June 30, 1948

LIB

William Ross Macdonald (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

The CHAIRMAN:

Order. Would it suit the hon. member if the committee gave unanimous consent to allow him to place his statement on Hansard without having the statement read?

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF RECONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLY
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Permalink
SC

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. BLACKMORE:

No, it would not be possible to place it on Hansard; I think I shall have to read it. I can read quite rapidly, though.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF RECONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLY
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Permalink
LIB

William Ross Macdonald (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

The CHAIRMAN:

I thought it might save considerable time if the committee would agree to permit the hon. member to place his statement on Hansard.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF RECONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLY
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Permalink
SC

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. BLACKMORE:

It is quite all right with me if it is on Hansard, but I think hon. members should hear the facts as I read them.

I am, however, in the hands of the committee in that respect. I only want the statement on record, so that the minister may give it consideration.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF RECONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLY
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Permalink
LIB

William Ross Macdonald (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

The CHAIRMAN:

Has the hon. member unanimous consent?

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF RECONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLY
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. KNOWLES:

I am as anxious as anyone else to go home, but I think it would be a bad precedent.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF RECONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLY
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Permalink
SC

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. BLACKMORE:

Then I shall read certain passages. There is a good deal of reading to be done, (but I consider it necessary to have it on record so that the people may appraise the situation. On July 16, 1947, the hon. member for Acadia made a speech, as recorded at page 5764 of Hansard for that year. In that speech these questions were asked:

Did Doctor William Baillie, departmental psychiatric consultant, who has never seen John Thom personally, submit as "evidence" to the

Supply-Veterans Affairs

Canadian pension commission his opinion based solely on a statement alleged by Doctor B. 1<. 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. Iveillor 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?

The hon. member for Swift Current, on the

same day and in the same debate, also had something to say at page 5767 of Hansard. I am inclined to think this would) be a place where, with the permission of the committee, it might be possible to place the hon. member's remarks on Hansard without reading them.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF RECONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLY
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Agreed.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF RECONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLY
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Permalink
SC

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. BLACKMORE:

But I am in tlhe hands of the committee. Perhaps I could give the general purport oif the h'on. member's remarks. He is right here, and will be aible to say whether or not I am right. His statement was to the effect that there were irregularities in regard to psychiatrists who were treating men. In the course of Ihis remarks he conveyed the idea that so many of these unhappy stories had reached members of parliament that he felt it was time a public inquiry was made, as a result of which we would be able to get the truth and form our judgment on the basis of actual proof.

Let me read now the statement by Mr. Mackenzie, then minister of veterans affairs: 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 Inverness-Richmond (Mr. McGarry). They could meet some time between now and the next session and call in whom they Want and submit a first-class report.

Mr. 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-

Mr. 'COTE (Matapedia-Matane): May I ask a question now?

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF RECONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLY
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Permalink
SC

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. BLACKMORE:

Why not allow me to finish reading -from Hansard?

-because we have no doctors-to consider the layman's point of view.

Mr. Mackenzie: Absolutely yes.

Mr. Bentley: If the minister says he will

do that, I have nothing further to add except thank you.

That is interesting, because that is the situation which brought about the appointment of the MoCann commission, which I intend to examine into in some detail. The minister promised, according to page 5769 of Hansard, that he would set up a commission "to submit a first-class report." A charge was made in this house by two responsible members of parliament and by two members of the veterans affairs committee. In my opinion that matter should have 'been investigated for this house, and a report involving the hearings should have been made to this house.

Two specific charges were made. The first was that there had been falsification of records, and the second had to do with the evils of psychiatrists. The MoCann commission was set u.p under P.C. 4980 of 1947 and P.C. 75 of 1948 to conduct an investigation under the Inquiries Act, part I. That is an exceedingly important fact. I\hat does it mean to be appointed a commissioner under part I of the Inquiries Act? Perhaps I should read from the documents under which this commission went to work, as follows: .

Appendix "A"

Report of a commission appointed under the provisions of part I of the Inquiries Act by order in council P.C. 4980 dated December 4, 1947, as amended by order in council P.C. 75, dated January 8-, 1948.

1. The following members of parliament were appointed by order in council P.C. 4980 dated December 4, 1947, and order in council P.C. 75, dated January 8, 1948, as commissioners under part I of the Inquiries Act for the purposes hereinafter set forth:

The Hon.. James J. McCann, M.P., chairman, Ottawa, Ont.

Dr M E. McGarry, M.P., Margaree Forks, N.S.

Dr. W. G. Blair, M.P., Perth, Ont.

J. 0. Probe, Esq., M.P., Regina, Sask.

R. H. Winters, Esq., M.P., Lunenburg, N.S. in the absence of the Hon. James J. McCann, M.P.

F. L. Barrow, Esq., Ottawa, Ont., departmental secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, was secretary of the commission.

2. The purpose of the commission was to investigate complaints made by Walter H. Kirch-ner, Esq.. M.C., D.C.M., secretary, Canadian Combat Veterans Association, Inc., Vancouver, B.C., regarding pension and treatment services and. in particular, to inquire into and report to the Minister of Veterans Affairs on

(i) the adequacy of the treatment provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs with respect to the cases concerning which Mr. Kirchner has made representations;

(ii) the qualifications and competence of departmental doctors treating these cases; and

(iii) the adequacy of pension consideration given to the cases concerning which Mr. Kirchner has made representations.

Supply-Veterans Affairs

. 6. The commission was charged with considering the eases of sixty-two veterans with respect to whom Mr. Kirehner had made representations. Subsequently, in giving his evidence at \ aneouver, Mr. Kirehner presented one additional case in which it was understood that he had become interested only very recently.

Hon. members will find that on page 214 of No. 6 of the minutes of proceedings of evidence of the special committee on veterans affairs 1948. I think the first thing hon. members will -be interested in is that there is not a single word of mention of the falsification of documents or of the work of the psychiatrists.

What does it mean to be appointed as a commissioner under part I of the Inquiries Act? Let me read from that act, which is chapter 99 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, being an act respecting public and departmental inquiries. Part I of the act reads as follows:

1. This act may be cited as the Inquiries Act.

2. The governor in council may, whenever he deems it expedient, cause inquiry to be made into and concerning any matter connected with the good government of Canada or the conduct of any part of the public business thereof.

3. In case such inquiry is not regulated by any special law, the governor in council may, by a commission in the case, appoint persons as commissioners by whom the inquiry shall be conducted.

4. The commissioners shall have the power of summoning before them any witnesses, and of requiring them to give evidence on oath, or on solemn affirmation if they are persons entitled to affirm in civil matters, and orally or in writing, and to produce such documents and things as the commissioners deem requisite to the full investigation of the matters into which they are appointed to examine.

5. The commissioners shall have the same power to enforce the attendance of witnesses and to compel them to give evidence as is vested in any court of record in civil cases.

It is quite clear that the commissioners had all the powers necessary to inquire into any problem whatsoever. It is also quite clear that they were appointed by the governor in council and consequently were called upon to perform an exceedingly solemn task and were charged with an exceedingly solemn responsibility before this house and this country.

I should like to examine into some of the aspects of the proceedings of the McCann commission as recorded in return, reference 159 dated June 24, 1948, mover Mr. Low. I quote: 26th November 1947.

It was agreed that the commission would examine the files of the eases in which Mr. Kirehner had made representations and the other evidence at hand and would recommend to the Minister of Veterans Affairs whether he should sponsor further inquiry, or action.

Let us comment on that remarkable statement, and it is a remarkable statement, which fMr. 11 lack in ore.J

appears in their own words or in the words of the people who prepared this report for presentation to the House of Commons.

At that first meeting several things were agreed to. The commission assumed authority to recommend to the minister whether he should sponsor further inquiry or action. Where did this commission receive instructions, or how did they obtain the discretion to do any such thing? Where does such authority appear in the terms of reference or in the discussion in the House of Commons on July 16, 1947.

Later in the document follow some statements with regard to December 3 and December 4, 1947, which are quite interesting. I quote:

3rd December 1947.

The commission met at 10 a.m. Examination of the files continued.

Mr. K. C. Rappell, departmental solicitor of the legal division. D.V.A., was heard during the afternoon and questioned as to the meaning, in law, of certain of the charges made by Mr. Kirehner in connection with the case of 86084, John Thom.

4th December 1947.

A draft comment on one of Mr. Kirchner's charges, which had been prepared by Mr. Rappell on the instructions of tilie commission, was considered and approved.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF RECONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLY
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Permalink
IND

Antoine-Philéas Côté

Independent Liberal

Mr. COTE (Matapedia-Matane):

May I ask a question?

Mr. BLACIvMORE: Let me finish and then ask your questions.

There is not one word about the charges made by the hon. member for Acadia on July 16, 1947, with regard to the falsification of evidence. The pension commission's legal personnel had accepted as evidence fake evidence in making decisions upon pension claims. Mr. Rappell, departmental solicitor of the legal division, D.V.A., would conceivably be one of the very gentlemen against whom Mr. Kirchner's charges would be levied. The McCann commission had authority to call before it the ablest independent legal talent in Canada or Great Britain to study the evidence, to weigh its import, to give unbiased judicial opinion upon it and upon the decisions based upon it.

The commission could have gone out to the men whose cases were being studied. They could have got all t'he evidence from those servicemen. They could have called all witnesses involved and heard them in detail. They could have called in Mr. Kirohner and had before them all the evidence of every kind suggested by that well-informed gentleman.

Then, having heard all this evidence in support of the prosecution they could have called for an exhaustive presentation of the case for the defence. Then they oould lhave submitted the whole case to one or two judges of the

Supply-Veterans Affairs

supreme court, perhaps having Mr. Kirehner select one and the pension commission, select one. Then they could have questioned the judges on the meaning in law of certain charges. Then the commission could have had the judges write the decision in respect of the charges of falsification of evidence.

But What did the commission do?

They asked the accused to give the meaning of the law under which he was charged. They asked him to appraise the evidence. They asked him to write the decision before any witnesses for the prosecution were heard while the commission was still in Ottawa on December 3 and 4 and 'had heard only one side. In other words, the commission asked the accused to do the job which the commission was asked to do. Then the commission accepted the accused's decision and blessed it with their approval and submitted their report based upon the decision of the accused!

The commission did all their work on the falsification of evidence charge apparently in two days, December 3 and 4. It might be argued that they went out to Vancouver and heard witnesses afterwards, but it is stated specifically in that ipart of the return that the report was prepared by Mr. Rappell on their instructions and presented to them on December 4 and accepted by them.

So that so far as the witnesses and the commission were concerned we must assume that from that time the matter was closed as regards the charge of falsification of records.

I make no claim to being a lawyer at all, but that is how it looks to an ordinary person on the street.

Here are some other aspects of this McCann commission having to do with the conduct of its affairs. First, Walter Kirehner was recognized as the advocate of the veterans. I draw attention of members of the house to two or three jiress reports. In one of these reports we find these words:

The commission reviewed sixty-three cases-[DOT]

This is in a press release from the commission apparently:

all of which were represented by Kirehner and heard testimony from twenty-four witnesses here and in Ottawa.

This appeared in the Vancouver News-Herald. They, at least, tried to convey the idea that Mr. Kirehner was the advocate, and certainly he should have been the advocate, because he was the man who made the charges.

What actually did occur? According to my information the commission called before it by subpoena certain of Kirchner's key witnesses without Kirehner being present-J. S.

5849-397i

Beltz, H-6417, a Hong Kong prisoner of war, lceyman for the Hong Kong men; Sholto D. McClellan, #77732, another key witness.

On January 16, 1948, Doctor Lynn Gunn, Superintendent of Shaughnessy Hospital interfered with Ernest J. Maxwell, R-51164 by telling him that this commission did not require his evidence and that he could return to hospital, after, I presume, he had been subpoenaed, although we are not sure about that. Is not this a most remarkable method of proceeding with a hearing?

On January 16, 1948, John V. Thom, M.M., gave detailed supporting evidence to show that the Canadian pension commission had falsified his records, and Albert B. W. Crowhurst, No. 954-38, gave similar evidence, and Arthur Perfitt.

Following the release of the commission's findings these witnesses wrote to the press protesting against the unscrupulous action of the McCann commission in omitting any reference to their evidence supporting the charges that they had been defrauded of pension rights by unlawful practices. May I read some of the letters from these men who were examined by this remarkable commission we sent out. The first appears in the Vancouver Daily Province and reads:

Sir:

Re the Shaughnessy hospital inquiry. The government has once again wasted the country's money and the time of busy men if the commission mentioned was sent out to investigate charges against the hospital management and doctors.

These are not the evils charged. The government has just sidetracked the original charges which are against the pension commission doctors and have nothing to do with the hospital staff doctors.

The pension doctors have wilfully omitted certain items from a soldier's medical history which would have given him a pension and have inserted false statements to prevent a pension.

I feel sure you will search out and reveal the truth as shortly it will be revealed and with this first-hand information.

A Witness.

North Vancouver.

(Note: Regarding charges of "deliberate

falsification of reports," etc., the commission made a conclusive finding that "in none of the cases examined does the record substantiate these charges or even suggest that a basis for the charges exists or that the case was carelessly handled."-Editor).

Here is another letter to the Vancouver Daily Province of April 8, 1948, written by the same man:

Sir:

With reference to the note added by you to the end of my letter signed "A Witness," stating the commission investigating Walter Kirchner's charges has repor ed that certain charges were not substantiate 1, I would like

Supply-Veterans Affairs

to state that the commission admitted that evidence in my case was lacking, or omitted, from 1918 to 1928, and that was the reason I was not pensionable.

I replied that if they searched the hospital records they would find I had been treated for those complaints, but the board doctors had left it out in their reports. Now, if something is left out that would have given me a pension, is it not falsifying the records? If it is, then can you tell me why the commission states that the charges are not true?

I also submitted irrefutable documentary proofs of something omitted.

Vancouver.

A Witness.

How does that sound, following this commission? I will read another one in the Vancouver Daily Province of April 13, 1948:

Thanks Hospital Staff

Sir: I am one of the witnesses who protested against the practices of the Canadian Pension Commission doctors omitting items from my medical history and substituting statements which deprived me of pension for totally-disabling injuries received in the services, and substantiated by two of the leading orthopaedic surgeons of this province, who are also D.V.A. consultants in this specialized sphere.

I wish to add my testimony before the recent Royal Commission which was given from a hospital stretcher under great difficulties, as my spine has been twice "cracked" in a successful major operation to straighten out my back, doubled over for many years past.

May I publicly repeat my thanks to the wonderful treatment services of the Shaugh-nessy Hospital both physicians and nurses, which I recorded in my evidence, and which was also emphasized by Walter H. Kirchner, M.C., D.C.M., in his evidence before the Royal Commission on my behalf.

Albert B. W. Crowhurst.

Sliaughnessy Hospital.

The point is that the press reports have been so worded

I have them here, but shall not take time to read them-as to convey to the people the idea that Walter Kirch net's charges were against the medical personnel of Shaughnessy hospital, which was as far from the truth as possible, as will appear from what I have said.

Albert Crowhurst points this out. Here is another letter dated April 1, 1948:

The charges of Walter H. Kirchner, M.C., D.C.M., of the Combat Veterans against the D.V.A. administration concern the unlawful practices of the Canadian Pension Commission, and not the treatment services of the Shaughnessy hospital, the latter being over-emphasized in the press reports of March 20, 1948, to the exclusion of the former.

I was one of the witnesses before the Royal Commission on inquiry here and gave evidence proving my war disability rights had been outlawed by a false report inserted into the records by the pension medical examiner. In consequence, the expert medical evidence of three top ranking specialists unlawfully was

ruled out by the Canadian Pension Commission. The House of Commons is now in a position to take action against the Canadian Pension Commission in the interests of all disabled veterans affected by these most unlawful practices.

J. V. Thom, M.M.

These are letters from some of the men. I ask hon. members whether in the light of such letters and other considerations as these, we can pass this whole matter easily by.

Here is another remarkable aspect of this McCann commission's behaviour: Apparently most of the evidence, if recorded at all, was recorded upon phonographic records. That evidence has never been transcribed. As I pointed out, the charge was made in public in this House of Commons by two responsible members, the hon. member for Acadia and the hon. member for Swift Current.

Right Hon. Ian Mackenzie's words, although they were somewhat vague and were not fully specific, would certainly convey the idea that there was to be a public inquiry which would provide evidence which every hon. member and the people of the country could1 have in their hands and consider, not a study conducted in a secret way with all the evidence recorded on records to which almost no one could gain access? How in the world could you have any kind of intelligible result from a commission conducted in that way? The evidence has been kept on the records in the possession of the McCann commission as its own personal property! Certainly that is not what the hon. member for Swift Current and the hon. member for Acadia asked for. One would1 have expected that the evidence would be given before a public inquiry and would belong to the public. I cannot escape the conviction that that is exactly what it should have been.

Again, we are told that none of the witnesses was sworn. We have the minister's own words for that, on June 14 in a statement in which he endeavoured to have the hon. member for Peace River withdraw his request for a copy of the evidence and proceedings of the McCann commission, appointed under the authority of P.C. 4980, made this statement at page 5151 of Hansard:

The witnesses were not sworn, and as a result they gave evidence over and above that which would have been required had they been informed that they were proceeding on a formal basis under oath. Some of the discussions at Vancouver were recorded on sound recording discs in order to assist the commissioner in writing his report on that phase of the hearing.

I must confess that as an ordinary man on the street that sort of thing is completely incomprehensible to me as being the record

Supply-Veterans Affairs

of a public inquiry into two of the most important charges that have been made since I have been in the house.

I have been told, however, that the veterans claiming injustices were sworn. I am not sure whether it is true. Men who say they are in a position to know say they were. Again I will not give the names because I am not willing to make that charge particularly specific. I have been told that the veterans who were claiming injustices were sworn while the departmental witnesses who were in a way speaking for the defence were not sworn. I submit that lion,, members and the people of the country must agree that that gives room for the widest kind of misrepresentation possible.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF RECONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLY
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

Carried.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF RECONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLY
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Permalink
SC

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. BLACKMORE:

I know some would like to have it carried, but I have a few other things to say. A commission consisting mainly of doctors would not be in a position to understand the conduct of a legal investigation into a legal matter. Yet this commission consisting mainly of doctors retained no counsel to guide them! How in the world a group of five men could have considered themselves competent to inquire into so vexatious and so widely ramified a problem as that without a counsel to guide them, I cannot understand. Under the terms of their reference, and under the Public Inquiries Act, under which they were appointed, they had full power to select the finest legal counsel who could! be found in Canada and have him to guide them into the whole of their investigation; but apparently they considered themselves quite capable of doing this thing-a most astonishing situation!

Having laid before the house and the country the kind of thing that has apparently been attempted here, I shall not undertake to say what must have been the motive behind the men who set up that commission or planned it. I would not dare to suggest it, even. I would not suggest that the object of the whole thing was to discredit Mr. Kinchner. I would not like to suggest that the object of the whole thing was to whitewash the grievances of those unfortunate veterans, sixty-two of them, so that they would never again have any chance, even to be heard. I would not like to suggest that the object was to deceive parliament, although I must say that the kind of press reports that went out at the time the commission was first appointed to commence its hearings until the last, was certainly of the kind that would deceive the public, because the emphasis in all the press reports is placed on the question of whether or not there was anything wrong with the medical personnel in Shaughnessy hospital, a matter which had

never even been suggested by Mr. Kirchner, or by anybody else, so far as I know. The commission makes such a statement as this, for example. This was published in the veterans affairs publication in May, 1948, which all hon. members received:

McCann commission report that hospital facilities are satisfactory.

This appears under the signature of A. T. Paton, regional public relations officer, and reads as follows:

Medical and surgical treatment and the results obtained in Shaughnessy hospital are quite satisfactory and of a high calibre-as high as in any hospital in Canada. The percentage of successful operations performed there is, in our opinion, well in line with that obtained anywhere in the profession.

It was never even suggested that anything but such was true. Why should a headline in the veterans affairs paper indicate that the charge had been that there was anything wrong with the doctors in Shaughnessy hospital? Further down we have these words:

Their report stated, "The commission is satisfied with, and finds no basis for complaint concerning the organization, operation and facilities of Shaughnessy or the qualifications of departmental doctors. On the whole, the commission is fully satisfied with the high degree of competence of all departmental doctors."

If you were looking at these headlines, Mr. Chairman, you would find that because these later words are set out in black type this passage is the chief thing which the people were supposed to read.

I have produced sufficient evidence at this late hour of the session to give hon. members something to think about quite earnestly before we get back next year.

As a result of What I have feared from considering this whole affair, this McCann commission, has come as almost the crowning piece of evidence of evil in the whole Canadian pension set-up. I am not criticizing any one of the people in the pension commission, but something is entirely wrong, and this McCann commission is the strongest possible evidence that this house and this country can have, to prove that something is terribly wrong.

Considering all these facts, Mr. Chairman, I say the minister should take steps immediately to set up suich an organization as will enable the people of this country to satisfy themselves that the unfortunate veterans who happen to fall between stools, as these lads like Thom and Crowhurst and Harvey, shall have the right to ibe heard before some tribunal that shall be unbiased either politically or in any other way. How can our men have any confidence at all when they have to be tried before a tribunal with such a record as has been

Ways and Means

indicated, and When they feel that they have to appear before an appeal board which is selected from the very men who ruled on their [DOT]cases in the first place? Where is the possibility of justice? I suggest to the minister that something must be done. I will not undertake to suggest what it ought to be, but something certainly must be done to gave our men something like a fair chance.

One more thing I should like to say, and it comes as a result of what I have read before, regarding Harvey and some of these boys. Apparently there is a demand on the part of somebody in the Canadian pension commission which has caused the doctors all down through the organization to threaten men who have been veterans, and who find themselves in such circumstances as have been described, with punishment if they write to their member of parliament. Have we got to the point where it must be conceded that in this country, when a man dons the king's uniform and risks his life for the welfare of the state, he thereby forfeits his title to his citizen's rights, that he no longer has the right to communicate with .his member of parliament, that he is in effect disfranchised, as it were? And must he be looked upon as an offender if he writes to his [DOT] member of parliament, and from that time forward be subject to all sorts of petty mean-mess and discrimination, even to the extent perhaps of being locked in a padded cell incommunicado? Have we got to that point? Some hon. members laugh. Well, the members who laugh would be simply appalled if I were to give evidence of a man who spoke to me three days ago, whose word would never be questioned, and who told me exactly what had been threatened him because he had asked for the milk which his doctor had prescribed in the hospital in which he was taken care of. That sort of thing must cease to be.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF RECONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLY
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Permalink

Item agreed to. Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.


WAYS AND MEANS


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means. Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.


LIB

Douglas Charles Abbott (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. ABBOTT moved:

That towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending

March 31, 1949, the sums of $781,658,186.63, $197,067,426.89 and $10,100,00-0, respectively, be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Permalink

Motion agreed to. Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 399, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1949. Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair. Section 1 agreed to. On section 2.


June 30, 1948