Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

Then why introduce this new principle in connection with a non-partisan bill? The fact is that these regulations are going to be necessary. They are almost entirely for the purposes of administration. The minister must have this power; otherwise a bill would have to be passed at each session. He must have power of regulation if he is to administer. Any minister must have that power-I do not care what government is in office. This is not a new principle. There is no departure from theory which has been accepted in parliament for the last twenty-five years. And this tirade by my hon. friend takes me absolutely by surprise. It is a most amazing departure, even by my hon. friend. The wording here is identical with the wording used in the past, by the union government of 1019, and other governments since.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

That does not mftke it sound.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

Why did not my hon. friend change it in those years?

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I was not here then.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

He has been in the house and outside the house for many years. Why become an eleventh hour convert in regard to principles which he refused to recognize in former years, when he had the power to make changes?

No matter who the minister of pensions and national health is going to be, he must have power to make regulations. I have known the ministers for the last twenty-five years, and I know that not one of them has abused that power. This provision is for the purpose of helping out those who are going to help, through this legislation, the veterans of the first great war and those of this war. Ministers must have that power, and this will give ii to them.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I resent the suggestion that I entered upon a tirade. I was simply endeavouring to explain some honoured principles. The fact that this power to make regulations has been in pension legislation, and other acts the minister mentioned -or did not mention-does not create any great impression upon my mind. I was striving to establish a sound principle. And the fact that there is antiquity behind this procedure does not impress me at all.

When the minister accuses me of having supported this kind of legislation I can say to him that in the last four or five years, and on

every occasion I can remember, I have protested against this procedure in connection with the delegation of authority.

The minister referred to what was done by the union government. Certainly I am not going to be called upon to answer for their sins. Neither the minister nor I was here at that time. But the position would be exactly the same, no matter who it was, because I believe it is bad in law and bad in principle to delegate the ministers anything but the merest powers of administration. That is the objection I take. It is in respect of the judicial position, or the judicial examination of a given case, and the exercise of judicial authority and executive authority, that I contend the bill goes too far. The fact that a thing has been done before and some people have not protested against it is no answer at all. It is just a tu quoque argument; it does not get us anywhere.

I should like to see the minister defend these regulations one by one. I never suggested that he would exercise the powers in a partisan way. Nothing was farther from my mind. So far as I know, the present pensions ministry, including the commission charged with responsibility has not been partisan. I do not for one moment think there has ever been any suggestion-certainly I have never made it-that there was anything partisan about the administration in this respect. Suggestions have been made as to appointments made to the commission. I have not altogether agreed with them. I remember a certain gentleman who was appointed as chairman of the pensions commission and charges of partisanship were made with which I did not agree. I thought a man of high character had been appointed. I do not know anything about the members of the present commission, and I am not suggesting for a minute that there is partisan administration of the commission or of the department itself. I will go that much farther.

I think the minister has really misapprehended the position I am taking. I want to reaffirm the principle of the supremacy of parliament; that is all I am seeking to do. It is about time that somebody in this house, some member of some group on this side or, if I may make so bold as to say, some member on the other side, protested against the continued practice of delegating parliamentary authority to ministers.

Mr. McIVOR:

Mr. Chairman, hot being a lawyer I do not see the same difficulties that the hon. member for York-Sunbury has referred to, but practical common sense tells me that everything should have a head and

Department oj Veterans' Affairs

that somebody should have responsibility. I hope the minister will be the minister who will have the opportunity of putting this legislation into practice. Ever since the resolution was introduced I have been grateful for this legislation.

However, there is one thing that makes me a little anxious. I hope that the district pensions advocate will still hold his position. I should like to ask the minister if it will be possible for the Department of Veterans' Affairs to instruct the pensions advocates to advocate in the interests of the pensioners and not in the interests of the government or the taxpayers of Canada. Some years ago I sat in when a committee was in session in Fort William, and I must say that I became very anxious for the pensioner. These pensions advocates should be instructed to advocate in the interests of fair play. That is all the returned man wants. If he gets that he will be a happy man. This is the information I was going to ask for the other day.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

I assure my hon. friend that the definite duty of 'every pensions advocate in Canada is to argue and fight for the returned soldier and not for the government or the treasury in any way whatsoever. If there is any doubt about the situation we can certainly issue further instructions to every pensions advocate in Canada to that effect.

Mr. McIVOR:

Thank you.

Mr. COLDWELL:

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I have not had time to go into this bill, because I have been away for two or three weeks. The minister has been entirely sympathetic to the veteran and to the returned man generally. During my visit to Saskatchewan I ran across some cases on which I expect to have notes in a day or two. These would seem to indicate that perhaps some of the officials are not giving the sympathetic treatment to the veteran of the present war that I think the minister would wish. I find that there has been great delay in the cases of men who have been discharged because of wounds, in obtaining the necessary treatment and pay.

I ran across a lad from my own constituency called Tony Woodbine. He had been wounded in Italy in the hip and had lost an eye. He came to me after my meeting in Saskatoon and told me that he had not been able to get what was required to maintain himself and his wife in decency. The legion in Saskatoon had taken up his case, but so far they had not been able to do anything. I notice that this has been contradicted in the papers, but people

who knew this lad at Lucky Lake in my constituency told me that he was a reliable boy.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

I will look that up right away.

Mr. COLDWELL:

There was another case, that of a man whom I met in Tisdale. He told me he had been let out because of rheumatic fever and a heart condition, following which he had received a pension of $30 a month for some few months. He was then reexamined, told he was fit for work, and given a card for a position in the penitentiary at Prince Albert. When he presented the card he had to undergo another medical examination, whereupon it was found that his heart was in such a bad condition that he could not be employed. The result is that this lad is without a pension and without a job. There would seem to be some lack of consideration in a case like that.

One of the aldermen met my train at Winnipeg and told me that at the present time there are some eight men on relief in Winnipeg who are veterans of this war.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

I am sure that that is not correct, because I checked up every single case in Winnipeg.

Mr. COLDWELL:

I am glad to know the minister has checked that up, but that is the information I was given. -1 just take this opportunity to bring these cases to the attention of the minister. I am convinced that in this particular instance it is not the minister who is at fault, because I think everyone in this house realizes that the moment a case is brought to his attention he has it investigated, and if there has been any injustice in the case of a veteran, it is looked after immediately. I think perhaps the minister might go into this matter with some of his officials and see what is wrong. These returned men should not be subjected to any delay, and I think it is delay rather than anything else.

A word about the placement of these men, which would come under the Minister of Labour. A young man in Regina was let out after a double hernia operation. He went in with category A-l and came out with category E. Yet he was given a heavy job in a warehouse for which he was entirely unsuitecfc I hope to have an opportunity of saying something more about the placement of these men by the selective service branch. What we need are placement officers who really understand human nature.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

The placement of disabled men is entirely our responsibility, and we are having great success

Department of Veterans' Affairs

in that regard. Other cases would come under the Department of Labour, and that department is cooperating most effectively. They are establishing veterans' sections in various offices, and this should meet the point raised by my hon. friend.

Mr. COLD WELL:

The placement officers should be thoroughly trained, something that we have not had in the past. There are so many categories of jobs that this work is entirely different from what it was a few years ago.

Mr. BROOKS:

Section 7, subsection 1, paragraph (e), reads in part as follows:

. . . and in the case of insane persons who are being or have been so cared for under this act, the assumption or authorization of guardianship in whole or in part in respect of such properties or moneys, and for the disposal of such properties or moneys to such persons or their dependents, or as may be deemed expedient or the disposal thereof to the estates of such persons if deceased.

I was wondering whether this would not interfere with the courts of the different provinces. People who are insane and are placed in these institutions usually have parents, brothers or other relatives who could very well act as guardians, just as they would if the man had not been in the army. There is no question that the department should look after these men, but just why it should take on the guardianship of any property I cannot just understand. Perhaps the minister could give us an explanation. It certainly looks like interference with the jurisdiction of the courts and provincial rights.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

Where there is a recognized relative we immediately admit that he is the proper guardian and cooperate in every possible way. We might have to assume guardianship of a citizen from another country, or a veteran without near relatives, who would be placed in such an institution. But of course if there were a relative in Canada we would cooperate in every possible way with that relative.

Mr. BROOKS:

The statement is so general, it looks as though there might be some interference.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

No; it has been there since 1919. *