Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):

I have not seen the newspaper in question, but I am aware of the situation. I am a little surprised that the hon. member should refer to the Buy-American Act as an obscure piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation about which we know a great deal. All I can say is that representations are being made in so far as the act applies to military purchases.

Mr. L. E. Roberge (Slanslead):

I should like to rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, to point out to hon. members that longevity still prevails in Canada, especially in the county of Stanstead, which I have the honour to represent. This very day Mrs. Alma Gardyne is celebrating her hundredth birthday anniversary, and on your behalf, Mr. Speaker, and on behalf of all hon. members, I extend to her best wishes for happiness and good health. She is now vacationing at Eagle Point. In the little town of Beebe, Quebec, Mrs. Gardyne has a cousin, Mrs. Emma Moir, who is 105 years old and still in good health. I suggest that hon. members who would like to live to a good old age should move to Stanstead county. To both these ladies we send our very best wishes and say ad multos annos.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.

Mr. Pearkes:

Would the minister care to make a statement?

Mr. Gregg:

I had rather intended to reserve any general statement with respect to the work of the department until a little later in the estimates, if that would meet the wish of the committee. If hon. members desire to discuss matters of a general nature before touching upon particular matters, I suggest that it might be done under the item which has just been called.

Mr. Pearkes:

I should like to discuss a few matters of general interest concerning veterans affairs and the administration of this department.

Successive governments during the last thirty years have been advised in the administration of veterans affairs by special and select committees that have been set up in order that the veterans legislation might be worked out to the best advantage not only of the country as a whole but also of the ex-servicemen and women. There was very little to go upon when the first veterans affairs committee was established in 1916, but almost every year since then the committee has been gaining experience and we believe has been of more and more assistance to the different governments. In the final report of the committee which sat a year ago it was suggested that there should be a standing committee on veterans affairs, and the same recommendation had been made by organized bodies of veterans. I feel I can say that these committees have been of great help to the various governments; and I would quote the words of a former minister of veterans affairs, the late Senator Ian Mackenzie, who in his foreword to the volume known as the veterans charter, makes this comment:

In my parliamentary career of more than quarter of a century, I have never seen a committee work harder and with more effect than the 1946 House of Commons committee on veterans affairs. To its members-veterans all-must go the broad measure of credit for shaping the final legislative form of the most ambitious program of rehabilitation ever undertaken, in this or any other country.

602 HOUSE OF

Supply-Veterans Affairs

Those are words of high praise. It was my great privilege to serve on that committee; and while I am not capable of embroidering the words here used by the late minister, I would say that I do consider it a privilege to have served on that committee, which was composed of members from all sides of this house who forgot their party affiliations and made a firm and determined effort to draw up legislation which would be of benefit to Canada and her exservicemen.

Not only do I believe that such committees have been of assistance to the government; they were also of great assistance to the organized bodies of veterans throughout the land. Representatives of those organizations were permitted to appear before the committee and give evidence in the presence of the officials of the department, placing before the committee the problems confronting them and recommending the steps they felt should be taken in order to improve the conditions of veterans as a whole or of some particular group. One might almost say that the committee provided a safety-valve for the veterans organizations. Those groups of men across Canada knew they could appear before that committee and, to use a common expression, let off steam. The committee would then consider the recommendations that had been made, and make its own recommendations to the government. Naturally the government would not always adopt those recommendations, but we had the feeling that they were receiving the earnest consideration of the government.

In the final paragraph of the foreword by the late Senator Mackenzie these words are used:

Not for ten, perhaps twenty, years will it be known how much ex-servicemen and women have been able to contribute to a Canada at peace as a result of' these re-establishment measures. When that accounting is made, I know the program laid down in the Veterans Charter . . . will appear in true perspective as a social investment of unmatched success.

These words indicate, I suggest, that the work of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the work of future governments in behalf of the veterans will not have been completed for many years to come, and I should like to feel that full advantage will be taken of that social investment to which the late Senator Mackenzie referred.

The problems of our veterans are still unfinished business. That is so because the national economy of the country is continually changing, and those changes affect the veterans of this land. In addition, advances are being made in medical science, and every bit of new information gained by the medical service is of definite value to the thousands of

veterans still suffering from disabilities following the first and second world wars. Changes in provincial legislation also affect veterans legislation. In some provinces there are hospital insurance schemes which have a distinct bearing upon veterans legislation. Then there is the advancing age of the veterans to be considered. Year by year more old warriors go to their well-earned rest. As the remaining veterans advance in years they find it more difficult to support their families and to maintain life generally. It was therefore with considerable regret that during the last session we noticed that no committee on veterans affairs was set up and, so far as one hears, it is not the intention of the government during this session to assemble such a committee.

I feel that the government is depriving the veterans of this country of an opportunity of presenting their problems to the members of this house. I believe, too, that the government is depriving itself of the advantages which would result from such a committee, in the preparation of legislation and the administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Such a committee would aid in the preparation of estimates, and perhaps enable the minister to make a more equitable distribution of the available funds.

There are particular reasons, I believe, why a veterans affairs committee should be set up now. Within the past year a new province has been brought into the household of Canada. The veterans of Newfoundland have gained immeasurably by having the provisions of Canadian veterans legislation applied to them. Many of these Newfoundland veterans served under conditions which were slightly different from those under which Canadian veterans served. Some of them served in forces other than the forces of Newfoundland or Canada. Many minor adjustments have to be made to our veterans legislation to enable the veterans of Newfoundland to reap the full benefits of the legislation developed in Canada over the years.

Then there is the question of the Veterans Land Act. It is obvious from the speech from the throne that a bill is to be introduced during this session containing certain amendments to this act. Those amendments may be intended to regularize certain practices which are now carried on, but no opportunity is being given for a committee of veterans to examine that bill before it is introduced in this house. As one moves across this country and meets with veterans organizations, one gathers that definite amendments are required to the small-holdings sections in the Veterans Land Act. I am not sure that those regulations have worked out to the

benefit of the veteran in a number of cases. It has been said that new housing regulations are to be adopted. The necessity of providing homes for the people of Canada has made it necessary for the government to introduce a bill in the name of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters). To what extent will the veteran benefit from that legislation?

It is the feeling of many people that the amount of land a veteran is required to take up under the Veterans Land Act, namely, some three acres, is too much. It does not meet the requirements of the veteran who has a permanent job and has taken a small holding in order to augment his income. No man can make a living off three acres of land, nor can he maintain that amount of land in good shape after completing a day's work in a factory or office. It is not surprising, therefore, to see a large portion of these small holdings covered with noxious weeds, such as the Canadian thistle. I believe steps should be taken to ascertain whether it would not be an advantage to the veteran to have that requirement reduced. Such an investigation might well have been carried out before a veterans affairs committee.

There is still uncertainty, or shall I say disapproval, amongst certain classes in connection with the war veterans allowance. There seems to be a general demand in this country that the war veterans allowance be brought more in line with the old age pension scheme. The means test as applied to war veterans allowance, if it cannot be removed, should at least be made more elastic. Since these war veterans are growing older, there is a feeling that the War Veterans Allowance Act should be extended to meet certain other classes of veterans. There are Canadians who served in the United Kingdom during world war I and who did not get an opportunity of serving in an actual theatre of war. As we all know, during world war II the United Kingdom was declared a theatre of war, but the provisions of that act do not apply to veterans of the Canadian expeditionary force, who, through no fault of their own, were retained in the United Kingdom.

There are many other veterans who did not serve with the Canadian forces but did serve with other commonwealth forces, and who have for many years been residents of Canada. They have raised their families to become good Canadians, just as the veterans themselves have now become good Canadians. There is a general feeling among organized bodies of veterans that the provisions of this War Veterans Allowance Act should be extended to their comrades who served in commonwealth forces other than the Canadian forces. The plight of some of these men

Supply-Veterans Affairs who draw disability pensions from the British ministry of pensions is serious. The British pension scheme is not nearly as generous as the Canadian scheme. A one hundred per cent pensioner, or a widow drawing a pension from the British ministry of pensions, receives somewhere in the neighbourhood of $7 a week. It is hard for those men or women to maintain themselves in Canada on the standard that we should like to see our Canadian veterans maintain. I know that the British government considers that it has fulfilled its obligation when it pays these ex-servicemen in sterling. I realize that there is no legal obligation upon the Canadian government to pay veterans who served in other forces than the Canadian forces if they did not have Canadian domicile at the time they enlisted. But in view of long residence in Canada, and in view of the fact that they fought alongside our Canadian troops, it would be a generous action-one which I think this government could well afford, and one which would be applauded by the veterans organizations from one end of Canada to the other-if the government could see its way clear to extend the provisions of this act to include veterans who have lived in Canada for a long time and who served with other forces.

There are also problems in connection with the civil service preference. Recently certain regulations have been passed with regard to the training allowances under the Veterans Rehabilitation Act. These are amendments which were made by order in council dated as recently as September 28 of this year. There has been no opportunity for any committee on veterans affairs to consider any of these matters, and numerous others which from time to time arise and which affect the veterans of this land.

For these reasons, and for others which will arise, I believe that we are warranted in asking the government if they will meet the recommendations of the last committee on veterans affairs, of the Canadian Legion and of other organized bodies of veterans, by establishing a standing committee on veterans affairs.

Mr. Gillis:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) has said some things that needed to be said in this committee. I do not think there is any more important matter that could come before this committee than that of reconstituting that veterans affairs committee. We have standing committees of the house on industrial relations, on fisheries, on railways and on many other matters, but a veterans affairs committee deals with human problems, and they are problems that are changing from day to day.

Supply-Veterans Affairs

1 had the privilege of serving on a veterans affairs committee for approximately eight years. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Nanaimo, the veterans affairs committee did an excellent job for the government. The committee consisted of veterans of both wars. When the committee met, they did not discuss the business of the committee from a partisan standpoint. Everyone was interested in doing the best job he could for the veterans of both wars, with particular emphasis on the veterans of the last war. I found the members of that committee to be non-political and impartial. I am reasonably sure that most of the legislation that was enacted by the government was largely influenced by that committee, and the government received the credit for putting it through. That is all right. We are not particular who gets the credit, as long as we get something done. Ever since the committee was discontinued, an urgent demand has been made from all sides of this house for its reconstitution. I think it should be set up again at this session, and that it should be made a standing committee. I believe such a committee would be a great advantage to the government.

I am not being critical of the administration, because I realize that the Minister of Veterans Affairs is an old soldier. I know him well; I know that he is sympathetic. But I also know that he is just a human being and cannot be expected to keep his fingers on all the ramifications of the department. Neither can his deputy nor the members of the pension commission be expected to do that. What I shall be saying for the next few minutes is not by way of criticism of the administration, but is more in the way of thought-provoking comment. One reason why I think the veterans affairs committee should be set up again is that it would be a brake on regulations which are written around the basic legislation and which at times in effect completely change the meaning behind the act when it was passed. I am just going to give a few examples.

The hon. member for Nanaimo mentioned the small-holdings section of the Veterans Land Act. I remember what happened in the veterans affairs committee when that Veterans Land Act was under discussion. For weeks and weeks we sat in committee, and we hammered out what I thought was fairly good legislation. It was passed unanimously by the committee. Then it came before the house and was passed unanimously. Everybody thought we had done an

TMr. Gillis.]

excellent job. Certainly a great deal of work was done on it.

In my opinion the best section of the act was the small-holdings section. What happened with regard to that? Under the act that was passed by the veterans affairs committee and in the house an ex-serviceman could make application under the small-holdings section, and if he could secure a half acre of land in any part of Canada he qualified for the benefits of that section and could establish a home for himself. But a few weeks after the house adjourned, the act was changed by order in council and the land requirements of the small-holdings section were stepped up to three acres.

If hon. members will make an examination of the land that is available in Canada, they will find that it is impossible to obtain that kind of land in or around any town or city, or any community of over 1,500 in population. If it is there, you cannot buy it; it is too expensive. But in most cases it is not there at all. The order in council changed completely what the veterans affairs committee had in mind and what this house adopted. As a result, thousands of service personnel across this country lost the opportunity of securing a home. While housing is perhaps one of the main problems in Canada today, I do not think any section of our population is affected to a greater extent than are the service personnel. You meet thousands of them across the country. I object strenuously-and I think every hon. member should-to any board, commission or cabinet, without reference to the House of Commons, changing a statute that was passed by parliament. If the veterans affairs committee were sitting continuously during the session and handling the affairs of service personnel, which are changing from time to time, it would be a brake on that kind of thing.

Let me give another example. I hold in my hand a letter which indicates that regulations passed by somebody take the pension completely away from a serviceman while he is in hospital. It does a lot of other things as well; it does the kind of thing a committee would prevent. The minister has this letter on his desk, and I know he will do what he can to correct this injustice. I shall read a few extracts from this letter. It is an official letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs, Camp Hill hospital, Halifax, and is dated September 3, 1949. The man concerned was receiving a disability pension of $94 a month. He is an old gentleman, a veteran of the first war. The letter reads as follows:

This is to inform you that form 529, recently completed by you in connection with the amendment to class No. 6 regulations which became effective

August 1 of this year, has now been reviewed by our Ottawa office, and we have been instructed to advise that your monthly pension will be allocated

as from August 1, as follows:

Total pension received $94.00

Set aside 10 per cent (until credit of $250 is built up) 9.40

Less comforts and clothing 13.00

To be applied towards maintenance

Therefore his pension is completely gone, and he is a pauper; he has nothing. But this is not the worst feature of it. The letter goes on to say:

In addition to the foregoing, in accordance with the terms of the amendment referred to, it will be necessary for you to hand over to the department for safekeeping the funds contained in your savings bank account in the Bank of Nova Scotia, New Waterford, which you state are slightly over $550.

Mr. Stewart (Yorkton):

May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Has he taken up with the minister the subject matter of that letter?

Mr. Gillis:

Yes.

Mr. Stewart (Yorkton):

Has he obtained a statement of the facts of the case?

Mr. Gillis:

Just a minute. I have taken this letter up with the minister. The minister has had it in his hands since September 21. This is October 7. He is checking it. As I said at the beginning, I am confident that the minister-and I have known him for a long time-so far as he is able to do so, will correct any injustice to service personnel; but this regulation cannot be changed by the minister himself. Probably it has to be changed by the treasury board. Nobody knows who comprise the treasury board. They say what is to be spent and what is not to be spent, and these regulations come from that board. That is why I said I was not being critical of the administration. I have done a lot of business with them over the years. I have confidence in their honesty and ability, but I am doubtful of the people who are writing regulations that change basic legislation passed by this house.

I will await the minister's -answer to this. I am raising this question deliberately, in order to get those who are behind the scenes, and who have usurped the powers of the House of Commons by changing legislation passed here, to think about it. That kind of thing was all right during the war, in an emergency, when you had to do things fast, but an emergency does not exist today. Veterans problems are definitely fixed now. We have accepted them, and we have them on our hands. The members of this group are prepared to sit on a committee of this house to do what we can to help the adminis-

Supply-Veterans Affairs tration pass legislation which is fair and adequate, and in keeping with the service rendered by the service personnel of this country.

There is also the matter of the difference between the War Veterans Allowance Act as applied to personnel of the second world war and the War Veterans Allowance Act as applied to the personnel of the first world war. This matter was mentioned by the hon. member for Nanaimo. I am not going to repeat his argument. In the second world war England was a theatre of war. I am now thinking in terms of the widow section of the War Veterans Allowance Act. A widow of a veteran of the second world war who saw service only in England can qualify for a pension under a provision of the War Veterans Allowance Act, but a widow of a veteran of the first world war who saw service only in England cannot so qualify. This should be corrected. The widow of a veteran of the first world war has reached the age where she no longer has earning power. She is in the age group of from fifty-five to sixty-five. You have to be old to get the old age pension; she is too young for that. She has no earning power. The members of her family have grown up and have their own responsibilities and obligations. There are thousands of them across the country. They have no income, and they will come to you and tell you that they have no home. We should amend that section of the act, because if one widow is entitled to it on the basis of service in England, then we should have amended the act properly when it was amended and included the veterans of both wars. It is a great injustice to see an old lady in these circumstances. Because her husband unfortunately did not get over to France in the first world war, she is discriminated against, but the pension is being paid to a widow thirty-five or forty years younger who still has earning power if she wants to use it. If anything, the situation should be reversed, but definitely the discrimination should be removed; widows of both wars should be treated equally. This is another matter the veterans affairs committee should study thoroughly.

I should like to refer to another subject. It has been unfinished business for a long time. I have taken it up on many occasions in the house and in the veterans affairs committee. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra will recall it. I refer to divorce as applied to the soldier. I have taken cases up with the commission. I have talked it over with the chairman of the commission. I have discussed it in the house with the Minister of Justice. This is the way it works.

Supply-Veterans Affairs During the first world war the wife of a soldier went to the United States and divorced him while he was overseas. He came back to Canada. Not being a lawyer, he went out and found himself a wife. He applied to the proper person for a marriage licence, went before a clergyman and was married. He was in receipt of a disability pension. He applied to the commission for the dependent's pension for his wife. He was informed that he was not legally married; that the United States divorce did not apply in Canada, therefore his wife could not receive her portion of the pension. I raised this question in the house in 1940. At that time the minister of justice told me that in order to do anything about the matter it would be necessary to change the Canadian divorce laws. I do not think it is necessary to change the Canadian divorce laws, but if it is necessary, they should be changed. At the time I asked the minister of justice this question: If the man was not divorced, why was he not arrested and charged with bigamy? Why was he issued a legal document and permitted to go through a church marriage? That should be corrected. It was not corrected. The war was on, and in the aftermath of the war there were many other problems. But the question was referred to the veterans affairs committee for special study, and a report was to be made with respect to it.

I have run into two or three other similar cases. For instance, a Canadian boy married an English girl in Canada. She goes back to the old country and gets a divorce. He is stuck here in Canada and cannot do anything about remarriage. I am not suggesting a remedy. I do suggest, however, that the committee on veterans affairs should be reconstituted. The section of that committee which was giving special study to these matters included some good lawyers. They should be put to work again, and a report of some kind should be made to the house.

I have in mind another problem. A boy joined the air force early in the war, went through all the training, and qualified as a pilot. He was posted to one of the civilian flying schools as an instructor-pilot. My information is that he did not ask for that posting, he was sent there. While on a joyride one night he fell off a hay wagon and his skull was fractured. He is home, and in bad condition. He was refused a pension on the ground that he was employed by a civilian section of the service, and was told that he should make application elsewhere for compensation. Surely this is an obligation of the government. By virtue of the fact that he enlisted, took the training and qualified in the regular service, I suggest

IMx. Gillis.]

that there is an obligation resting on the government, and that he is entitled to compensation. In the services one goes where he is sent and asks no questions.

This boy is suffering from a fractured skull. The matter was taken up with the commission, and an adverse ruling was given. Perhaps these are small irritations, but they could be removed. None of them is very difficult; they just require the application of common sense. But we cannot get down to details and work out legislation unless we have men sitting in and giving the matter special attention. If the fisheries committee want to change a label on a salmon can, they meet, work on a bill, perhaps for hours, and approve it. I cannot understand why the government should be averse to reconstituting the committee. I worked with the minister more than twenty years ago in connection with veterans problems. He knows the problems, and I would like to continue to help him by bringing these small irritations to his attention so that he may proceed to remove them and those who were promised everything when the war was on and were hailed as heroes may get a square deal. The amount of money involved would be small.

I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members who may serve on the committee-and I say that because I am reasonably sure it will be set up; there are enough veterans in the house to see that it is set up- the fact that one reason for our having so many veterans problems in all parts of the country is that we have no proper social security measures. A large number of the problems which are dumped into the Department of Veterans Affairs really belong to some other organization, and have to be financed in some other way. But until we have a proper over-all social security set-up in this country, which will provide industrial pensions on a contributory basis, and adequate old age pensions, we shall have to take other action. The problems of first world war widows are not war problems. These widows should be given enough to enable them to live in comfort without having to present themselves as special problems connected with veterans affairs.

Until we have proper social legislation we shall have to continue to pass these matters over to the only department of government which has within its control legislation to ease the burden of these people in their old age. I plead once again with the minister that he set up a committee as soon as he can, so that we may get to work.

Mr. Quelch:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to join with the two hon. members who have preceded me in urging that the committee on veterans affairs be made a standing com-

mittee. Under rapidly changing conditions it becomes important that we have a review from year to year of the various acts affecting veterans, to find out whether or not they are adequate to deal with the problems involved. We might also make a careful check on the administration of those acts.

Whether or not the government would care to make the veterans committee a standing committee of the house, I urge that a committee be set up at this session, because there is a good deal of unfinished business which should be dealt with as soon as possible.

I should like to make a brief review of some of the recommendations of former committees on veterans affairs.

The chairman of the committee which sat last will recall that when the pensions bill was reported to the house I congratulated him upon the manner in which the affairs of that committee had been conducted. Throughout its sittings a splendid spirit was shown. I complimented him on the fact that at no time during the deliberations of the committee was any attempt made to plug a vote by bringing to the committee Liberal members who had not taken an active part in its proceedings, merely for the purpose of defeating in a vote those members who had attended regularly and listened to all the evidence. While that condition was not so evident in 1946, I believe it is only fair to say that it is what happened in 1948. Indeed at times I believe the results were somewhat embarrassing to the government.

The final report of the committee which sat in 1948 was a good one, although it did not always go as far as some of us would have liked it to go. We were hoping the government would give sympathetic and careful consideration to that report-and I do not for a moment doubt that the government believed that they did that very thing. Unfortunately, however, they were not willing, apparently, to adopt many of the recommendations the committee had made.

I should like to deal briefly with some of those recommendations. Going back to the committee which sat in 1946, we find that it made certain recommendations concerning the corps of Canadian firefighters, the Canadian Red Cross Society, and ferry command. May I read from the report in this connection:

That the government consider the advisability of introducing a bill providing that:

1. The supervisors of the auxiliary service and fire fighters of the corps of Canadian fire fighters dispatched overseas, and members of the Canadian Red Cross Society and St. John Ambulance brigade who served in an actual theatre of war, be accorded all benefits, pensions, rehabilitation rights and income tax exemptions as members of the armed forces.

Supply-Veterans Affairs

As former members of the special committee will recall, the government refused to implement this recommendation. When the committee was set up in 1948 we listened to briefs submitted by these three organizations, and became convinced of the soundness of the stand we had taken in 1946. Therefore we again brought down recommendations urging similar action. Again the government did not see fit to take action.

I believe the committee was insistent that the Canadian firefighters should be treated in the same way as members of the armed services, because at the time of their enlistment they were assured by the then deputy minister of defence, General LaFleche, that they would be considered a fourth arm of the services and receive the same treatment. In 1946, therefore, we voted to give them the same benefits as members of the armed services, and we voted the same way in 1948.

As to the Canadian Red Cross girls, I think there has been a good deal of misunderstanding about the type of service they performed and the pay they received. In order to clarify this point I should like to read briefly from the final report of the veterans affairs committee of 1948. The part dealing with these girls reads as follows:

The young women who left Canada under the auspices of these two organizations-

I am referring to former members of the Canadian Red Cross Society and the St. John Ambulance brigade.

-served with the armed forces in Great Britain, on the continent of Europe and in other theatres of actual war. They acted as nursing assistants, ambulance drivers, etc., were attached to military units under the discipline of the officers commanding, and shared hardship and danger with the members of the forces without sharing their privileges or receiving sufficient remuneration to meet the minimum costs of maintenance: they were all volunteers and many were overseas long before the women's corps of the armed forces were organized in Canada. Your committee recommends:

That overseas welfare workers, as defined in paragraph (a) of section 53 of the Civilian War Pensions Act, be granted

(a) if pensionable, eligibility for vocational training as provided for veterans, or equivalent educational training; and

(b) a gratuity of fifteen dollars for every thirty days of service in an actual theatre of war.

The veterans affairs committee gave the matter careful consideration and arrived at that decision after hearing all the evidence. But apparently the government has not seen fit to implement this recommendation.

Then there is the ferry command. The 1948 report of the veterans affairs committee recommended that they should be given the following benefits: (a) vocational and educational training as for veterans; (b) benefits under the Veterans Land Act, 1942; (c) a gratuity on the same basis as awarded to

Supply-Veterans Affairs the armed forces; (d) re-establishment credits as for veterans; (e) eligibility for insurance under the Veterans Insurance Act.

So far as I know the government has not taken any action to implement these recommendations. The matters they deal with should be reviewed by the veterans affairs committee. It may be argued: Why do this, when the veterans affairs committee has already, on two different occasions, made recommendations covering these people, and the government has failed to act? Nevertheless it is very important that the veterans who were on the veterans affairs committee, if they are still satisfied that action should be taken, should do all in their power to impress upon the government the fact that we have not fulfilled our obligation to these people. As to the firefighters, the definite promise made to them by the deputy minister upon their enlistment should be upheld.

I want to say a few words about the old soldier settlers. As the older members of the house know, the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) has always taken much interest in this matter. I am an old soldier settler myself, but I am not referring to myself because I do not owe the government any money. I think we all realize that the soldier settler had a pretty tough proposition under the old Soldier Settlement Act. The act did not go nearly as far as the Veterans Land Act, and even under the Veterans Land Act many of our young veterans are having plenty of difficulty in meeting their obligations.

In 1948 the veterans affairs committee recommended that the old soldier settlers be given a clear title. Apparently the government have decided not to take action on that recommendation, but I frankly admit that they have at least gone part of the way in helping to relieve what is a tragic situation so far as the old soldier settlers are concerned. Supplementary estimates were brought down in 1948, I believe, in the amount of $150,000, to reduce their indebtedness, and I see that in the present estimates there is another item of $150,000 for this purpose.

I am aware of a number of the new agreements that have been offered the soldier settlers. Many of them provide for a considerable reduction in the debt, but in order to take advantage of that reduction they must meet their payments as they come due. They are told that if they do not meet their payments the agreement will no longer be effective. In view of the crop failures in various parts of western Canada this year, I hope that when these veterans fail to meet their payments under the new agreements, as some of them are bound to do, the agreements will be extended so that the soldier settlers may still receive the benefit of the reduction. In

other words, I hope that the department will extend the time during which payments can be made. I do not doubt for a moment that this will be done, but I have received several letters, some of which I have already taken up with the department. I am quite satisfied with the attitude of the department, but on the other hand they point out that in order that the soldier settler may get the benefits of the new agreement, these payments must be made.

There are one or two other questions I should like to deal with. Two hon. members who spoke previously referred to the War Veterans Allowance Act. I have always looked upon the War Veterans Allowance Act as one of the most important pieces of legislation administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Many veterans who are one hundred per cent incapacitated depend upon the War Veterans Allowance Act because they are not able to receive a pension owing to some technicality in the Pension Act. Many of those men are having a pretty tough time. I well remember that when the War Veterans Allowance Act was first introduced it was stated that the age at which a war veteran could obtain an old age pension would be reduced by ten years. In other words, we took the stand that war veterans were prematurely aged by ten years, and that they should obtain the old age pension at the age of sixty instead of seventy.

Various changes made in the act since that time have broadened it considerably; nevertheless the war veterans allowance provides a smaller amount of assistance than the old age pension. I believe a married veteran may receive only $70, whereas under the Old Age Pensions Act he would get $80, and supplementary payments by the provinces would make it more than that. Under the War Veterans Allowance Act the maximum is $70 a month, apart from the assistance fund; but there are comparatively few veterans who can obtain help under that special fund which was created last fall or early this spring. I believe all veterans organizations have urged that the amount of the war veterans allowance should be increased to $50 a month for a single man, and that a married war veteran should receive at least $85, and some have urged $100.

In addition, as a previous speaker pointed out, the veterans have urged that England be made a theatre of war for world war I. They have also urged that action be taken to make imperial veterans, who were not domiciled in Canada prior to world war I but who have resided in Canada for twenty years or more, eligible to participate in the benefits of the War Veterans Allowance Act.

With respect to the Pension Act, one provision has received probably more consideration than any other in the various veterans committees; that is the question of disability of pre-enlistment origin. Committee after committee has tried to deal with that situation in such a way that veterans who were graded as A-l upon enlistment may be able to get pensions for any deterioration which has taken place. An amendment was suggested in 1946 striking out the words "wilfully concealed", but at that time the government was not prepared to accept it. A similar amendment was suggested again in 1948, when I am glad to say it was accepted by the government. I understand that as a result a revision of all pension cases has been carried out to ascertain whether any veterans may benefit as a result of those words having been taken out of the act. I hope that at some later date the minister will tell us just how many cases have been reviewed and how many veterans have benefited as a result of that change. Judging from some cases that have come to my attention I am afraid we still have not solved that difficulty. There still seem to be many veterans who should be entitled to pension but who are denied it on the ground that their disability is of pre-enlistment origin.

Then there is the question of benefit of the doubt, which has also received a great deal of consideration in the various veterans committees. In 1946 we suggested a very minor amendment to section 62. In 1948 we were still convinced that the situation was unsatisfactory, and suggested another amendment. I would remind hon. members that in its report the McCann commission stated that not in all cases were veterans getting the full benefit of the doubt under that section. It was hoped that as a result of the amendment suggested in 1948, and following the discussion that took place, there would be a broader interpretation of that provision. Mind you, in making these remarks I am not criticizing the pension commission, because I realize that they are bound by the act. If we are not satisfied with what can be done under the act the only remedy is to amend the act to permit the pension commission to deal with these matters in a broader way. Personally I am still satisfied that we have not amended in a proper manner the provisions with respect to the benefit of the doubt and disability of pre-enlistment origin, and I believe further changes will have to be made before these cases can be dealt with satisfactorily.

That is all I intend to say at this time, but I hope the minister will be able to assure us that this committee will be set up this session, and moreover that it will be a standing committee of this house.

Supply-Veterans Affairs

Mr. Fulton:

I too would like to support the suggestion advanced by the three speakers who preceded me, that the veterans affairs committee should be set up this year and that it should be made a standing committee of the house. I think perhaps you will agree, Mr. Chairman, that at any rate for purposes of argument sufficient reasons have now been advanced to make it unnecessary to go into the matter again in detail. I suggest sufficient reasons have been advanced for the purposes of argument, but in my view sufficient reasons have been advanced to justify the setting up of the committee, and I hope sufficient reasons have been advanced to ensure that the government will in fact accept the suggestion and proceed along these lines.

I would point out just one fact that is very relevant to this discussion. There are some thirteen standing and select committees of the house which are set up from year to year. These are not all included in the little book you have in your hand, Mr. Chairman, but I took the trouble to go into the lobby and check in order to see how many of these select committees are appointed each year. Of the thirteen, some half dozen meet only once or twice a session. Some have not met for years. So it could be said with a great deal of justification that these half dozen committees, if they could not be dispensed with, at least could be consolidated into one committee. It is extraordinary that in this house we should have half a dozen committees serving virtually no purpose, or whose work could be done by one committee, while we do not have a committee on veterans affairs as a standing or select committee of the house. A great deal more could be said on this score, but I do think our whole committee system needs overhauling, and that a number of committees should be consolidated into two or three new permanent committees, to keep pace with the changing conditions throughout the country. Perhaps this is not the time to develop that argument at length, though the suggestion that there should be a veterans affairs committee certainly comes within the compass of that whole subject. I believe the need for a revision of our committee system reinforces the present demand that we should have, if not a permanent standing committee, then a yearly select committee on veterans affairs.

There is only one detail in connection with the administration of the department that I should like to mention in support of the general request for a veterans affairs committee. It is one of the things that could be and should be discussed in that committee, in order to protect the commission from the pin pricks and minor difficulties

Supply-Veterans Affairs that occur in the administration of the various acts, to ensure that the good will of the veterans will be preserved, and to assist the department in administering the acts as in fact we know they would like to administer them, in order that the best interest of the veterans may always be served.

This question was discussed in a previous committee. It concerns those disabled pensioners who are unable to have children of their own and who wish to adopt children in order that they may have the joys of family life which are otherwise denied to them. It is extraordinary to find that while a married pensioner is perfectly free to adopt a child, as far as the authorities are concerned, he is denied any additional allowance on behalf of that adopted child, while people who are fortunate enough to be able to have children of their own are quite properly granted an additional allowance in respect of those children. The reasoning behind that rule is quite incomprehensible to me because its only effect, whether or not this is the deliberate intention, is to deny to people unable to have children of their own the joys of married life surrounded by children. It is an additional penalty imposed upon those who are already unfortunate, which I think is quite unjustified and unjustifiable.

I could not understand the reasoning given in the committee in support of that regulation. I am still unable to understand it. Since that time I have come across another case, that of a married pensioner who wishes to adopt a child and is going to do so. He is not in good circumstances, but he is a man of the finest order with the best type of home, where children will be given the very best care and will grow up to be useful citizens. That man is already under the misfortune of not being able to have children of his own, and now is discriminated against further by that regulation under the Pension Act. Now, that is only one question which should, I think, be further discussed in the veterans affairs committee. I would ask the minister, however, whether or not we have a committee, if he will approach this question sympathetically, as I am sure he would every question. I am certain that if he will approach it in that attitude, he will see his way clear to surmounting the technical obstacles in the way of removing this regulation.

If it is found necessary to limit it to six children, that would be some gain. I believe the reason was given for the present regulation but it seems to me quite ridiculous, if I may use that term. It was said that this might develop into a racket and that veterans would adopt children just for the purpose of

getting the allowance. Can you imagine anything more ridiculous? There might be a half dozen cases in which people might turn it into a racket, but I doubt it. Are we tc penalize the legitimate case merely because there may be some hypothetical case of a man adopting fifteen children just to benefit from the increased allowance? There are social service agencies in every part of this country who make it their business to see that only suitable persons adopt children. That being the case, the possibility of adoption becoming a racket is so unlikely it is hardly worthy of our attention. I believe it is an argument that cannot be given any weight in considering this matter.

I ask the minister again, whether or nol he sets up a committee, if he will take that matter into consideration and see if the regulation cannot be changed, even though it will involve the necessity of submitting amending legislation to this house. If he would submil such legislation I believe it would go through this house without a dissenting vote.