Mr. Ncwlan:

Mr. Chairman, in view of the course the debate has taken I should like to speak for two minutes. As one who has been associated with the Canadian Legion ever since that organization was formed, I do not think I could very well sit here and not participate in the discussion, if only briefly. I am not going to repeat the arguments already advanced by so many speakers. There is no need to reiterate them or put them on the record again. They have been clear, and I think for the most part they were fair and reasonable. Certainly that is true, with respect to increasing the permissive ceilings and changing the act so as to include veterans who served in England during the first war.

I have over 200 files in my office at the moment dealing with various veterans and one of the most difficult questions for me to answer is why a veteran who served in Britain in the first war cannot get the war veterans allowance when his next door neighbour is getting it who served in Newfoundland in the second world war. It seems to me that is a perfectly illogical and unfair provision, and it should be changed. As I said, I am not stressing individual arguments whatsoever. They have been put forward here, and if the government will not accept the arguments of others they certainly will not accept mine.

I should like to add a further word. I think this country has been very fortunate in the type of organization that has been looking after our veterans since the first great war. I refer to the Canadian Legion primarily but also other organizations. Without casting reflection on other organizations in other countries, I think all of us in this chamber realize that we owe a great deal to the sane leadership given our veterans in this country, particularly by the Canadian Legion. I think the Canadian Legion deserves the support of the government and the house when it approaches us with what apparently is a very reasonable proposition. You cannot expect that organization to continue to maintain its leadership and to have the support of the returned men throughout Canada unless its voice is listened to and unless it commands the respect here that it does with veterans generally. I suggest to the parliamentary assistant and to the government that there is-I will not say that "danger"-that possibility.

50433-164|

War Veterans Allowance Act

Unless these demands are pretty well met, when they are reasonable and when they are approved by the great majority-I believe every veteran in this house would approve of these demands-there is that possibility. Some hon. members cannot give support for obvious reasons. I am not suggesting their demands should be met in full in every case, but they should when they are reasonable, as they are in this particular case. I feel the country owes the Canadian Legion a great deal, and we should support that organization by meeting, so far as the government can possibly do so, its demands. Otherwise, we may find that the veterans in this country will receive the same type of treatment they have received in other places.

Mr. Kowlan:

The minister is quite right in saying that it was not required in the case of rape and it was in the case of carnal knowledge, but the courts generally had that in mind and I think they dealt with the situation on a fair basis. I am thinking of clause 142 covering incest, which involves an element of carnal knowledge. I am sure that if this had not been made statutory many judges would have drawn to the attention of the jury that it was dangerous to convict on the evidence.

I had a case last fall where it developed afterward that the girl had been threatened by her mother and made to give evidence against her father so he would be sent to the penitentiary and she could take on somebody else. The girl committed perjury and it was not too easy to break her down actually. The judge warned the jury that they should not convict on the evidence of that girl.

If you make it statutory, will we not find ourselves in a situation where the judge will look at section so and so and will say that under that section he has to give a warning? He will decide that this applies only to sections X, Y and Z, it does not apply to incest or to this particular case, and that the parliament of Canada must have decided that a warning should not be given in that particular case.

Although I follow the reasoning of the minister I think that unless it is provided for in other ways we may be creating an injustice

by freezing it by statute instead of leaving it to the jurisdiction of the court as it has been heretofore.