal commission for investigation of all aspects of the Veterans' Land Act administration was asked for in this house on February 4. It was rejected on behalf of the government by ifche Minister of Veterans Affairs. He said that he had a committee of three whom he was sending out to examine the projects. Just to show how impartial this investigating committee would be, he took two people who had had the most to do with the administration of the Veterans' Land Act, the deputy minister and the director of soldier settlement and Veterans' Land Act. They were two of the three who were given that work 'to do. Even the Liberal members on the public accounts committee have complained that the department is not taking proper steps to carry out the measures recommended by that committee of three.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Who was the third man on the committee? It was the director of housing of the Canadian Legion for the Dominion of Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I beg your pardon; I did not catch all that.


An hon. MEMBER:: Wash your ears out.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Who was the third man?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The third member was Colonel Parrish.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What has that got to do with it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I suggested it was a fine sample of the minister's idea of an impartial inquiry that when he appointed this three-man committee two of them were people who had had the most to do with the administration of the Veterans' Land Act., That was no investigation at all into the administration of the act.
What that committee did was to go out and look at a cross-section of projects across Canada, and then make a report. And that report in considerable part condemns the construction methods and the conditions in which these contractors were permitted by the department to leave those projects.
Remember, this report from the public accounts committee is supported by a Liberal majority in that committee. Apparently they have had enough of committees of investigation, the majority of which are composed of officials of the Veterans' Land Act administration, because this time they say:
Your committee recommends that a board of three men be appointed consisting of real estate
and building experts, none of whom shall have had previous connection with the Department of Veterans Affairs, or with any other governmental building projects, to pursue the work undertaken by your committee, with a view to giving justice and fair treatment to veteran purchasers and all parties interested in this question, and to recommend to the minister any remedy it may consider fit to correct the situation.
So much for the minister's substitute for the very proper demand made in the house in February by the hon. member for Lamb-ton West when he asked for ithe appointment of a royal commission.
The need of a royal commission to investigate all aspects of Veterans' Land Act administration has been proven to the hilt. The case is stronger today than it was then, in the light of the evidence taken before the parliamentary committee and in the light of the findings of that committee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Nonsense.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Minister of Veterans Affairs dare not allow an investigation into these projects. He dare not allow it. I submit that there is a great deal of discontent seething among these veterans.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, and you are stirring it up.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Just let them bring their case before a royal commission, and the minister will learn some things about the seething discontent among the veterans with the deal they have been given by the Veterans' Land Act administration.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And you are stirring
it up.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not wish to be personal with the minister, at all, but-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I don't care whether you are or not.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Whether the minister
cares or not, I do not intend to be. But I want to say this, that if he is not prepared to have a royal commission as I believe there ought to be, then certainly I think he must- because no one questions his interest in the veterans-give more personal attention to the supervision of the Veterans' Land Act administration.
The minister has a big department. While he has important duties in his department, and as leader of the house, I urge upon him that within the organization of his department this condition is so bad that it is incumbent upon him to give this Veterans' Land Act administration first claim upon his personal time, and to give it the utmost personal attention.
Supply-Veterans Affairs

I urge that, in addition to the appointment of a royal commission, he give consideration to the suggestion I have just made for personal attention, if I may be so bold as to make a suggestion to a minister. I urge that, in line with the committee's report, every effort be made to hasten these repairs, so that the houses can be completed, and so that there may be a revamping of soldier settlement administration under the Veterans' Land Act, informed as we now are of the negligence which has been permitted to exist in this administration.
It is up to him to decide whether the present director is capable of clearing up this situation with his interest in the matter, in his capacity as director.
I urge that there should be an adjustment of price to veterans, because even if the required work is completed, the houses which will be turned over to them are not as valuable as they would have been if the work had been carried out according to the contract.
I urge again these points, because there is still work being carried on in connection with some other projects.
Certainly, Mr. Chairman, prompt steps should be taken tio bring these defaulting contractors to book. There are many things one can point to in these investigations, and the ones I have mentioned are just the highlights. The duty of the minister is, I submit, perfectly clear. If there is any doubt in the mind of any member of the house I throw out this challenge to the minister: Let him appoint a royal commission with a free hand and the widest instructions to investigate all aspects of Veterans' Land Act housing from coast to coast in the interests of the veteran, in the interests of the public and in the interests of the good name of parliament and government.


William Scottie Bryce: I have refrained up to this time from saying anything very nice about the minister, because I was afraid it might be taken as just one Scotch immigrant patting the back of another Scotch immigrant, but after what has been said by other hon. members, I make up for that omission now by saying that I appreciate what the hon. minister and the officers of his department have done in handling the cases which I have brought to their attention.
What I rise for now is to appeal again to the minister on behalf of the old soldier settlers. These old fellows are now reaching the eventide of their lives. Some of them owe as much on their farms today as they did when they gott them in 1920 or 1921. When they bought the farm wheat had a value of $2 and $2.50 a bushel. Then wheat dropped to $1, and 
still they have to pay for the farm bought on that old value of wheat. I have been through the same thing myself and I am talking from experience. I have bought cows for $150 and two or three years afterwards they they dropped to $25, and the same thing with horses. I could talk for an hour on this. But I appeal to the minister and his department to give further consideration to these old soldier settlers. They have lived under difficult conditions in the past twenty years, contending with drought, bad times, and many other things that beset a man in agriculture. They struggled on and r-aised their families, and during the last war they gave their sons, some of whom now lie in lands across the sea. Some of them came back and started in under the new settlement scheme. I am an old soldier myself, and I appeal to the minister in all sincerity to give these old soldiers further consideration. In' their youth they gave the best they had for Canada.
While I should like to join with the hon. member for Swift Current who said today that he was a good Canadian and was proud of what Canada had done for her returned men, I do not think that job will be complete until we do something for these old soldier settlers by wiping off that debt. I do not think there is a soldier in this land of Canada who would object to wiping off that debt and giving these old soldiers a clean sheet in the eventide of their lives.


Walter Adam Tucker: I should like to say a few words in reply to what the hon. member for Eglinton has said in regard to the Veterans' Land Act. At this Late hour I regret that he made the violent attack he did on the administration and on this whole housing project. I do not want to detain the committee unduly, but there were some things he said which perhaps should be replied to.
First, in regard to the cost of these houses, it is quite true that when all the drainage is done and the repairs are made and the houses are fully fixed up, the cost will average $10,100 each. Sarnia was admittedly the worst experience encountered in regard to these houses. The inspector in charge was a qualified architect, appointed through the ordinary processes of the civil service commission, but he did not keep a firm hand on the project and he is no longer with the department.
In regard to auditing, the auditing has been under the constant supervision of the cost and audit division of the treasury department, which has been in charge of disbursements from the very outset.
In regard to the suggestion of the appointment of a royal commission, the hon. member

Supply-Veterans Affairs
made a great deal of the fact that the committee apparently were somewhat sympathetic; he seemed to think they went along with him in his criticism, at least to some extent. So I take it that he found that the committee was impartial in its attitude. But it is significant, Mr. Chairman, that the committee did not recommend a royal commission. So apparently the hon. member stood alone in that, even though he had a committee that was seemingly somewhat sympathetic. It seems to me that in his demand for a royal commission there is quite a bit of dramatics.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Far from it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I asked for a royal commission in the committee, but they did not go the whole way with me. The report before the house is a majority report. The committee came part of the way but not far enough.


Walter Adam Tucker: If the hon. member had such faith in the committee he should have been satisfied with their recommendations, but apparently he wanted to go farther.
In regard to the committee which travelled across Canada and looked into these housing projects, it seemed to me that the hon. member w'as suggesting that their report copld not be relied upon. I do not think there is a member of this house apart from the hon. member for Eglinton who would suggest that a report which was made by the respected deputy minister of this department would not be absolutely reliable and in the best interests of the veteran. I think the hon. member will probably stand alone in criticizing the most respected returned soldier in Canada, who now occupies the position of deputy minister. He had joined with him in that work of the committee the director of the Veterans' Land Act. Perhaps he might not be regarded as entirely impartial by my hon. friend because he was inspecting work which had been done under his department. But in addition there was Colonel Parrish, director of housing for the Canadian Legion, and an expert on housing. Surely he could be relied upon to make an impartial report.
The hon. member for Eglinton suggested that these houses could be built for $4,500. When he went .that far I think the committee could pretty well decide how much attention to pay to the rest of his remarks. Actually the committee had before it evidence ^ to the cost of similar houses in other parts of Canada where admittedly very good work was done. For example, take Kamloops. The houses which in Sarnia, without taking into account the cost of repairs and so on, cost
$9,080 to build, cost $7,674 in Kamloops. The cost in Edmonton, where admittedly some of the most efficient building was done, was $7,143 for a similar house. Yet the hon. member goes so far as to say that a house like this could be built for $4,500, when the minimum for such a house was $6,618 in Truro, $8,759 in Sherbrooke and $7,397 in Regina; and I know something myself about the splendid work done in Regina and am sure that others who know ithat work will agree with me.
The $10,100 includes repairs, drainage and all the rest of it. The actual cost of the house was $9,080, and in other places, $8,700, $7,300. There was nothing below $6,618. He then suggests that this house could be built for $4,500. I submit that that indicates he does not know what he is talking about.
The cost of these houses to the veterans was as follows. A very careful investigation was made, and the committee established that the average construction cost was forty-four cents a cubic foot for all the 2,381 houses. The cost in Sarnia was fifty-eight cents a cubic foot as against forty-four cents on the average. As I say, that was the worst ' case of this sort. On the basis of that comparison, it was recommended by our department that the Department of Justice take whatever action it could against the contractor in order to have him make full restitution. Therefore, when the hon. member says that nothing has been done I do not understand why he makes that statement. He suggests that nothing has been done for the veteran to write down the cost of these houses. I do not understand why he makes that statement. It makes me wonder whether he knows anything about this matter.
The committee had before them a statement showing the make-up of .the sale price of these houses, and they used this formula. They found that the cost of these houses was fifty-eight cents a cubic foot. They found that the average cost throughout Canada was forty-four cents. To make sure that 'the veterans in these cases got a fair deal, they wrote down .the cost of these houses to forty cents a cubic foot or four cents under the average. That was done by the deputy minister under the order in council and the director of the Veterans' Land Act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Before the houses were completed or these repairs became necessary. Since then there has not been a cent taken off.


Walter Adam Tucker: I did not interrupt my hon. friend.
5S04
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Donald Methuen Fleming: You might stick to the facts.


Walter Adam Tucker: He made lots of statements with which I did not agree and which I thought were wrong, but I thought I would wait and try to put the facts before the committee as quickly, shortly and concisely as I could. Goodness knows I do not want to get into an argument or a brawl with the hon. member at this late hour. I am putting the facts before the committee as best I can.
In regard to the cost of these houses to the veterans, I have a statement here. When the cost was written down, as I have said, the actual amounts payable by the veterans ran from $6,047, $6,359, $6,504, $6,056, $6,324, $6,324, to $5,493. From all of this there was the statutory conditional grant of $1,400, leaving the amount that these veterans had to pay, after making their initial payment of $600, a monthly payment of $27.11, $24.34, $28.66, $24.34, $29.39. $27.15, $28.48 and $28.48. Hon. members will see that the highest amount that the veterans had to pay for these houses was $29.39, and that the lowest was $24.34. That is not rental. When the veteran pays that over a period of twenty-five years he is the owner of the house. Comparable rents for houses like these at that time would range from $45 to $50 at the very minimum. These payments are actually far under the average rentals at that time. Therefore, when it is said by the hon. member that the veteran has not been protected in this matter; that somehow he is being mistreated, when you have these payments which will count double for the veteran as against rentals being charged under different schemes of from $45 to $50 a month, I do not understand the hon. member's attitude.
As I say, I do not want to start a controversy at this time. I am trying to give the facts to the committee as best I can. In regard to the veterans in this proposition, the price was reduced in the way I have said to a fair comparison with houses in the same district. That is the first thing. Then the veteran was allowed to go into occupation without signing any contract, and he has been in occupation since late last year. He paid his $600 down and has paid no rent other than that $600 initial payment. Some of them have been in occupation since last October and have paid no rent at all. In addition to that, all the defects which have been pointed out are being remedied at no cost whatever to the veteran, so that the veteran is getting a house that is fully fixed up, that is brought down to the average cost of 40 cents a cubic foot, which is at least equal to, if not under, the average cost of all houses around there. He will have

his $1,400 conditional writeoff to which he is entitled under the Veterans' Land Act and, of course, when he signs his contract he gets all of the rights I have just mentioned.
Then, Mr. Chairman, I shall deal with one or two other items that the hon. member mentioned. Colonel Parrish mentioned, for example, that the average cost for the whole of Canada of houses like these was $7,150. He found that to be reasonable in today's market, and that is his opinion. Of course everybody in the committee will have no difficulty in accepting Colonel Parrish's opinion against that of the hon. member for Eglinton.
In regard to the cost being excessive, these houses were constructed by the Department of Veterans Affairs in an endeavour to make a contribution to the housing situation. It was known there would be a great shortage, and so the Veterans' Land Act administrator jumped into this picture and did his little bit. It is quite true that perhaps in the light of what we know now, if he had been another type of public servant who said, "I will not do any more than I absolutely have to; I will not stick my neck out; I will be very careful," he would not be under this attack today ; but instead of that, being a returned soldier himself who served overseas in the first war, and having some real anxiety to help returned soldiers in the second world war, he thought he could make a little contribution in having his organization build some houses on these small holdings. It was the request of a committee of the house that he should do this. As the result of his action, over 2.000 people own nice little houses across this country. I visited a lot of them. I have talked to the people in them and I have seen how happy they were. There has been a great attempt to decry these houses. I have been in them in various parts of this country. Wherever I have gone and talked to the women and the men. in the houses, I found they were delighted to be able to have a nice little, home to go into on terms as reasonable as these were. Therefore I say-in spite of the break-down here and there, which is not the responsibility of the administrator, because, after all, public servants are hired by the commission; all that can be done when they break down is to dismiss them, to let them go, and that has been done in these cases-what we have today is a situation where the department went into a housing activity to try to help out the returned soldier to establish himself, with a staff provided by the civil service commission which has broken down here and there. They have worked under terrible difficulties. Anybody today who has tried to build a house knows the

Supply-Veterans Affairs
difficulty. For example, they could not get glass, which meant that the houses could not be closed in. Then moisture entered into the houses and we had swelling of the lumber and the floors in the houses and continued trouble. If you could not get the material you needed and you had to let your labouring men go then, of course, you could not get them 'when you did get the material. These things all ran up the cost. Anybody who has tried to do any building in the last couple of years knows the difficulty that anyone was under in that regard.
It is very easy to come along now and criticize. We know of these great difficulties. There were break-downs here and there. It is very easy to come along and make a passionate appeal to the house, make out that the public servants, public-spirited servants are, in some way, deserving of censure. But I ask the committee to put themselves in the position of the director of the Veterans' Land Act, to consider his motives in trying to help out, consider the difficulties he was up against and realize that he could not personally supervise these numerous enterprises from one end of Canada to the other; that he had to rely on people who were picked-there was a shortage of skilled people-to do this work. There was a great expansion of work. Those that have broken down have been released. There has been no attempt at any time to conceal anything. There has been a complete disclosure in this house, the fullest possible disclosure. It seems to me that an attempt to make a great deal of a thing like this is really an attempt to take advantage of a situation which is, of course, pretty well prevalent all over Canada with anyone who is trying to build.
As regards this excessive feature, it was realized that- costs were becoming excessive owing to uncontrollable factors, and the government, on its own initiative, provided this million right off, put on an inspection by the deputy minister and these other gentlemen, and made sure that the veterans would not suffer by the steps taken.
On the question as to whether contractor liability is being investigated, what more can be done? Wherever it was considered that anything was wrong it was turned' over to the mounted police and the -assistance of the Department of Justice was enlisted, so that if there was a possibility of making the contractor liable it would be established. That was done a long time ago without any demand for it by any member of parliament.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does the hon. gentleman
say that the Department of Justice was consulted1?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Walter Adam Tucker: Before it ever came to this house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not what was brought out in the committee.


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes, it was. Anyway, that is the fact I am. giving to the committee. These veterans wanted homes over their heads. It was not known what it would cost to fix these places up; they were told they could move in if they made a S600 payment, and when the time came to fix the cost they could sign a contract or, if they did not wish to do so, there was no compulsion on them to buy. I have a long list of persons who are anxious to get into houses. For every man able to get in-, there are -ten who w-ould be glad to.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not true of Sarnia.


Walter Adam Tucker: I know it is so in most cases. A real contribution has been made in providing 2,300 homes. The director frankly admitted that the department had been poorly served by certain subordinate officials and that was seized upon as the basis of an attack. Because he was frank and honest to admit that some of his officials had not served the department as well as they should have done- their connection with the department having been terminated in consequence-he is attacked. But what more could be done? It was undoubtedly for the civil service commission to obtain the necessary number of competent inspectors, superintendents and so on, experienced in the work. The civil service commission did the best they could. Every member of this house believes that the right way to go about -the matter is to have the civil service commission do it, and if they are to do it, then it is to be expected that they will do the best they can.
The chief engineer of the Veterans' Land Act administration and 20 other officials in the branch have been permitted to resign or have been released from the department. In other words, there has been no sparing of those who have not done a good job so far as this work is concerned.
I 'have tried to run over these things as quickly as I can because I know -that the house is anxious to get through, and- I have tried my best to give some of the highlights in this matter.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has the hon. gentleman read the evidence taken before the public accounts committee?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, I have.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Have you read it all?


Walter Adam Tucker: I have not read the last page of it but most of it.
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Donald Methuen Fleming: Most of it has not yet been printed.


Walter Adam Tucker: I have it in typewritten form.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Did the hon. gentleman read the evidence of the director of the Veterans Land Act?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I did.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And all the exhibits?


Walter Adam Tucker: I will not say I read every page.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thought not, judging by some of the remarks the hon. member made, because they do not jibe with the evidence given before the committee by the director of the Veterans Land Act.


George Hugh Castleden: I suppose this matter will be threshed out later. I do not wish to deal with the situation in Sarnia, about which I know nothing. But there is one matter which the hon. member for Selkirk spoke of and in regard to which many hon. members have continued to ask for information over a period of years, and that is special consideration for the few noble veterans of the last war, who, under the soldier settlement board, are trying to carry on. After having lived with some of these veterans, having witnessed their efforts, having seen thousands of them finally give up in despair because they could not carry on, their homes broken, the result of years of toil, years of difficulty, having disappeared, I submit that something should be done for these people. I do not know whether it wras the minister or the deputy minister who was responsible for the policy of the department and the consequent absolute failure of the board with respect to thousands of soldiers who tried to settle on the land and who apparently have failed to impress the department with the hopelessness of their situation. A plea has been made in this house for a number of years that special consideration be. given these few men who are now struggling, in the declining years of their lives, to carry on with a debt over their heads. Last year the officials tried to tell us that these soldiers were now in a position to pay up and that everything would be satisfactory for them. I should like to know how many have been able to pay the balance of their indebtedness during the past year, how many have quit or have signed a quit-claim deed, either voluntarily or under pressure, and how many of these soldiers are still left in the various provinces trying to struggle on and to pay off the balance even in their declining years.

One other thing. What decision has been arrived at by the government with regard to these men in the future? Are more of these men to be deprived of their homes because they cannot pay up, or has the department come to a decision? The director of the Veterans' Land Act has been given complete control. The decision is entirely his. He is granted a seal and the contract is put in his name. He is czar of the situation from end to end. I want to know what the situation is at the present time.


Walter Adam Tucker: In the five-year period ended March 31, 1947, there were 3,408 settlers who repaid loans in full and received title.
Mr. CA'STLEDEN: Have you the figures for the last year?


Walter Adam Tucker: I will see if I can get them. There are 250 who have assigned their contracts to other purchasers, and have taken equities in cash. Soldier settlers during that period paid in cash on contracts $6,441,335. Ninety per cent of all soldier settlers made payment on their contracts in the five-year period, and the record of payment of taxes is equally good. There are 3,453 settlers left, and I am advised that they are generally in a good position. It is estimated that eighty-five per cent wdll have little difficulty paying off loans under the present contracts. The average age is fifty-seven, and it is, of course, recognized that there are some difficult cases. Where there is a case of advancing years or recurring disabilities or serious family illnesses, these cases will continue to receive individual and sympathetic attention. Any suggestion that soldiers have been thrown off these lands is, I am advised, absolutely untrue.


George Hugh Castleden: I have seen soldiers thrown off.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am told that during this five-year period no one has been thrown off.


George Hugh Castleden: Or asked to sign a quitclaim deed?


Walter Adam Tucker: In a few cases they have voluntarily turned the contract over to somebody else; but I am told that nobody has been thrown off against his will.


George Hugh Castleden: Nobody has been compelled to sign a quit-claim deed?


Walter Adam Tucker: 
Mr. WARREN:: It is a new experience for me to be getting into this sort of argument. I have been content to represent Renfrew North without endeavouring to be a statesman. I have no ambitions along that line. I am thankful to say that in Renfrew North, as far as I know, we have nothing but satisfaction with the work of Mr. Murchison. My experience with Mr. Murchison as a government official is limited. I met him a number of times in his office in connection with his work of buying land for the purpose of settling veterans on farms; and in my opinion a splendid job was done in any case that I know of, particularly from the veteran's angle. I thought Mr. Murchison was always rather miserable about the price he wanted to pay for the farms. He might have paid more money, and would have been perfectly justified in paying a good deal more money in some cases. As an official looking after the settling of veterans on farms, I think he did a splendid job. I have not been in the habit of mixing up actively in the proceedings of any committee of which I was a member, but I did mix up in this public accounts committee on this particular question, largely because the hon. member for Eglinton kept Mr. Murchison on the mat for six hours a day, standing on his feet, and being treated as a common criminal. The hon. member for Eglinton is the type of lawyer who, when he gets his knife into a man, is not satisfied with that but must keep on twisting it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Police court stuff.


Ralph Melville Warren: I did work up enough sympathy to interest myself rather actively in this housing project up in Sarnia township. We heard the whole story about these houses
from the hon. member for Lambton West, and I was not greatly impressed with the awful defects of those houses. Those houses had been built in the winter time. I know something about the difficulty of getting lumber, because I live in a wood country.- Lumber buyers would come from Sarnia or any other district, with ten-ton trucks, if they could get a load of green lumber from any little sawmill. We could sell anything. A man could go into his swamp and cut down poplar or balm of Gilead which could ordinarily be sold only for pulpwood prior to the war. But these lumber buyers would grab up that material as good building lumber. What happens when you get that kind of lumber? Everyone knows. It must be remembered that it was green. Not a board of dry lumber could be bought. Some of our best operators of factories in Renfrew North would' fairly weep about putting this green lumber right from the mill through a planer, knowing that it would go into a building. What will happen in a case of that kind? Everybody knows. The concrete is run in the winter time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member
knows what he is talking about.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He does not know what he is talking about.


Ralph Melville Warren: The hon. member the other day talked about kiln-drying the lumber. That was silly enough, and I think shows how much he knows about it. It is silly to talk about kiln-drying lumber for all the housing construction which is going on all across this country. One per cent of it could not be kiln-dried.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The specifications did not call for green lumber.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Ralph Melville Warren: No, they did not; that is true. I do not know this contractor, and I am not apologizing for the work which was done there. He probably did not do a perfect job. I do not hold any brief for that contractor, but I can easily understand how a contractor could take on the job of building eight houses in that particular district, having in mind being able to buy dry pine or spruce. There was difficulty on account of the labour situation and lack of material. A priority had to be obtained for nails. I have known times when not a farmer in the country could buy nails in any hardware store in Renfrew county. There were plenty of times when that situation prevailed. I can see how a contractor would come in and find a different
Supply-Veterans Affairs

set-up from that which he had expected. Instead of getting the lumber he wanted at the time he wanted it, he would have to drive all over the country and then in many cases would have to accept this inferior green lumber. He could lose his shirt overnight at that kind of thing; and probably did for all I know. I do not know whether or not he made a dollar, but his case will be heard in court-


John Ritchie MacNicol: As long as he did not lose his pants, he will be all right.


Ralph Melville Warren: -and that ought to satisfy even the hon. member for Eglinton. Just out of idle curiosity, during the last two or three years I have been watching a couple of projects around here. I like driving out around the experimental farm. Out the Merivale road there is a 400-family project. Then out beyond Boggs' there is another one. I think that is on what is called the Prescott highway. Two years ago this summer, the contractors were working on those projects, and it just looked like a bog hole. I saw them last fall, and they still looked like bog holes. I saw them recently, and this Merivale project is now getting around to the place where the finishing touches are being put on. Driveways are being put in. It is just a splendid, lovely community. Any person at all would be proud to own one of those houses. There is one thing we must keep in mind. Not one of these veterans is paying anything more than a modest rent, and in a period of years -twenty-five, I believe-he will own the house. The veterans pay a modest rent of anywhere from S20 to perhaps as high as $30 a month in some cases. It is a most interesting suggestion which comes from the hon. member for Eglinton who would appoint a royal commission to go around this country investigating this housing situation just because those eight houses may not have been perfect. Under the circumstances, some defects were sure to develop. Those houses could not have been so very bad. This young man Cleave who was here as a witness, who never went overseas, went and investigated the house himself. He looked it over and was satified with it. Nothing more might have come of the matter if the hon. member for Lambton West had not happened along and seen the odd crack in the wall or noticed a draught coming under a door, which is just about all these defects amount to when you come to look them over. There is a long list, of course; but in the committee I made this remark-and I think I was quite safe-that I could get two men from Renfrew county who would go into any of these houses and complete all the repairs you are talking about inside a week.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then do you censure the government for spending $6,000 on these repairs now?


Ralph Melville Warren: If I were censuring anybody it would be the hon. member for Eglinton for making so much noise about something I do not think is worthy of it.
Here is how I regard the suggestion of appointing a royal commission. We have communists in this country; and what is the communist way of working? It is to get out and encourage discontent. If there is no discontent they go out and create it. That is the communist idea, and to me it looks as though this were just a nice communist method of creating discontent among satisfied veterans. I should like to be on that commission. It would be a grand way to spend a couple of years seeing Canada from coast to coast at the expense of the taxpayers. So I say to the minister that if he appoints a royal commission I want to be on it. We could start right here in this lovely community on the Merivale road, provided that we had an advance agent; and I think the hon. member ter Lambton West would make a fine advance agent. Give him a start of a week or two; he could create a great deal of discontent in that lovely community. It is quite. easy to do; go in and take a look around and say, "There is a crack in the wall of this house, and that is not fair. That crack should not be there." The first thing you knew you would have a regular hornets' nest. We could spend a couple of months right here investigating that sort of thing. They say the climate on the west coast is a little better, so that we could leave that for the winter time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And the houses are worse.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not in Kamloops.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, they are.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is right; you could spend a few months there.


Ralph Melville Warren: I have tried to look at 'this matter in a broad way. Do not think for a moment I was ever fond of the idea that the government should be forced into the construction of houses. I did not like the idea, and I was never anxious that any of my veterans should take on a project of this kind. I do noit like the instalment plan. If I buy a house I want to pay for it and own it. I am the pioneer type. If I am going to build a house I want to have a woodlot where I can cut the logs, saw them up and leave them for a year until the lumber is dry; and

Supply-Veterans Affairs
then do a good deal of tihe work myself. My wife and I started in last fall to build a house, and I am sure labour is not as difficult to obtain where I live as it is around the Windsor area. We started in and I found myself driving the horses on the scraper. Then it became hard to get labour and I found myself doing the whole job alone, not only driving the horses but guiding the scraper. However, we got that pant done; we got a roof over the house, and we hope to complete that bouse soon. We have had to wait plenty for material, and I certainly have a great deal of sympathy for any contractor who undertook to build a block of houses, with the difficulties he must face in regard to labour, lack of materials, and all the rest- of it.
The hon. member for Eglinton has certainly twisted the knife in poor Murchison's back tonight, and I do not think it was deserved. He was doing his job as well as he could, but he was encumbered with a great many duties. That man had so much work to do he should never have had to go outside his office.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. member
would permit a question, in the committee did he vote for this report when it came up for adoption?


Ralph Melville Warren: That report did not
satisfy me. I did not care for it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Did the hon. member
vote for it?


Ralph Melville Warren: There was not a vote.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
am telling the hon. member he voted for this report, in which there is this sentence:
Your committee was not favourably impressed by the way evidence was given by Mr. Gordon Murchison . . .
Perhaps the hon. member will say why he turned the knife in Mr. Murchison's back in ithat report.


Ralph Melville Warren: I did my best to have
that sentence taken out, because I did nor think it was a fair expression. That sentence should not be in the report.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If I may intervene
for a moment, I wonder if, by agreement, we could possibly finish the estimates of this department by eleven o'clock this evening. We have had a fine discussion on them all day, from every possible angle, and I think it would greatly expedite the progress of the session tomorrow if that could possibly be done. I cannot insist upon it, but I am wondering what would be the reaction of the 83166-370
leaders of the various groups, so that I am making the suggestion before eleven o'clock. Perhaps we might sit a few minutes after eleven, if necessary, in order to get the items [DOT]through.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is really up to the
individual members.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I know; I must have individual members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As to the suggestion
that we sit after eleven o'clock, I do not think it would be fair to the Hansard reporters and the printers to go very long. If the estimates could be finished by ten or fifteen minutes after eleven that would be satisfactory.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I would say not more than fifteen minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If it is agreed that we
shall adjourn if we are not through by eleven-fifteen o'clock-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If that is agreeable
to all parties.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -I-would agree to that, personally.


John Horne Blackmore: I -think it would be
exceedingly unwise to do that. After all, we have been here for twelve hours already.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Knowing the number on
this side who wish to speak, I am quite sure we could not be through by eleven-fifteen o'clock.


William Henry Golding: I wonder if the hon. member for Humboldt, who would have the floor, would allow the hon. member for Peterborough West to speak, since he wishes to catch a train at eleven o'clock.


Mr. BURTON:: I have something to say
along the line of what has been said by *the hon. member for Eglinton, but the hon. member for Peterborough West might go ahead.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I shall be very brief. I want to ask a few questions regarding the houses at Stratford1. I understand 'that eight houses were built there in 1945, but that the sewers for those houses are below the level of the Stratford sewers and, as a consequence, those houses have neveT been occupied. I understand, further, that the department have pumps in the houses trying bo keep them dry. Evidently they were built in what might be described as a sunken garden, similar to the oase in Sarnia. Is that the fact?


Walter Adam Tucker: We are still awaiting installation andi connection with the city sewer.

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But since the sewers are so much below the level of the city sewers, it is doubtful if you will ever be able to connect up with them, and you have pumps in there now. For two years the veterans have been waiting to get into these houses.


Walter Adam Tucker: Negotiations are going on with the city to have these houses connected with the city sewer. Apparently it is possible to have that done; it is just a matter of coming to an agreement with the city.


John Thomas Hackett: Are you gradually training the water to run uphill?


Walter Adam Tucker: There are, I am told, ways of raising water without having it run uphill.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: During the speech of the hon. member for Eglinton, the minister said the Tories were trying to keep the boys out of their houses for a year. This is a case of keeping them out for two years and perhaps more. I could say a great deal more on this matter, but I am not going to do so. I understand that a watchman has been maintained there for over a year, who is paid so much a month by the department, until such time as these sewers are connected. How long will it be before the sewers will be connected?


Walter Adam Tucker: Apparently it will be three or four months before the veterans can be permitted to go into the houses; that is, before the houses will be finished to the point where they can be occupied. Obviously there has to be someone to watch the houses until they oan be inhabited, and that will not be charged up against the veteran when he signs the contract.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This place, so far as water is concerned, is as bad as if not worse than the Sarnia situation, where there has to be drainage out to the township line, and no contract has been made with the township to take the water away from this project involving forty-three houses. The drainage system in Sarnia has not yet been connected with the township. That will cause a delay in the Sarnia scheme.


Joseph William Burton: At this late hour I have no desire to go into detail on the points raised by the hon. member for Eglinton, and the further discussion entered into by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and some other members on the Liberal side. However, having been a member of the public accounts committee, and as one
[Mr. Tucker.)
from the C.C.F. group, I did consider it necessary to say a few words on this all-important question.
When the Minister of Veterans Affairs was asking permission to have the house sit a little longer tonight, I had intended saying to him that if he would just let me say my piece we might get through with the rest of his estimates.
The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs has something on his hands that he cannot explain just by a wave of the hand, and there are a few things I would draw to the attention of the committee. The hon. member dealt with the cost per house at Sarnia, and the average for Canada. While it is correct that the Sarnia cost was fifty-eight cents per cubic foot and the average for Canada was about forty-four cents per cubic foot, it must be remembered that not only has the Sarnia project fallen below the requirements laid down by the contract signed by the department and the contractors, but there are other projects which have cost more money than they should have and which do not contain the workmanship they should have, in view of the money spent on them. The result is that the average cost for Canada as a whole has been raised.
I do not wish to go into detail at this time of night. However, having sat in the committee and having heard every bit of evidence given when this matter was under consideration, I must say I was amazed to see that things of that kind could be allowed to go on without having more drastic action taken by the department than has been taken.
We are now at the stage where the committee has reported. While I admit frankly that that report is not as strong in some respects as some of us would have liked to see it,, on the other hand it is more or less of a compromise, as of necessity are all reports from parliamentary committees, if they are going to report at ail.
That report does fairly generally reflect the consensus of the great majority of members who served on the committee. I should like to take this opportunity to compliment most members of that committee who took such great pains to be in attendance at the meetings and who took such an active interest in the hearings. I would compliment the chairman and all those who made it possible to carry on the work of the committee with the sole idea of seeing, first, that the veterans receive value for their money and, secondly, that the taxpayers of this country shall not be called upon to pay exorbitant costs for the construction of these houses.

Inquiries oj the Ministry
My suggestion to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, to his parliamentary assistant and to the government is that the report tabled in the house the other day is the result of painstaking work by a standing committee of the house. I would urge upon t'he government and all its supporters that they read that report carefully, and especially would I urge the minister and the government to endeavour to see that the report is acted upon. After the committee has given its time and attention to this work, I do not think that at this time, in the dying hours of the session, we can thresh out this matter to the satisfaction of anyone. While the hon. member for Eglinton may not have got his royal commission, which he and some of the rest of us might have been inclined to favour, nevertheless the report does make a suggestion to the government. I say that if the government fails to act upon that report and to see that justice is done, and if it fails to see that the veterans get value for their money, and that the taxpayers get value for the money they must spend, then the government must be held accountable in the future. For the time being, however, I am prepared to let the government have an opportunity to act upon that report.


An hon. MEMBER:: Eleven o'clock.


William Henry Golding: We have items 474, 475, 476, 477, 483 and 484 dealing with soldier settlement, and I am wondering if we could agree to those items now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Henry Golding: Item 474-


John Bracken: It is eleven o'clock.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, July 17, 1947