Mr. Herridge:

Miss LaMarsh:

I think this is the first opportunity I have taken in the House of Commons to speak with respect to any of the veterans legislation. The point I wish to raise for the consideration of the minister and his department is the extension of the benefits of this legislation and of the other legislation which, as has been so often said, was put on the books in Canada by a country grateful to those who had served her. Everyone in the committee realizes that this was a part of Canada's desire to show those who had risked life and limb or who were willing to risk life and limb that the country was grateful for those efforts. It has, however, in the years since the original passage of the veterans legislation and the other similar legislation, overlooked a not very large but rather important group of men. These men

Veterans' Land Act

have formed an association among themselves. They call themselves the corps of civilian firefighters. These were the men who at the request of the Canadian government under General LaFleche formed themselves into a group and went to Britain offering their services both for the United Kingdom and for the continent. They were in fact never taken to the continent but they saw service during the worst part of the buzz bombing in Great Britain. These people volunteered to go to the United Kingdom and to aid in the defence of Britain and also volunteered in the spring of 1944 to go anywhere on any battlefield to assist the liberation armies.

Their purpose, of course, was not to carry on in the normal sense. Their arms were firehose and equipment of that kind which were to protect the mother country and the United Kingdom. The fact that they performed these services well has often been mentioned. They were credited in great part for the saving of not only property but life in the United Kingdom. I think the committee should recall that people of this kind, although in the title described as civilian, were not really civilians. They offered their lives, their limbs and their health. Their term of duty was for the war's duration and they were required to wear uniforms just as were the armed forces. They had comparable ranks and pay and the same allowances for their wives and families. They received the same treatment in respect of medical examination and1 medical care, pensions, discipline, clothing, feeding, training, right down to such small items as carrying a Canadian army card with their photographs and fingerprints. They received similar discharge certificates on their discharge. Three of these men actually died on active service while they were in the United Kingdom. As to those who remained at the end of the war, who had been advised by General LaFleche when they first enlisted, it was expected that they would be treated the same as other Canadians who had been repatriated following their service. In fact they have not been classed as individuals who had served on active service and thus have had none of the benefits in any way in the public service or the benefits of the other legislation which was passed for veterans.

They have sought repeatedly in representations to the committee-I have reference to the veterans committee of this house-some consideration with respect to a number of matters and have been granted a great many of these. They were finally, after their own representations were heard, granted the $100 clothing allowance. They were given free travel home. There was compulsory re-employment. If they were hurt in the corps while

overseas they were granted pensions. They were also given hospital treatment for any injury sustained while they were overseas. They received rehabilitation grants. They were able to participate in veterans insurance if they had been overseas. If they chose, they might receive vocational training. They received $15 allowance for every 30 days spent overseas. Later they received unemployment insurance generally, but they did not receive the benefits with respect to the Veterans' Land Act. Since the passage of this act this class of veterans, civilian although they may have been in name, have been permitted access to the provisions of the Veterans' Land Act only if they were pensioners. However, to the great majority of them the benefits of this act have not been extended. They have requested and still seek from the minister and from the department full recognition as veterans. They have asked for a number of things and one of the things for which they have asked is to be entitled to re-establish themselves as veterans under the provisions of the Veterans' Land Act.

I had the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, of raising this matter very briefly in the veterans affairs committee with a representative of the department. He admitted that this matter has been raised many times. He declined, however, to say what discussions might have been held with the minister, other than the fact that he had made recommendations to the minister in respect of this group. I could not allow the discussion of the general principle of the bill under clause 1 to pass without having attempted to raise my voice and add it to the voices of those who were concerned about these people who may easily be forgotten as the years pass by, since the last hostilities. Certainly, many people in the United Kingdom, who were the front line of our forces for a long time, believe that these qualified, trained men who fought fires and kept their homes and their factories in existence, and who helped to keep the status quo, were in fact front line soldiers. I wish, Mr. Chairman, once again to appeal to the minister to consider the acceptance of this class as a class of veterans entitled to consideration under the Veterans' Land Act as amended.

Mr. Peters:

I should like, very briefly, to endorse the remarks made by the hon. member for Niagara Falls and add my voice to hers in support of the admittance of these veterans, the Canadian corps of firefighters, to the benefits of the Veterans' Land Act. Over the years we have all heard representations from the corps, particularly as a result of our personal experience in the last four

years, and we are pleased that the government has given certain recognition to the corps which had been previously denied. The final extension of the rights of these veterans, and certainly they should be classed as such, should be to make the Veterans' Land Act applicable to them.

If these men are in a position to be in receipt of war veterans allowance or war veterans pensions, then they are entitled to the benefits of the Veterans' Land Act. I believe that those who are not in receipt of pensions also should be in a position to take advantage of the Veterans' Land Act.

Now, Mr. Chairman, many hon. members will be very surprised to know the number of these veterans who served in this particular corps. At a recent zone meeting of the Canadian Legion in my area I mentioned the fact that the C.C.F. and New Democratic party had supported this idea over the years, but that we had not done this on the basis that it affected anybody particularly in that area. We had done so on the basis of its being a good thing. I was surprised to be told that in the zone of the Canadian Legion covering the riding of Timiskaming there were 15 or 20 veterans who had served in the Canadian corps of firefighters. I was told there was also a number of members of the Canadian corps of firefighters from the zone representing northern Ontario who had not come back and who had paid the supreme sacrifice for the service they rendered.

I believe the minister would not find the house unsympathetic if he were to suggest now that this further amendment will be implemented, to allow the Canadian corps of firefighter veterans the privileges of the Veterans' Land Act. In passing, I should like to endorse the comments of my leader in tribute to Brigadier Rutherford. I believe that the Canadian public have in the Veterans' Land Act, as a result of the services Brigadier Rutherford rendered the country, a better credit arrangement for all rural agriculture than would have been possible without the experience and leadership of a man like Brigadier Rutherford. It has always been questionable whether or not governments, in giving credit, should supervise that credit. There has been resentment on the part of agriculturists, who are first and foremost individualists, at submitting to any type of credit supervision. I think the pioneer work done by Brigadier Rutherford, and the conscientious method he used in making the credit facilities of the Veterans' Land Act fully understood by those taking advantage of them, went a long way towards making the Veterans' Land Act and the Canadian Farm Loan Act acceptable to these people. I hope the government will retain the services

Veterans' Land Act

of Brigadier Rutherford for consultation on legislation of this nature. The ideas that he still has would deserve consideration and would be advantageous if implemented. I strongly urge that the government continue to use the services of Brigadier Rutherford in an advisory capacity if in no other way.

Mr. Montgomery:

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take up much time or repeat the things that have been said by other hon. members who have spoken. However, I should like to join with them in the compliments they have paid to the officials of the Veterans' Land Act and of the veterans department generally. I think that the amendments contained in this bill are very important. As the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo said, the farther we went into the amendments, into the clauses, and as explanations were given, the greater the benefits we discovered in them.

It was not possible, as we were told, for all veterans to be re-established at the same time, that is shortly after the war. There were various reasons for this, one of which was that the costs at that time seemed high. However, as time has gone by costs have risen. This is the reason, as I understand it, the recommendation has come forward and been accepted, to permit all veterans to be re-established if they wish to be.

I suppose that we should not pay too much attention to current rumours, but as chairman of the veterans committee I should like to take this opportunity of thanking all the members of the committee. I do this now in case there is nothing else referred to the committee. I wish to thank the members for their co-operation during this session and in the discussion of this bill. Every member of the committee was exceptionally co-operative. We worked under difficulties at times, but I should like all members to know that I greatly appreciated the co-operation they gave.

I should like also to add to the compliments paid to the area superintendent of the maritimes, who happens to be a friend of mine. A lot of good things have been said about Brigadier Rutherford, the head of the board. I do not want to take anything away from Brigadier Rutherford but I believe he was fortunate in having a lot of good officials associated with him, men who had experience in connection with soldier settlement and the purchase of lands. One of the most outstanding of these is Mr. Scott and I could not let this occasion pass without paying a compliment to my old friend, Charles Scott, for the good work he has done and the guidance he has given in the maritimes.

Veterans' Land Act

I am sure that were one to travel across the country from province to province and district to district he would discover that a lot of good men had something to do with the administration of this act. As a matter of fact it is interesting, and I do not think it would be out of place for me to mention, that we have an hon. member of the House of Commons, Mr. Rogers, the hon. member for Red Deer, who formerly had a lot to do with the administration of this act. Members of the house who have not been members of the veterans affairs committee may not realize what a great help he has been to that committee during the last four years in explaining lots of little things that we sometimes did not inquire about when the officials appeared before that committee.

The director and officials who appeared before the committee on this occasion certainly gave us explanations that seemed to satisfy everybody. I do not want to hold up passage of the bill, but there was one statement made by the hon. member for Niagara Falls which I did not get clearly. I rose to ask her a question but she did not notice me. I wonder has she read the evidence given before the veterans affairs committee some three years ago concerning the firefighters? As I understand it, she said that these gentlemen volunteered to fight anywhere in Europe.

Miss LaMarsh:

Fight fires.

Mr. Montgomery:

I am glad the hon.

member has straightened that out because these men did not volunteer to fight with the armed forces in Europe. According to the evidence we got they decided to take another course.

One of the things which they particularly asked for when they appeared before the committee was granting of the right to wear a service ribbon, but the granting of this right did not come within the power of that committee. That is something which has to be decided somewhere else. We cannot grant them that, even though it was the main thing they sought. I understand the great majority of these men are now members of fire brigades and they would appreciate wearing that ribbon. I have nothing to say against their being given that right but, as I say, it is beyond the power of the veterans affairs committee to do so.

Mr. Carter:

I just want to reciprocate the kindly sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton and to pay tribute to him for his work as chairman of the veterans affairs committee. He has referred to rumours, but there have been other rumours which indicate the hon. member may

not be with us at future sessions. Therefore I would not want this opportunity to pass without paying tribute to the fair and impartial way in which he has presided over that committee. It has been a real privilege for me to serve under him, and I know when I say that I am also expressing the sentiments of all other members of the committee.

I should also like to join with him in his tribute to Mr. Charles Scott, whom I have had the pleasure of knowing for a great many years. I associate myself with the hon. member's remarks in paying tribute to his interest in veterans and the good work he is doing for them in the maritimes.

Mr. Jones:

I should like to thank the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo on behalf of all other members in the committee for his very gracious tribute to the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton. It was a tribute well deserved and one in which we join with great enthusiasm. Our work together in the veterans affairs committee has been happy work.

Discussions on this bill in the veterans affairs committee were very detailed. I think we would all agree with the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo and the hon. member for Kootenay West, who said that very extensive consideration was given to each clause in the bill. Therefore perhaps it will not be necessary for us to labour too long here today as the points have already been covered.

I should also like to commend the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay West who paid tribute to the work of Brigadier Rutherford, who did a fine job in the administration of the Veterans' Land Act. He also did a fine job in the Farm Credit Corporation. I have known him for many years and worked with him. As a matter of fact, before becoming a member of parliament I was one of those who produced papers urging the type of credit arrangement which has since been made by the Farm Credit Corporation and is now in effect.

The general supervision which has been provided for veterans under the Veterans' Land Act has proven to be most welcome and has been most helpful in getting the veterans concerned re-established. Although supervision under the Farm Credit Corporation is compulsory only with respect to certain loans, nevertheless those who desire to have the augmented loans, and hence must accept the supervision, have experienced with satisfaction the assistance of the experienced personnel who have been recruited to that organization, many of whom worked in the administration of the Veterans' Land Act. They have performed a real service to the country under the V.L.A. and they are now performing a real service to the country in

the Farm Credit Corporation. We are all indebted to them for the job they are doing and for the leadership they are giving to veterans.

This help which they give means a lot to those faced with the operation of farms in this very different world of 1962, where such great technological changes have taken place during the last 15 years and where there has been a great increase in the cost of land and machinery. These factors have made decisions in respect to the operation of farms more critical than ever before.

I should like to conclude by saying that the views expressed by hon. members today will continue to be given consideration, as was the case in the past, and I thank all hon. members of the committee for the attention they have given to this bill, both here and in the committee on veterans affairs. Finally, I commend again the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton on the very fine job of work he has done over the years in the veterans affairs committee.

Mr. Maiheson:

I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant a question, and I hope I may do so in no contentious way. I might preface my question by saying that for a number of years since 1949 it has been my experience to process a good many Veterans' Land Act loans and to see the work done under this act at the very lowest echelon among the people of the area in which I reside. Many hundreds of these loans have been made, and while there was always a little complaining that it took time, there was ultimately great satisfaction in these people who had never before owned land and had started out in a proprietorial way in life by learning what it was to meet their obligations with the assistance of V.L.A. When we look at the history of the Veterans' Land Act and what it has done in, say the years 1948 to 1958, we know how beneficial this measure has been. I have in my hand the report "A decade of in-service staff training, 1948-58; the story of 'Operation good earth'," compiled by Mr. S. O. Robinson of the V.L.A. staff training program.

Am I not being fair in concluding that perhaps V.L.A. is moving in the opposite direction to A.R.D.A.? Perhaps this is necessary; perhaps there may be advantages in responsible young men coming out of the services and going on to what appear to be essentially marginal farmlands of perhaps 100 to 300 acres, with a valuation of something like $10,000 or perhaps up to $20,000. I ask the parliamentary secretary, is there really any close co-ordination between the work of this very important department, so important to our veterans and so beneficial to them, and

Canada Grain Act

the over-all plans that would appear to have been enunciated by the Minister of Agriculture with regard to the A.R.D.A. program?

Mr. Jones:

I thank the hon. member for his question. The Veterans' Land Act will not work against A.R.D.A. Far from it; it will complement, help to support or be one of the components of the general over-all picture of the A.R.D.A. program. The A.R.D.A. program, as the hon. member knows-I do not want to go into a great deal of detail in regard to that matter on this occasion, as I would be out of order-is agricultural rehabilitation and development. Under that act projects which contribute to that end can be organized with the assistance of the provinces and the communities concerned. They use all the facilities at their disposal for rehabilitating areas and people from those areas. Involved in that program is not only farming, in the sense that we know it, but reforestation, pasturage, conservation matters, tourism, and so on. The Veterans' Land Act program would be a useful tool in the total A.R.D.A. concept.

Mr. Churchill:

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to take the opportunity of joining with those who earlier paid tribute to Brigadier Rutherford. I do so not only because I became familiar with his very excellent work in V.L.A. several years ago and continued to follow it with a great deal of interest over the years, and have also been aware of his work with the Farm Credit Corporation; but in addition to that I have had a much closer association with him than perhaps other hon. members here today because I was an officer in his brigade in Canada and over in England for some considerable time. If this were the time for reminiscing I could tell some stories about Brigadier Rutherford in which the committee might be interested. But as a brigadier, as a soldier, as a director of the Veterans' Land Act and subsequently the Farm Credit Corporation, Brigadier Rutherford has given very distinguished service to his country and I for one would like to thank him for what he has done.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clauses 2 to 15 inclusive agreed to.

Hon. Gordon Churchill (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved

the second reading of Bill No. S-19, to amend the Canada Grain Act.

Canada Grain Act

He said: Mr. Speaker, in bringing this bill before the house I think a short statement would be desirable. There are three things designed in the bill; giving statutory effect to the transfer of responsibility for the board of grain commissioners to the Minister of Agriculture; second, establishing statutory grades for mustard seed; and third, redefining the statutory grades for rapeseed.

The production of rapeseed and domestic mustard seed in western Canada has become so well established and has achieved such success in recent years that it is considered advisable to establish a comprehensive range of statutory grades for each of these seeds. A range of grades that are properly related to the commercial requirements of the users will facilitate the handling of and trading in these products, to the greater benefit of the producers and the trade at large.

Commercial grades, as provided for in the Canada Grain Act, are established by the grain standards committee and may be changed by the committee at any time. Conversely, statutory grades are not subject to change, except by act of parliament. It is through the constancy of our statutory definitions that the international status of our grades is so high, coupled with the reputation for our grading system. As the board of grain commissioners has had several years of experience in the handling of mustard seed and rapeseed, a full range of permanent grades for these oilseeds may now be established and given the status of statutory grades.

As regards mustard seed, at the present time only commercial grades have been established; this is, there are no statutory grades. These commercial grades have been in effect since 1947 without any revisions. Through experience it has been found that these grades could work to the detriment of the Canadian producers, by comparison with mustard seed grading standards used by producers elsewhere.

In revising the definitions of grades it is considered appropriate to introduce statutory definitions, thus giving to this seed the acceptance and recognition afforded in world markets to other Canadian grains for which statutory grades have been established and which are now well known and trusted.

In the case of domestic mustard seed, the committee on western grain standards established a complete range of commercial grades, from extra No. 1 to No. 3 Canada western, plus a sample grade and a grade to include mixed classes of mustard seed. The committee did this in 1947, and has continued to re-establish these grades each year since then. There is no reason to doubt that domestic mustard seed will continue to be

produced in western Canada, so it follows naturally that grades should be established permanently, by statute.

In the case of rapeseed, the present statutory grades are Canada rapeseed and sample Canada rapeseed. That is, there is no No. 1 grade. It is felt that the stature of the product would be improved by the establishment of a No. 1 grade. Commercial grades known as No. 2 grade and No. 3 grade rapeseed have been in effect since 1957 when a committee was established to make recommendations with regard to this question. The amendment would establish three statutory grades clearly defined so that the buyer would know what he is getting and the producer would be paid accordingly.

I think the bill itself indicates, in the schedules, the alterations which I have outlined with regard to these two oilseeds.

(Translation):

Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Arthabaska):

Mr. Speaker, I think it is only fair to congratulate the government for transferring the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada to the Department of Agriculture, since it concerns the Minister of Agriculture rather than the Minister of Trade and Commerce.

In the second paragraph of the explanatory notes of this bill we read the following:

The purpose of this amendment is to establish statutory grades of domestic mustard seed.

In section 2 of the bill, we read the following:

Schedule one to the said act is amended by adding thereto, immediately before the heading "Rapeseed".

I would ask the minister how it is that in the explanatory notes reference is made to "mustard seed", while in section 2 of the bill reference is made to "rapeseed". Is it a case of misinterpretation or is it because "mustard seed" and "rapeseed" are one and the same thing?

(Text):

Mr. Churchill:

If the hon. member would raise that question during the committee stage, perhaps we shall have the answer.

(Translation):

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

I think the hon. member would do well to wait until the committee considers the bill in detail to put his question.

Mr. Boulanger:

Mr. Speaker, it is indispensable that we know exactly the definition of each term. In my opinion we should know what we are talking about before considering the bill in committee.

(Text):

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

There is, I believe, a point of order which arises here. If the minister speaks he will close the debate. He may-wish to defer his answer until the other speakers have been heard, or the matter can be discussed in committee.

(Translation):