1949-10-07

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Nose worthy (York South): I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, a copy of which was sent to his office this morning. Has the minister's attention been called to a press announcement this morning to the effect that an obscure piece of United States legislation has been invoked by the United States air force to cancel a million dollar order for military aircraft which were to have been built in Toronto? Has the minister any comment to make?
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.



STANSTEAD COUNTY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
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.



DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
526. Departmental administration, $2,157,024.
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.


George Randolph 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?


Clarence Gillis: Yes.


Alan Carl Stewart: Has he obtained a statement of the facts of the case?


Clarence 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.


Alan Carl Stewart: I did not intend tc say anything on this item but, as a government member, a veteran, and a past president of our branch of the Legion, I do no1 want the house to be left with the impression that everything the Department of Veterans Affairs has done has been wrong. As we all know, we had grousers in the army. Sometimes the best grousers were the best fighters In this house, of course, we have an opposition and the duty of that opposition is tc criticize.
From the picture painted today people might believe that the Canadian veteran has not been well treated. I have not heard any complimentary remarks so far in this debate I have heard certain criticisms. The membei for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) has mentioned the imperial veterans. The plight of these men has been under consideration by the Legion for many years. It has also beer considered by many successive governments I do not know how far the principle is to be carried in connection with imperial veterans Those veterans were employees of the United Kingdom. They were not soldiers of Canade at the time they came to Canada. These mer realized they would receive their pensior from the British government. How far does the member for Nanaimo intend to carry that principle? Will he extend it to the veterans of other allied nations who have come to Canada? Are we to add to the pension of a French veteran because France does not pay him a large enough pension' Is the Canadian taxpayer to pay him? I: that principle to apply to the veteran of the United States who comes to Canada and wants a larger pension?


Mr. Lennard:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a correction. A pension was never asked for the British imperial veteran.


Alan Carl Stewart: You are asking for the difference between the imperial veterans pension and the Canadian pension.


Mr. Green:: No; war veteran's allowance.


Alan Carl Stewart: You are also asking for the war veteran's allowance.


Frank Exton Lennard: I say there was never a request for pensions.


Alan Carl Stewart: At convention after convention in the past, an increased pension was requested and it was to be paid on the basis of the Canadian pension. I have heard that matter argued in Saskatchewan, and I venture to say I have been a member of the Legion longer than the hon. member who just spoke.


Frank Exton Lennard: I was a charter member.


Alan Carl Stewart: So was I.


Mr. Mutch:: That makes you even.


Alan Carl Stewart: That is all right, and I venture to say I was in France before the hon. member.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps my hon. friend would permit us to ask him where he stands on this matter?


Alan Carl Stewart: You have not
allowed me to finish my speech. I am asking you how far you are going to carry this principle?


Edmund Davie Fulton: You tell us.


Alan Carl Stewart: You will be told when we get down to the estimates. You will also be told whether or not a committee will be set up. I believe the veterans will realize that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) will do the fair thing. I do not know what his reason is for not setting up the veterans committee as yet. As I understand it, this is a short session of the house. The business of this house is fairly plain, and that is to put through the budget. However, there will be a longer session commencing next January. I do not know what will be done as I have not talked it over with the minister.
The veterans of this house, I believe, have enough faith in the minister to have regard for his views. If he decides it is necessary to set up this committee, it will be set up. It will be for the minister to decide that. In connection with this grousing, may I say that we have a branch of the Canadian Legion at Yorkton which has a membership of over 45781-394
Supply-Veterans Affairs three hundred veterans. During the last series of meetings, I did not hear a complaint about anything. My partner is head of the grievance committee and I serve as chairman of the pension committee. Any matter we found it necessary to take up with Ottawa has been promptly and fairly dealt with. So far as I know there is not any case in that branch that has not been properly handled.
In addition, and I think this should be made known to the public by the veterans of this country to prevent a wrong impression being gained from what has been said here today, the veterans of Canada have been better treated than the veterans of any country in the world. It is all right for some to sit and grouse, but that is not the veterans' job. I believe ours is a more responsible job than that, and we should do something practical. These cases should be taken up with the minister, who has been very favourably disposed towards veterans, and some attempt be made to get action for the veterans.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) mentioned the matter of divorce. I do not know whether the member is advocating that, because our wives go down to the United States and obtain a divorce, we should be free to have a common-law wife who should be eligible for pension and allowances. If that is the intention, some of us will get rid of our wives very quickly.


Some hon. Members:: Speak for yourself.


Alan Carl Stewart: Suiely, that is not his intention. Many complaints have been heard about housing. It is easy to stir up the veterans of this country who have, perhaps, some grievance. I believe it is the duty of some of the older veterans to exert a steadying influence so that something concrete can be done for them. I have attended meeting after meeting of veterans in different parts of my province and I have heard some complaints about the type of house the veteran is getting. Such complaints may make a popular vote-catching appeal for a certain type of politician.
I had the opportunity of visiting the Scottish branch of the Canadian Legion in Los Angeles. I viewed the housing built by the United States for the veterans at a cost of $12,000. These houses are mere shells. They do not contain proper basements, have no insulation and no heating unit. They could not compare with the houses built for our veterans. The houses built for the Canadian veterans are built to cope with Canadian weather conditions. Why is it that the veterans at the head of these organizations do not inform the boys about these things? All you do is sit around and add fuel to their

Supply-Veterans Affairs troubles. My job at Yorkton is to get more houses built and I should like to get more houses of the same type.
I do not know what you fellows did when you came back from the war and got married, but I know the type of house I secured. I had to pay for it myself. It had outside plumbing and outside everything else. But in those days we did not grouse. We happened to belong to the first division. We came back and did a job. The government did not give us much. They gave us $300 and told us we were through. Let us get a little bit more of that spirit in the country.
I am quite willing to support any reasonable request to the minister for a committee. In addition, if the minister does not appoint a committee, in order to do something constructive I am ready to join with every veteran in this house in holding meetings ourselves and bringing before the minister, and consolidating, for the sake of the veterans, something that will be of some use for them. That is a way in which I think we can do more good than by just sitting here and mentioning this case and that, and saying to the administration: you did not do so-and-so under this regulation; you changed this or that regulation. Let us be constructive. I am ready to meet with the committee of veterans at any time in this house and try to work out any of their problems, either on Saturdays or at any other time.
I think it is generally agreed that under the veterans charter, and under the policies of the government for the last eight years, the veterans of this country have been fairly dealt with. There are improvements that can be made; there is no question of that. There always are, no matter what department of the government you are dealing with. Even Rome was not built in a day. Generally speaking, however, I think the Minister of Veterans Affairs is to be complimented on the conduct of the affairs of his department since he took office; and I feel that he will give us a good deal for the veterans generally.


Mr. Herridge:: In rising to make a few brief remarks on this item, Mr. Chairman, I feel that it is first of all my duty to express my appreciation and the oft-expressed appreciation of my veteran constituents of the work of this department. That includes everyone from the minister to the humblest employee. I also include the parliamentary assistant who, I must say, has been most helpful in, shall I say, those unnoticed little assistances from day to day. By and large, I think the Department of Veterans Affairs has set an example for other departments of government to follow. In my opinion, the veterans affairs

department has the best understanding of public and individual human relations of any department of government today.
I want to support the plea made by members who have preceded me for the establishment of a standing committee or a special committee on veterans affairs. Before proceeding further with my remarks in that connection, I want to assure the previous speaker that the veterans affairs committee, of which I have had the honour to be a member for three sessions, has not played party politics. Regardless of whether the members were Conservative, Liberal, C.C.F. or Social Credit,
I think I can properly say that they did not try to stir up grievances. Their whole approach was in an effort to remedy grievances in a constructive and proper manner. In view of the experience with the present legislation, in view of changing circumstances, and in view of the great importance of this department which is even this year spending approximately $217 million, I think we are justified in urging upon the minister and upon the government the re-establishment of this special or standing committee on veterans affairs.
The work of the veterans affairs committee in 1945, 1946 and 1948 was not only of value in assisting the government; in my opinion it was of even greater value than that. I do not think there ever was any committee of this house that was more able to, shall I say, focus public attention on important legislation and to bring to a greater percentage of the public an understanding of the legislation being dealt with by it from day to day.
There are several particular reasons why I think this committee should be established, Mr. Chairman. Some have been mentioned by previous speakers; therefore I am not going into details. I want to mention, however, what are in my opinion several particular reasons for the necessity for the establishment of this committee. Under the present circumstances, I think the committee should be established to deal with amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act. I think we should now give consideration to the representations of the Canadian Legion with regard to the amounts to be paid to single and married men. This is a matter of considerable concern to the veterans across the country. Just today I received a brief from the united veterans co-ordinating committee of British Columbia which represents all veterans organizations of British Columbia. This brief sets out in full the position of these organizations in British Columbia, and describes fully the present injustice suffered by a section of the veterans of this country, I do not think that anyone can reasonably

argue that those under war veterans allowances are being treated fairly, having regard to the present scale of old age pensions in this country; and let me say here that I am glad to see those people getting the amounts they now receive, particularly those in British Columbia.
Before proceeding further, I should like to digress for a moment. I think we must be fair, Mr. Chairman. If we advocate these increases in allowances, and these necessary adjustments and increases in pensions, we must be fair enough to this government to advocate publicly a rate of taxation that will cover those increased allowances and pensions.
As to a review of Canadian pension legislation, the hon. member for Acadia dealt with two points with which I am sure we are all concerned. The general legislation is excellent, and I think it is functioning satisfactorily, except with regard to the two points raised by the hon. member for Acadia. They had to do with the clause dealing with disabilities of pre-enlistment origin, which subject I still think is far from being satisfactorily settled, and also with regard to the clause dealing with the benefit of the doubt. In making these remarks, I am casting no reflection upon the personnel of the Canadian pension commission because I think they are doing an excellent job at the present time, administering the present law and regulations.
While I am speaking about pensions, I want to make one other reference. I want to suggest to the minister that while it may mean the expenditure of a few apparently unnecessary dollars, I think it is good policy for the commission to sit as often as possible in some of the smaller places; I believe it is good policy for the commission to show the Pension Commission flag in such places. By having hearings in smaller places, an increasing number of people come to understand the operations of the Canadian pension commission and its functions.
I wish to make a few brief remarks with regard to the Veterans Land Act which, on the whole, I think is functioning well. One matter that was brought to the attention of the committee by the hon. member for Cape Breton South particularly affects hundreds of veterans in my constituency. I refer to the increase in the area required for a small holding, from half an acre to a maximum of three acres unless valued at $500 or more. That change has caused a great deal of hardship in my constituency. I believe the small holdings section of the Veterans Land Act is the best home-building legislation we have in Canada. This increase in acreage is making it impossible for hundreds and thousands of men in this country to build their own
Supply-Veterans Affairs homes; in many cases they would do so if the area were reduced to half an acre again. I know that this increase in acreage affects directly some 250 veterans who reside around the cities of Trail, Rossland and Nelson in my constituency. In that area it is impossible to get the amount of land required under the present regulations. I urge the minister and the government to give consideration to reducing the acreage required to half an acre as it was formerly.
There is one other suggestion I should like to make, particularly in view of the fact that the majority of the men wishing to settle on larger farms have now become located, and I think other British Columbia members will support me in this suggestion. We can do more to promote the settlement of veterans on provincial lands under section 35. It is one of the best sections of the act, because when a man acquires a piece of provincial land, either for a small holding or for farming purposes, he receives his credit or grant of $2,320; and has no debt to repay. Particularly in pioneer districts, if he is the right type, he is well on the road to making some headway towards re-establishment. I have discussed this matter with the minister of lands of British Columbia, with the deputy minister, with the superintendent of lands and with other officials. They are very sympathetic toward the question of assisting this government and the veterans affairs department in the settlement of veterans on provincial lands. We have a lot of land, particularly in the southeastern part of British Columbia where I come from. It is in forest reserves, and rightly so. Large areas were placed in forest reserves to protect the timber and for the growth of timber, en bloc in many cases. However, in those areas we have some land suitable for farming purposes and we have some land along the lakeshores suitable for small holdings. I am speaking now of the Arrow, Slocan, Trout and Kootenay lakes. They are beautiful lakes. I believe this government should do everything it can to see that as many of our own boys as possible who have grown up in the district, and who are working in the district, have an opportunity to acquire provincial land either for farming purposes or for small holdings and home sites along the Arrow, Kootenay and other lakes in Canada. These are marvellous sites which these young chaps should have the first opportunity to acquire. I know that the provincial government is willing to assist in every way possible. I urge the minister and his officials to give every consideration, to intensifying the settlement of veterans on provincial land in the province of British Columbia for farming and small holding purposes.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
In addition to that, there is a group of veterans who are not qualified to obtain loans or grants under the Veterans Land Act. These are war veterans who served in the first world war or veterans who have come from Great Britain since the conclusion of the war. These veterans are not entitled to receive loans or grants under the act. I suggest to the minister that the machinery of the department could be used to assist these men in getting priority in the acquisition of provincial land. Our own boys should get the first opportunity. Hundreds of other people are seeking these locations in order to settle on farms, and are also seeking provincial land for home sites. These men are not entitled to consideration under the act but I do suggest to the minister that his department and his officials should assist these men by taking up with the government of British Columbia the question of their receiving priority when they want to purchase the land as individuals.
I also think that the committee should be re-established to reconsider the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act. I find that while the department is ready to give the qualification certificates-and they are not difficult to obtain provided the veteran has the service-yet the veterans are getting very poor service from the banks in some cases. I have met several bank managers who know next to nothing about the act and its operation. Boys go into the bank and say that they are qualified under the act to receive a loan or consideration for a loan. In some cases the bank officials have no idea of the procedure and in other cases, in my opinion, they are not very sympathetic. I have examined several cases closely and I find that the procedure that is carried out is not giving the edge to the veteran with regard to the loans to which he is entitled in view of the government guarantee behind the act.
The committee should be re-established to give some consideration to the claims of the merchant seamen. Some aspects of that question have not been definitely, finally and justly settled. The firefighters' claims should be reconsidered, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Acadia. Then there is the question of other matters which do not come definitely under the veterans charter legislation. I refer to the sale of wartime houses to veterans. All across this country there are veterans who are living as tenants in wartime houses, and who are anxious to purchase these houses in order to acquire permanent homes for themselves. This committee could be of some assistance in bringing that matter to the attention of the government. It could

deal with the problems that confront the administration in pursuing a policy for the sale of wartime houses to veterans.
I am not giving all my reasons why I think the committee should be re-established, because I am trying to be as brief as possible. I shall now touch on the question of unemployment which we shall have regardless of our veterans charter, the War Veterans Allowance Act, the old age pension and other social legislation. We have an increasing number of veterans at the age of 55 and upwards who find it difficult to obtain employment. The re-establishment of the committee would be well justified on that one item of business alone, namely, the consideration in detail of this very difficult problem which we must face, that is, the possibilities for employment for the veteran who is now finding it difficult to find employment owing to his age. These are all the remarks I wish to make at this time. I do hope the minister will give them his serious consideration.


Frank Exton Lennard: I rise to emphasize one or two points that I think would be of benefit to this committee. I concur in what hon. members have said this afternoon in regard to the necessity of our having a standing committee on veterans affairs. What is being done in this committee this afternoon could be done in a veterans affairs committee and it would not take up the time of the house. We have had the committee on several occasions, and when the items dealt with in that committee came to the house it took only the matter of an hour or so to dispose of them. These matters could be dealt with by a standing committee on veterans affairs. They could be threshed out there and it would be more satisfactory.
One or two matters were mentioned by other hon. members, and I should like to refer to them. The hon. member for Cape Breton South and the hon. member for Nanaimo mentioned small holdings under the Veterans Land Act. I have always thought that raising the small holding from half an acre to three acres was stupid. It has been always understood that the small holding was intended for a man who was occupied in an urban centre. It gave him some land on which he could have his own garden in addition to his home. From my personal experience I know that a quarter of an acre is all the land that a man can keep clear of weeds. I have done it for years and sometimes I have not made a good job of it. A kitchen garden of a quarter of an acre is all that a man can care for unless he has a full-time market garden, and then he would require five or ten acres. Therefore I think

the small holding should be reduced to half an acre, and that would be satisfactory to the veterans.
There is one other matter to which I should like to refer. Class 5 (a) of the veterans charter reads as follows:
A former member of the forces who is in receipt of payment of pension, or who served in a theatre of actual war and was awarded pension, or who has not been awarded pension but gave meritorious service in a theatre of actual war . . .
If he is unable to look after any hospital bills on account of his financial standing, certain forms are completed, and if the man qualifies he is entitled to treatment. I am led to believe that until August 1 of this year these cases could be admitted in an emergency to civilian hospitals, if they were real emergencies, and later when they were able to travel they were transferred to Sunny-brook. I understand that on August 1 these regulations were changed. The patients could no longer be admitted to civilian hospitals except in a very great emergency and then they had to be transferred to Sunny-brook as soon as the acute stage had subsided. Previously the department provided transportation, either by train or, if necessary, by ambulance. I am informed that this has been done away with. In other words, a man has to provide transportation himself. One can readily see that a man may be taken ill in the vicinity of Sunnybrook, probably in Niagara Falls or in St. Catharines, and have an ambulance take him to Sunnybrook. That would cost in the neighbourhood of $50. Many could not afford that. I know of one instance where a man was hospitalized in a civilian hospital, and his physician thought he would not live. I understand however that his health is now improved to a point where he could be moved to Sunnybrook. The wife of this man was approached and she said they simply could not afford to have an ambulance. Under those circumstances the man would be denied the treatment he should have at that hospital.
I do not expect the minister to answer at this time. I have been in touch with the department, however, and I am assured he will give the matter every consideration. This is a hardship to which some have been subjected, and I feel they should not have been.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on this item because, if at this session there is to be no committee on veterans affairs, there may not be another opportunity to have a general review of the problems facing Canadian veterans.
In that connection my first suggestion would be to commend to the minister the recommendation made by practically every
Supply-Veterans Affairs hon. member who has spoken thus far this afternoon, namely that there should be a committee of the house. The parliament elected in 1935 had a committee on veterans affairs in only one session. If I remember correctly-and the parliamentary assistant will correct me if I am wrong-in the parliament which was elected in 1940 we had again only one committee to consider veterans affairs generally. But in the last parliament committees sat in 1945, 1946 and 1948. No committee sat last spring, but one could not quarrel with that because of the shortness of the session. I would point out however that there was a committee in the fall session of 1945.
The minister and his parliamentary assistant, and all hon. members who have served on any of these committees, know that by their work the committees have been able to accomplish a great deal for the veterans of Canada. The spirit in those committees has been excellent. I do not believe there is another committee in the House of Commons with the same esprit de corps as that of a committee on veterans affairs. The members of those committees have been veterans, and have acquired a pretty thorough knowledge of veterans' problems. By and large, in so far as has been humanly possible, those committees have functioned without political bias.
The present position is that there are over a million young Canadians who have served in the forces of this nation, and they have thousands of dependents. Those are the figures for the last war only; in addition there are several hundred thousand who have survived from the first war. It is clear, then, that a large proportion of our population are vitally interested in veterans' problems, and no other committee could have more important work.
The hon. member for Yorkton has said that Canada's veterans legislation is better than that of any other country in the world, and that statement has been made on numerous occasions. The fact is that only two nations in the world have been in a position to afford first-class veterans legislation, and those two nations have been the United States and Canada. In some ways the legislation in the United States is better than ours, while in other respects the Canadian legislation excels. Therefore it is not accurate to say that Canada's veterans legislation is the best in the world. We are all glad it is as good as it is, but we would all like to see it better.
All parties in the house have done their full share to place this legislation on the statute books. I would point out to the members that veterans' problems will be coming

Supply-Veterans Affairs up continually; they will never be settled so long as there are any veterans living. I believe that now is the time to set up a standing committee of the house on veterans affairs.
There are two or three matters which I should like to bring to the attention of the members, the first of which has to do with the manner in which veterans who have passed away are buried. A great deal of care is being taken to see that veterans have decent burials. I realize that through the Last Post fund the department is doing its best to achieve that end. Only yesterday however I received word about a veteran who had served in my own 54th Kootenay battalion; this veteran was a pensioner who died of a heart attack two or three weeks ago in Vancouver; his death occurred on Saturday, and he was buried at nine o'clock on Monday morning with only a padre, one mourner and no pallbearers in attendance.
I believe the Department of Veterans Affairs might arrange to have one of their officials at Shaughnessy hospital get information in every case respecting the death of a veteran. Such information could be passed on to the battalion association involved. If there were no association in the city in question, the information could be passed on to a branch of the Legion. I am sure no veterans organization in Canada would want to have a fellow veteran buried in that manner.
Shaughnessy hospital is well organized, and the spirit shown by the staff is excellent. I have been much impressed by the good will created in the minds of the patients there. I am sure some arrangement could be made whereby, when a veteran dies in one of the larger cities, the information could be sent at once to officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs in that city, as a result of which arrangements could be made for a proper burial. Had my own battalion association known of that death, I am sure members would have been only too happy to attend and give their comrade a decent burial.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Did he die in hospital?


Howard Charles Green: No, he dropped dead from a heart attack. There is just that small gap in the administration which might very easily be filled by the department.
I believe further that the time has come when provision should be made to give educational benefits to the children of those members of the forces who lost their lives. Some of those children are now reaching the age where they might attend university or take special vocational training. I am convinced they will not have the same opportunity in life they would have had if their fathers had returned. We have discussed

this matter in veterans affairs committees on different occasions. The veterans organizations across the country are in favour of some such step being taken. I do not believe there is anybody in the house who would not approve of grants of that kind being made. I hope the department will give consideration to setting up some system whereby that kind of grant can be made available to the children of the men who did not come back.
I should like also to say a word or two about war veterans allowance. As the minister knows, the war veterans allowance was set up to provide for the front line soldier who was burnt out because he had been under Are. He could not establish that his disability was directly attributable to his service, and therefore he could not qualify for a pension, but it was felt that because of his service he was entitled to aid from the state. He was given the war veterans allowance, which is commonly referred to as the burnt-out pension. There was a certain honour and dignity about having that allowance. The veteran who got it felt that he was not getting relief. He felt he was getting something for his service. It was really remuneration for services rendered. All of us would like to keep it on that basis. Therefore I believe it is a great mistake for the department only to provide for additional benefits, over and above the statutory war veterans allowance, on the basis of the man showing that he has not any assets and that he cannot get along. In other words, it is being administered as a type of relief.
Let me give the minister an example. An old friend of mine was unable to get by. He was living in the interior of British Columbia. I made application on his behalf for an increase in the allowance. He had no other income and I thought he would be given either the full $10 a month or whatever amount it was decided should be paid. An investigator went up to look into his case. The chief difficulty of this applicant was that he was unable to afford clothing. The grant given to him was not a money grant; he was given so much to buy clothes. The war veterans allowance is being administered as a relief measure in the same way that relief was administered to small pensioners during the depression days. In my opinion it takes away from the recipient of war veterans allowance the feeling that he is getting something as a right, and because he had been a front-line soldier. He is put in the same category as if he had gone to the city and asked for relief. I do not think it is sound.
May I urge upon the minister that an amendment be introduced to increase the war veterans allowance from $40.41 to $50 for a single man, and at least to $85 for a married

man. A married recipient may receive only $70.83 now. I believe that is the maximum amount per month. He was getting $60 before and it was raised to a maximum of $70.83, just as the amount for a single man has been raised $10. I think that a married man should be allowed more than $70.83. The Legion has suggested $85. The present payment is not on a satisfactory basis.
Another unsatisfactory feature is that the increase is based on a yearly parliamentary grant. It is not written into the statute. A grant may be brought down and voted this year, and next year a grant may not be brought down. The increase should be written into the statute. In British Columbia the old age pensioners are now getting more than most of the war veterans allowance recipients. The veterans are being put in an inferior position. I have here a clipping from a publication issued by the department, the name of which I forget.


Milton Fowler Gregg: "Veterans Affairs".


Howard Charles Green: The issue I have is dated July L, 1949, and I point out to the minister that in it he is quoted as having said at Fort William:
I made It quite clear at the Saskatoon convention that I felt that the government must keep some general relationship between war veterans allowance and old age pensions. I still maintain that stand.
Those are the minister's own words.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I know that the hon. member wants to be fair. I do not know whether or not the rest of my remarks were quoted there, but whether or not they are I did go on to say that there were certain factors affecting war veterans allowance which did not apply to old age pensions in any province, namely, the payment of the allowance ten years earlier, the fact that it carried with it medical care and attention, and also the fact that a man could have his wife drawing the wife's allowance at age twenty-five, if he was married in time. Those are real factors on the credit side.


Howard Charles Green: Of course the difference in age is to compensate the veteran for his service.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Burnt out.


Howard Charles Green: In reality it is the veteran's old age pension. As to hospitalization, old age pensioners in British Columbia receive hospitalization free of charge. They get just as much hospitalization as a veteran. That may not be true in all provinces but it is so in British Columbia. I suggest that the veteran should at least be on the same basis as the old age pensioner, and in the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta he is in an inferior position at the present time.
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Clarence Gillis: And Saskatchewan.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Cape Breton South says that is also true of Saskatchewan. I was not trying to overlook Saskatchewan.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: We will take that qualification on division.


Howard Charles Green: So much for the amount of the war veterans allowance. I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Yorkton speak as he did today about the question of paying war veterans allowance to imperial veterans. The Legion has requested that for many years, and the merits of the request are good. These men came to Canada shortly after the first great war. They gave up their rights to social security in Great Britain which were greater than they could get in Canada. They threw in their lot with us. In the recent war many of them served with our veterans guard. Their sons served with our sons. Nevertheless even the men who served in the veterans guard cannot qualify for the war veterans allowance unless they went out of Canada, and very few were able to do that.
I think it is generally admitted that they are Canadians and should be treated as such. No one has been asking that they be paid pensions. We are asking that they have the right to the war veterans allowance. Some of them served at Mons in 1914, and today their position is tragic. We have many of these men in British Columbia. If they become destitute they have to go on city relief. Before the election they were all told that a survey was being made of the whole question of the war veterans allowance for imperials, and I think we should be told at this session whether or not they will get that allowance.
Then finally I want to say a word about the Canadians who served in the merchant navy. To the man in the street, and indeed to everyone in this house, they were the fourth arm of the service; they lost a larger proportion of their numbers than any of the other three fighting services. During the war they were treated as one of the fighting services. I have before me the speech from the throne delivered on September 6, 1945. Of course we know this speech is drawn up by the Prime Minister, or at all events by the government; and it contains these words:
Our country will ever remember with pride the heroic exploits of Canada's fighting men and merchant seamen.
I have in my files a dozen quotations from various ministers of the crown to the effect that the merchant seamen were the fourth arm of the service, and they should have been treated as belonging to the fighting services.

Supply-Veterans Affairs I believe the Minister of Veterans Affairs is of that opinion, together with his department. I do not blame the Department of Veterans Affairs for not having given these men the proper treatment, but I do blame the Department of Transport. Throughout the whole affair that department has adopted a heartless, merciless attitude toward these men who served in Canada's merchant navy, and I hope that during this session that situation will be remedied.
Many of these men have lost their health. I have in my hand a letter from a young lad who served in the Canadian merchant navy for five years, four of them during the war. Even now I think he is only twenty-two or twenty-three years old. He is lying in the provincial tuberculosis hospital at Jericho Beach, Vancouver, very ill with tuberculosis. He developed malaria and pneumonia in 1945 on a trip from the west coast of Africa to Philadelphia, where he was taken off the ship and placed in hospital. When he had recovered sufficiently to travel, he was sent back to Vancouver. There he was examined by the doctor of the manning pool, who insisted that he have an X-ray. That was done; and it now develops that when the X-ray was sent back it was accompanied by a report to the effect that he should have six months' rest. Instead of that, through some carelessness on the part of the medical men in Vancouver, that lad was sent back to sea. A little later it was found that he had a very serious case of tuberculosis, which dated back to his first illness. There is no justification for the government refusing to accept responsibility for this man. The last paragraph of the letter he wrote me reads:
You cannot deny that the merchant navy did its share during the war. Why then the discrimination? In the same ward with me are two exservice men who during the course of the war never left the province of British Columbia, yet are drawing a one hundred per cent pension, while I am being paid for my service at the rate of $3 a month. Does this seem fair to you?
Even that $3 per month is paid by the province. There is no justice here. The law should be amended to provide that these men are entitled to pension. In addition, they can get no educational benefits; they are not permitted to go to university. Until this spring they could only get vocational training if they intended to go back to sea; and Canada's merchant navy has been so reduced that there have been practically no openings for young men who want to follow the sea as a career. Yet they were unable to obtain training for anything else. Last December I believe an order in council was passed providing that they could obtain vocational training if they applied by the end of June and if they were

under thirty years of age. That was a recommendation of the last veterans affairs committee, which in my view was an improper recommendation, I do not think the committee gave its usual thorough consideration to this question. To back up my statement may I tell the minister that I believe less than one-tenth of the men who have applied for that vocational training since the order in council passed last December have been able to qualify. The figures given to me in August showed that only 47 out of 518 applicants had been accepted for vocational training. I believe too that they cannot qualify unless they served on Canadian ships, although in some cases they were sent by the Canadian manning pools to serve on allied ships. Here again there is no justification for the treatment being meted out to these merchant navy lads.
Further they get no hospitalization unless they are pensioners, and very few have been able to qualify for pensions. They do not get the civil service preference. They are not entitled to business and professional loans. They cannot take up land or a small holding under the Veterans Land Act unless they are pensioners; and they are not permitted to get a house even in these subdivisions being built up by the government for veterans. They are not classed as veterans for that purpose.
I can only bring this matter to the attention of the house, but I suggest that this treatment being given the men of the merchant navy is sufficient reason for setting up a committee of this house. That question can only be gone into thoroughly in such a committee; and I do hope the minister will see to it not only that these different things are dealt with but also that a committee is set up at the present session.


Mr. Jones:: The points I have to make this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, have been very well covered by the hon. members who have spoken already, including the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, the hon. member for Kamloops, the hon. member for Nanaimo, the hon. member for Cape Breton South and the hon. member for Kootenay West. However, there are certain matters one can always find to bring to the attention of the department that have been overlooked by others. For that reason, I should like to advocate the setting up of a committee on veterans affairs and adding to the scope of that committee matters dealing with the merchant navy. In common with the last speaker, I am firmly convinced that the merchant navy has been shabbily treated and some attention should be given to it by a committee.

The main subject in my brief speech is the British veteran who resides in this country. I realize that the problem of this veteran has not been dealt with to the satisfaction of the Canadian Legion. It is the feeling of the government that the British veteran is a newcomer to this country, even though he may have resided here twenty or thirty years. He is not regarded as a Canadian entitled to qualify for these benefits. Many of these veterans who served during the first war are now anywhere from fifty to seventy years of age and, naturally, pensionable cases. Most of them have to rely on the pension for their livelihood. I can assure hon. members of this house that the British pension when translated into Canadian funds was never sufficient to give a high standard of living, but now that devaluation has taken place that pension is totally inadequate. Many of these veterans have had to go on relief. I consider it undignified to pay a veteran who gave his services to his country some form of relief in addition to his pension. I cannot understand why the government, instead of giving him relief and a pension, cannot, by combining the two payments in one pension cheque, remove the indignity of forcing him to accept relief.
Formerly the imperial veterans cashed their pension cheques at a preferred rate. I cannot see why that procedure cannot be followed today. It may cost Canada a little money, but not a great deal, and that extra money would be spent in Canada anyway. At the same time, I should like to advocate the abolition of the means test. This subject has been well covered, but I do assure the minister it is a sore point with the veterans right across this country. Many of them have requested that I bring it to the attention of the house. I would say such a test is a violation of the trust we placed in those veterans. When they went overseas we promised them the very best and upon their return they find these pinpricks to annoy them.
These are a few of the reasons why this committee on veterans affairs should be set up. Many excellent suggestions have been made this afternoon and the logical and concise way of dealing with them would be through a committee which could recommend action on them. I realize there are possibly only two or three hundred veterans affected, but I should like to mention the student veterans in the United States. These veterans have also suffered from the devaluation of the Canadian dollar. A student receives approximately $60 per month which, after the ten per cent devaluation, nets him about $54. With the high cost of living in the 45781-40i
Supply-Veterans Affairs United States, it is impossible for the veteran student to make ends meet.
Many of these students return to their home during the summer and earn a little money to assist them during the university term. It is generally conceded that the cost of living in the United States is much higher than in Canada. I would suggest to the minister that the veterans who are attending university in the United States be paid in United States currency or that the department make up the loss through devaluation. I say that, because the veterans who entered those universities were given the blessing of the department. I am satisfied that the government did the proper thing in giving these boys such an excellent opportunity. I know some students receive assistance from their parents, but some care should be taken to provide for those whose parents are not in a position to assist them. No student should be forced, because of financial need, to give up a course before he has completed it.
Two or three years ago the university of British Columbia had over four hundred medical students. When those students sought to continue their courses in Canada the veterans affairs committee did its utmost to place them, but found it impossible to place all of them. If I remember correctly, less than ten per cent were placed in Canada. Some went to China, some to South Africa and many to the United States. It is presumed that most of those students had high qualifications and will complete their course. Those boys having received the blessing of the Department of Veterans Affairs, I would plead with that department to see that they are given the opportunity of completing their course. It would not cost a great deal, since there are only two hundred involved.
One other matter I should like to mention concerns admittance to hospital. I am wondering whether the procedure could be simplified through the cutting of red tape. The veterans from the interior of British Columbia, for instance, who have reason to go to a hospital, have to go to Shaughnessy, and I was wondering whether arrangements could not be made to examine them locally. This would obviate the necessity of making the long, arduous journey to Vancouver merely for an examination. I would suggest to the department that this type of examination could very well be carried out at a local point near the veterans' homes.
In closing, I would urge the department to seriously reconsider its decision regarding the setting up of a veterans affairs committee and the giving of that committee the subject of merchant navy veterans for consideration as well.

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Mr. Knowles:: Before the minister speaks, Mr. Chairman, may I say a few words on one point. I shall not take the time to repeat the representations that have been made by other members because my support of a number of the points they have been urging is already on record. I felt it might not be amiss, however, for at, least one non-veteran to participate in this discussion so that it would be clear that the rest of us are with the veterans in their concern for the best possible deal for their comrades.
I could illustrate the one point I have in mind by telling of an experience of mine a few months ago. I was asked by some friends to visit an old couple living on the third floor of a house in Winnipeg. It was not in my constituency, nor was it in the constituency of my hon. friend, the parliamentary assistant to the minister (Mr. Mutch); so that narrows it down quite a bit. Both these old people were in their seventies. The person who requested me to make the visit said it was felt the old couple should be receiving the old age pension. However, they had a great deal of pride and did not want to apply for the pension. In addition to that, the couple owned a few government bonds and they were under the impression they would have to sign them over to the government. For that reason they did not want to apply for the old age pension.
I came into the picture, as I say, because my friends thought possibly I would be able to persuade them that the old age pension arrangements were not quite as bad as they thought. I made the visit and made it known to the couple that my interest was simply that of trying to help them. During the first half hour that I spent with them I was met with an icy stare and refusal to apply for old age pensions. I was not going to give up as surrounding conditions made it obvious those people should have the pension. In due course, the old gentleman started talking about things in the past. He brought out a picture of himself taken many years ago in which he was wearing a uniform. That immediately brought to my mind the possibility that he would be able to qualify for war veterans allowance. I made that suggestion to him and you would have been amazed if you could have seen the different reaction I got from this old gentleman. He had not even known that there was something which, by virtue of his services as a veteran, he might be entitled to. That was a different story. His face brightened up and his whole conversation became much more free than it had been while I was trying to persuade him to apply for the old age pension. He began to discuss some details. That day he did not tell me, although he did

later on, how much money he had in bonds. But at any rate, he was willing for me to turn his name in to the D.V.A. people down in the Commercial building in Winnipeg and for them to come to see him in order to ascertain if something could be done. As I say, if I had known at the time how much money he had, I would have known that this suggestion was not going to work. But I had to wait to find it out. When the D.V.A. people came from the Commercial building to see him and looked into his case, they found that he had too much in the way of liquid assets; and he was told that he would have to wait until he had dissipated-perhaps they did not use that word-or spent his liquid assets and they had got down to the point of about $1,700 or $1,800 before he could qualify for the war veterans allowance. This old gentleman made this known to me in a letter. I was disappointed, but I went to see him again. It so happened, to bring the story to a speedy conclusion, that making that application at least did the trick. They got into the frame of mind in which they were prepared to try and get something of what was coming to them, and I was then able to persuade them to put in their application for the old age pension. I pointed out to them that the old age pension authorities- and some of us think they are mean enough- would treat their liquid assets in a different manner. The old age pension authorities do not say: You must wait until your liquid assets are reduced to a certain amount. They say: We will give you a pension now, reduced by the computed value of the liquid assets that you have. It was only a matter of a few months until this old couple, who had been living on an amount so small that I do not know how they got by, received an old age pension making up the difference between the computed value of their liquid assets and the ceiling of $90 per month.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: That is, the computed annuity value.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right; the difference between the computed annuity value of the amount they had in Canadian government bonds and the $90 ceiling. The amount of old age pension which this old couple were able to get was in excess of the total of what they had been living on for I do not know how long. That particular story came out quite nicely. But the reason I am telling it and the point I am trying to impress on the minister is that-and it is in line with arguments that have been made here before- in many respects the burnt-out pension is inferior to the old age pension. That is one point as to which it seems to me a change ought to be made. I go the whole way with

the suggestions that have been made by other members. But it is soon discovered around here, and the hon. member for Yorkton will discover it too, that you must get these things by pressing for them step by step. Surely that is one step that could be taken, namely, that a change could be made in the means test provision with respect to the burnt-out pension so that the liquid assets that a veteran holds will be treated in the same way as they are treated in the case of the old age pension. I hope that change at least might be made.


Mr. Maclnnis:: As all the members of the committee seem to be laying their grievances on the doorstep of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and as a great many of them have to do with the war veterans allowance, I might as well put mine on the minister's doorstep also. The case that I wish to bring to his attention seems to be a particularly hard one. It is that of an old couple. The wife of the pensioner is now sixty-eight years of age. Her husband was in receipt of the war veterans allowance for I do not know how long back. In 1942 or 1943, when there was a great demand for workers, she took a position in a laundry as a seamstress. Evidently they did not report her earnings to the war veterans allowance board until the authorities found it out some three, four or five years afterwards. In any case, when they did find it out, because of the earnings of the wife there had been an overpayment to this man from the war veterans allowance board of something over $2,600. The board then notified them that they would discontinue his war veterans allowance until the amount would be paid. He was also getting a small disability pension, and they were wanting him to sign that over as well.
Not being a veteran, I admit that I do not know as much about the regulations and the legislation on the matter as do some of the other members on all sides of the house who can speak from experience. But I did know that they could not touch his disability benefit and I told him not to sign it over. I think that was about a year ago. Shortly before I came down here for this session, this man's wife got in touch with me again, saying that they were at their wits' end. The disability pension was $31.25. She had stopped working in the laundry, and that has been their total income for several months, or perhaps a year or more. She appealed to the municipality for assistance and received it for a couple of months. She had to tell her story and they got in touch with the D.V.A. in Vancouver, with the result that the municipal assistance stopped as well. I wrote to the chairman of the war veterans allowance board under date of July 23, and
Supply-Veterans Affairs I am just going to quote a brief paragraph from the letter I received in reply. He referred to the man's file and said:
On perusing same I find that a large overpayment has accumulated over a period of years due to concealment of income and wilful misrepresentations on his part.
The matter of recovery of this debt due to the crown was placed in the hands of the Department of Justice a few months ago, and until the matter is cleared up from this angle the board can take no further action towards the reinstatement of the allowance.
If I have figured it out right, the date when they stopped the allowance was February, 1947. If this man had committed a crime, surely they should have taken criminal action against him long ago; because I imagine it is a matter for criminal action, unless it is one for an action for small debt. I do not know just which it is. I am not at all condoning the concealment of the income that was made, although I think that when a woman at the age of sixty-two or sixty-three goes out to earn a little money, she is entitled to it. As a matter of fact, she told me how it was spent. It was spent in paying accumulated grocery debts, in shingling the roof of what she said was the shack in which they were living, in getting dental work done and various other things.
I suggested to the war veterans allowance board that since it was impossible for these people to live on $31.25 a month they should certainly give them a war veterans allowance in order to enable them to live, because it is quite apparent that they will not get any municipal assistance. This is a deplorable situation, and from what I have heard today it is quite apparent that it is not the only one. I suggest that these people be treated more humanely and that at least their economic situation at the moment be taken into consideration. If this man is taken to court, if the Department of Justice gives that advice, if he is sent to jail, and if he has no other way to pay-they cannot fine him because he cannot pay-he will be looked after in jail and perhaps his wife can get along better on his disability pension. I assume that that would be paid in any case. Surely that is not a civilized way to deal with these cases. I would plead with the Minister of Veterans Affairs to see that he try to deal with these cases more in the line of civilized human behaviour.


Mr. Blackmore:: What measures, if any, is the department taking to make up to imperial war veterans the losses which they are sustaining in their income from Britain because of the reduction in the value of the pound? I have a representation on that matter. It is. a serious matter.

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Milton Fowler Gregg: May I ask the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) to bring to my attention the case which he has cited?


Donald MacInnis: I shall do that.


Milton Fowler Gregg: In reply to the question which has just been asked, may I say that my department is taking no steps with regard to that matter except this. Quite naturally, since the British ministry of pensions have a very active office in Ottawa, I have spoken to the head of that office regarding that matter, and he has spoken to me about it. I know very well that he has, as I have, received representations from pensioners from the United Kingdom in all parts of Canada. He has told me, and he said that I was at liberty to use it, that he has brought these representations to the attention of the ministry in London. Beyond that we have done nothing in the matter.


John Horne Blackmore: Does not the minister think that something ought to be done for these people? We know the position that Britain is in. It looks to me as if we are to have in a small way something like that which the hon. member for Vancouver East has pointed out. We shall have people actually suffering in Canada because of events over which they have not even the slightest control.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I fully realize the difficulty. There is of course the very distinct priority of responsibility in these matters. One of the speakers this afternoon pointed out the difficulty that Canadian students were experiencing in the United States owing to the adjustment of exchange rates as between Canada and the United States. But there again that is not the whole problem with regard to our own veterans. Approximately there are two hundred such students, but side by side with them there are about 7,000 Canadian disability pensioners of both wars resident in the United States. The same situation applies to them as applies to the smaller number of students. One could go on and quote many direct and indirect effects of this adjustment of currency but I do not feel that we have any greater responsibility in making adjustment with those from the United Kingdom who are pensioners in Canada than the United States has in making an adjustment for our pensioners who are resident in the United States. I wish it were otherwise. That is all I can say on it at the present time.
I am sure that hon. gentlemen who have spoken this afternoon would not expect me to attempt to cover all the points raised. I bespeak a chance for either my parliamentary
IMr. Blackmore.]
assistant or myself to go into full details which we shall try to do before the estimates are passed. We shall try to deal with all the questions brought up.
With the exception of two or three speakers, all who have spoken this afternoon have made strong representations on behalf of either a standing committee or a special committee on veterans affairs. I should like to say a word about that. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra pointed out, between 1943 and 1946, before I came into the house, the house had to consider some 21 pieces of new legislation for the benefit of new veterans from 1939 to 1945. It is only natural that there should be a great deal of intensified work done on that legislation in drafting it, in calling witnesses from all parts of Canada from many organizations, and in working it out. Frankly, as I look at it, and I never had any part in it, I say it must have been a tremendous task. But as I see it, and as I read the records, it appears to me that it was dealing almost entirely with new legislation.
In 1948 the government brought forward some amendments to two of these bills which had become law, namely, the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act. As well there were some other acts for minor amendments. A special committee was set up for the purpose of considering that legislation. That committee sat and, from my observation, it is worthy of all the good words that have been said about it this afternoon. It did an excellent job, and as one hon. member so well put it this afternoon, as far as was humanly possible, it was free of partisan politics. They presented their report. I cannot agree with one speaker who said today that not many of these recommendations had been accepted, because most of them were; nevertheless the factors entering into the report had to do mainly with the legislation that had been brought before it. It is true that it did discuss such matters as a further increase in war veterans allowances, the merchant marine and many others, but what I am coming to is this. We should clarify our thoughts as to whether a parliamentary committee, whether a special committee or some other, should be called upon to check on other matters in addition to legislation or amendments to come before the house. I am not going to express an opinion on that at this particular time. All that I am going to say is that there are a number of committees suggested to the government now. There is a resolution on the order paper suggesting the setting up of a committee on social security, housing and health and welfare. It is proposed that there should be a committee

on national defence, on atomic control and on many other questions.
I know that the matter of committees in general, as it was put by the hon. member for Kamloops, should receive careful study, so as to get the greatest value from these committees. I think I can assure this committee that the government will give that study. I do not propose at this particular time, to recommend to my colleagues that a committee be set up at this fall session. Beyond that I am not prepared to go, with regard to committees.
May I, though, between now and six o'clock, touch at random upon one or two points which have been brought out. Two hon. members who spoke referred to the old soldier settlement board, and the remaining amounts owing to the board by veterans who have held lands these many years. I know well the arguments made in later years on behalf of those settlers-and strong arguments they are, there can be no question.
I believe however, as I indicated at the final meeting of the committee a year ago, that it boils down to this. Members who knew some of those settlers will remember that there were many of them who conscientiously made their payments of principal and interest just as regularly as it was possible for them to do. If they did not do it, it was because they could not do it. Most of them, long before this year of 1949, have fulfilled their contracts and obtained title by grinding through, paying their debts and getting their work done. I believe it is also true to say that there are a number who, through those years, perhaps could have made their annual payments, but did not do so. Representatives of the board allowed those to run on, and at the present time they are shown as outstanding accounts.
Putting it on that simple basis, I am wondering whether or not if last year or the year before we had said, or this year we were to say, "We will cut off all the rest and call it a day" it would be the fair thing to do. It sounds like an excellent thing to do, but would we not be bonusing-I was going to say something else-would we not be bonusing delay in paying one's bills when one can pay them? Perhaps, too, it might be a negative influence, by example, to those new veterans who are coming in under the Veterans Land Act.
I happen to know-and I shall take full responsibility for it, because I am speaking about my own constituency-of an old veteran who under the soldier settlement board came within the second category I mentioned a moment ago. Across the fence,
Supply-Veterans Affairs on the next farm, there came a veteran of the second world war who married, settled down and started in there. I know for a fact that, across the fence, the old timer said, whispering behind his hand, "Take it easy, my boy; at the other end you will be forgiven, the same as I am."
The amount placed in the estimates a year ago, and which is repeated this year, is in my opinion accomplishing the same thing more slowly but in a much better way. The hon. member for Battle River asked some questions which were made an order for return. I tabled the return today. His questions, and the answers to them, were as follows:
He asked first how many soldier settlers of great war I are still in debt to the soldier settlement board? His question was taken to mean September 30, the last date for which we have records, and the answer was that 1,950 are still in debt to the director of soldier settlement.
In his second question he asked the total amount of their indebtedness, and the answer showed an amount of $2,231,881.22.
The third question asked how many had paid off their loans and acquired clear titles since January 1, 1948. The reply was that there were 1,039.
The fourth question asked whether any reductions in debt had been granted during 1948 and 1949, and the reply was that there had been.
The fifth question asked, "If so, in how many cases, and what is the total amount of such reductions?" The answer was that there were 496 cases, to an amount of $182,515.83.
The last question asked as to (a) the smallest and (b) the largest reduction granted. The reply showed that the smallest was $18.25 and the largest $1,998.13.
From these answers it is apparent that even in a year and a bit we have been able to eliminate or to end the debt for a total of 496 old settlers. I hope that this year and perhaps next year the main task may be completed, and that the indebtedness of those who should be forgiven will be wiped off in that time.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


Milton Fowler Gregg: At eight o'clock we will carry on with public bills and orders for the first hour.


Howard Charles Green: Will we proceed with veterans affairs estimates at nine o'clock?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
Criminal Code AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, October 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fulton for the second reading of Bill No. 10, to amend the Criminal Code (portrayal of crimes).
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the bill this evening. I am glad that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is able to be here because I am sure he is much interested in the measure, and in the final analysis we shall have to look to him for help in having the bill put through the house.
I should like to point out that on the second reading of the bill we are only dealing with the principle, which is in effect that there should be an amendment to the Criminal Code making it a crime to print, publish, sell or distribute magazines commonly known as crime comics. So far in the debate every member who has spoken has been in favour of that principle. I was particularly struck by the speeches made by new members of the house. Several of them made their maiden speeches on this measure, and I thought that each of such speeches was excellent. It seemed to me that we were witnessing the house at its very best. It made one proud to be a member of the twenty-first parliament.
I believe the opinions expressed by the speakers who have taken part in the debate reflect the views of the Canadian people at large. No doubt most members have had representations from parent-teacher associations which, of course, are vitally interested in problems of this kind. There have also been representations from the national council of women and from the various Kiwanis clubs, which do such wonderful service work in all parts of the nation. In addition I have had representations from the university women's club of Vancouver who are very anxious that something should be done about the situation. Perhaps more important than all others, however, have been the representations from parents.
While the debate was in progress last night I received a letter from a mother in Vancouver who, by the way, is the daughter of a distinguished Canadian authoress, and I thought that she put the situation very clearly. She had heard over the radio of

the debate which took place last Tuesday evening, and she sat down and wrote a letter. It reads in part:
I know you are as anxious as any conscientious parent to see our Canadian children rescued from the evil effects of these criminal immoral magazines. I believe a big house-cleaning of our magazine and paper-back 25-cent books is overdue. We busy ourselves building youth centres, working in church to show our young people the guide posts to clean living, and all the time this stream of filthy books is allowed to come into our country.
In Canada we place as high a value on education as is done in any other country in the world. I believe that the same thing can be said about Scotland, and possibly other countries as well. Certainly every decent Canadian parent has as his or her first concern giving the children a start in life by seeing that they get a good education. I think that is typically Canadian. Parliament recognized the importance of children by enacting the family allowances legislation a few years ago. We place great value on pure food. We have many laws to make certain that nobody is given impure food. We show great determination in stamping out the drug traffic. I remember a few years ago the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), who was then minister of pensions and health, making a strong speech in the house on the dangers of marijuana, the use of which at that time was becoming quite prevalent in parts of Canada. We take drastic steps in other fields, and yet ye do nothing about this character poison. That is a good description for the crime comics.
We are all in favour of the principle of the bill, and I hope it will be passed. Once the bill is on the statute books it will be a strong deterrent and a warning to publishers all over Canada, and to the people who import these books from the United States, that they will be in trouble if they do not stop this traffic.
There is some suggestion that the bill may not be worded in exactly the right way. Actually the bill in its present form was not drawn by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). It is in a form suggested by the Right Hon. Mr. Ilsley when he was minister of justice. We could not have a finer authority on the wording of the bill. If it is not exactly right now it can be amended in committee. The point is that we are debating the principle of the bill, and I hope that the house will give it second reading.
Further, I hope there will be no delay. I am worried about that because of what happened to the bill amending the Criminal Code introduced by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) the other night. He had some good amendments although, mind you, I agree with the step taken by the

Minister of Justice (Mr. Gar son) when he said he would have the bill turned over to the commission revising the Criminal Code.
That was the proper step to take with that particular bill, but I am afraid that the Minister of Justice will come into the house, as soon as he is well again, and say that he is going to refer the present bill to the commission revising the Criminal Code. If that is done it will mean that the bill may not become law for a year. There will be no provision made at this session, and possibly not at the next session. A delay means not only an outpouring of more of this poison, but probably a speeding up of the process. The publishers of these magazines have a good thing. They are making money, and if they see they are going to have another six months or another year they are very apt to get out more of these comics and try to increase the circulation in order to cash in before it is too late.
Therefore I urge all members of the house, and particularly the Prime Minister, to realize the importance of prompt action on this particular measure. I suggest that we show the publishers of this junk that the House of Commons means business.


Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: should like to join other hon. members in complimenting the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) on his initiative in bringing forward a bill of this kind. It seems to me that the most interesting subjects are brought up by private members, who also seem to win the approval of hon. members representing all parties in the house. It is interesting to find a discussion taking place on such a high moral plane as this one, and in this materialistic age it is consoling to find people so concerned about matters affecting the morals of our young people.
We are all in agreement as to the danger to the character of the youth of the land when their minds are poisoned by large doses of this evil kind of literature. Everyone feels that something should be done about it, but it is the hon. member for Kamloops who has brought forward this bill. Nevertheless I am wondering if he is going to accomplish what he has in mind by the amendment he proposes, and in support of that idea may I draw upon my experience as a judge in Newfoundland, as one who was especially interested in the problems of juvenile delinquency. For many years I took a special interest in that subject; and I am aware, as many hon. members have stated, that such books do have a certain effect upon the minds of young people. I think perhaps some are inclined to exaggerate that effect, and I doubt if they have as much effect as people think. However, they
Criminal Code
do have an effect upon young persons of weak minds or who, through bad associations, are prone to fall victims to the temptations which come to them through reading literature of that sort.
Two things, the movies and the comics, sometimes have a strong effect upon the minds of individuals; and I can recall several cases that came to my attention which in their way were really tragic. One was the case of a boy of good parentage who was before me on six charges of breaking and entering. He was only sixteen years of age. He told me that he had read about this in the comic books and that was how he came to go in for that sort of thing. I am glad to say that, later, when he became more mature, he turned out to be a good citizen. Another great tragedy occurred as the result of a boy seeing a hanging in a movie. He went home and experimented with a rope, and as a result killed himself. So there is no doubt that there are evil effects from both the movies and literature like these comics.
When one goes into a bookstore nowadays where magazines are displayed in great profusion, it seems to me they fall into three classes. There are the newspapers, which I suppose are the least harmful of all the literature displayed today. There are the magazines, which are in two classes: the kind dealing with economic and political subjects, and the kind dealing with true stories, true confessions, and that sort of thing. Then we have the comics. The children are interested only in the comics; but when an adult goes to a newsstand and sees the sort of picture magazines that are on display, he is ashamed to pick one up. I always consider it a reliable criterion of the sort of book that should not be permitted if it is the kind you are ashamed to let anyone, even a stranger, see you read.
We have been in confederation since April 1. One of the effects or results of confederation-I do not think it was intended by the Liberal party-has been to open the door to the sort of literature we are denouncing tonight. When we were more or less independent we had customs prohibitions which prevented these magazines from coming in, and the police and customs officials working together managed to keep out a great many of them. During the past summer, however, the country was flooded with magazines published in Toronto which were delivered through the post gratis. One day the assistant chief of police came to me in my office and said, "I don't know what I am going to do about these magazines. Everybody is complaining about them." I said, "I know what I am going to do; I am going to call the secretary for posts." I immediately

Criminal Code
called him and said, "Is it not an offence in Canada for this sort of literature to be sent through the mails?" He replied that it was. I told him what was happening, and he said he would take immediate steps to have it stopped.
As I read the section proposed by the hon. member, I understand that an offender is to be tried by a judge and jury. If that is not so, perhaps the hon. member will correct me.


Edmund Davie Fulton: By indictment.


William Joseph Browne: It seems to me that procedure is too elaborate, and that this offence should be dealt with on summary conviction, or by ordinary summary trial. It also seems to me that if these magazines are imported from the United States the customs and postal authorities should be able to stop them, when they come within the category of books which are injurious to morals. If on the other hand they are published in this country the amendment to the act should give the police power to go in and take possession, by means of a warrant, of course, and the distributor should be dealt with by summary trial. If there is to be a trial by jury it is so long before the case is heard, and then when it comes up, with clever lawyers and that sort of thing, technicalities are likely to prevent the realization of what we have in mind, which is a procedure that will be summary and quick.
I do not intend to continue my comments at any great length, but there is one thing I should like to add. In Newfoundland we tried the interesting experiment of having a great public library system, furnished without cost by the government. For years we have had a libraries board which has been broadcasting programs about books and reading all over the country. We have twenty-seven or twenty-eight regional libraries all over Newfoundland, each with books especially chosen for children. I think my hon. friends opposite who come from Newfoundland will bear with me when I say that this comic book evil rarely reached the outports of Newfoundland but is confined to the city of St. John's and two or three of the larger places such as Corner Brook, Grand Falls and Bell Island. It does not reach into the smaller settlements, thank God. Instead of the comic books, therefore, we have the other books which are carefully chosen by the special selection committee of the libraries board. We have attacked the problem in that way; and in our public library in St. John's, where we have a large selection of good children's books of all kinds, those books are used extensively and it has been a great success. I believe the existence of the public library system has 
helped a great deal in mitigating the evil to which reference has been made here.
As hon. members have suggested, I believe the practical approach to the problem consists in placing good literature before the boys and girls and stressing it continuously in radio programs and articles in the press. This will probably do as much as, if not more than, legislation of the sort suggested in this bill. At the same time, however, when an obvious evil exists I believe it is the duty of parliament to put it down by some statutory enactment.
On motion of Mr. Cardiff, the debate was adjourned.

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



DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
526.	Departmental administration, $2,157,024.
Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, if the committee agrees, we might proceed item by item and as we come to the proper items I shall attempt to cover those points raised in the debate this afternoon.
Before doing so, however, and to complete what I was saying before the recess about the question raised by the member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) regarding the steps taken to adjust old debts and clear titles, may I say that matter will receive the careful consideration of the deputy minister and the director of the soldier settlement board.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
527.	District administration, $2,945,528.
Howard Charles Green: I should like to ask the minister about the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act. The annual report concerning this act for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1949, shows that there have been loans totalling $7,517,879.85; of that amount nearly half or $3,372,754.87 has been repaid. I believe this is a splendid record. The report also shows that only 34 claims have been defaulted, amounting to $36,686.05. Those figures reflect great credit on the veterans.
There is nothing in the report, however, to show the number of applications for loans which were turned down. Could the minister supply that information?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The total number of applications not approved for the purchase of a business amounts to fourteen; for the purchase of an interest in a partnership, five; for the purchase of tools and equipment, three; for repairing tools and equipment, etc., one; for the construction and repair of buildings, five; for the purchase of a motorized

unit, seven. This makes a total of thirty-five in all categories which were not approved.


Howard Charles Green: Has there been any demand for loans by veterans who wish to buy into a private company? As the law reads now a veteran can only buy into a partnership.


Milton Fowler Gregg: None have come to my attention. All applications so far could be covered by the purchase into a partnership.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
528.	Veterans welfare services (formerly rehabilitation services), $3,686,711.
George Randolph Pearkes: There are one or two questions I should like to ask about this item. First, I believe an order in council was passed a few days ago amending the rehabilitation act so that personnel in hospitals would receive training allowances or something of that nature. Could the minister explain what those changes mean? I believe the order in council was dated September 28, 1949.
The second point is concerned with the transfer from university training to vocational training and vice versa. I believe there was a deadline set when applications for transfer from one type of training to the other had to be made. I think it was within six months of the termination of the course. Some people did not receive any notice about that deadline. The only notices which were sent out appeared in the newspapers and, quite obviously, many veterans would miss them. People who were travelling or who lived in isolated parts of the country would not see such a notice. Would the minister consider extending that deadline in cases where a recommendation was made, perhaps by the president of the university or the principal of the vocational training course concerned, so that the men who had given up hope of being able to transfer from vocational training to university might still be able to take advantage of that amendment. They would then be able to continue a course which, perhaps, they had given up because they saw no opportunity of following the line of rehabilitation they particularly desired.
I have in mind men who were taking a course in carpentry who felt they would like to go farther and take a course in architecture at a university. When we are dealing with this item, would the minister answer the questions which were directed to him before the recess regarding the rehabilitation of the men who served in the merchant navy?


Milton Fowler Gregg: On the first point, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I have not a copy of that order in council before me. I shall bring it with me at some later date when these estimates are being considered. On the
Supply-Veterans Affairs question of the changeover of training, and the arrangements that were made to make that more flexible, I can say now that if a given veteran, through circumstances beyond his control, did not get the information with regard to that change in time to get in under the dateline, then the matter will certainly be taken into consideration to see that he does not suffer on that account. I doubt whether there is anything I can add tonight with respect to the matter that was discussed before the parliamentary committee and at the last session with regard to the merchant marine. As was pointed out this afternoon, the committee at that time recommended that the younger men who served in the merchant marine should be given the opportunity for vocational training in addition to training in their own business at sea. It was pointed out that at our seaports on each coast some of these young men were not working but were hanging around and being subjected to subversive influences; and it was suggested that it would be a good thing if they could be allowed to take vocational training in the same way as those who had served in the armed forces.
This matter was considered by the government, and the Department of Transport arranged that this be done, going through my department; the training was carried on in conjunction with the vocational training centres of the province in the same way as it was carried on with the veterans. More recently representations have been made, to the same effect as those that were made this afternoon, that the age of thirty was considered too young. Many of these men had already gone beyond that age and still were not permanently employed. On behalf of the Minister of Transport I think I can state that the matter will be carefully considered in view of what was said this afternoon.


Frank Exton Lennard: There is one matter that I should again like to bring to the attention of the minister, namely, the plight of one group of the auxiliary services that I feel have had a shabby deal. I refer to the Red Cross girls. As the minister well knows, they did not get even a clothing allowance when they came back to Canada. As a result of the small amount of remuneration received, and on which they had to live while overseas, when they came out of the service they had nothing. I wish the minister would give serious consideration to this matter.


Mr. Wright:: I should like to ask the minister to give the committee a short explanation of the position of a Newfoundland veteran now coming under the veterans legislation with respect to vocational training. Will his rights for vocational training have lapsed

Supply-Veterans Affairs before the act came into force in Newfoundland or will he have some retroactive rights to training?


Milton Fowler Gregg: As all hon. members know, including those from Newfoundland, veterans in Newfoundland are in all respects now in receipt of the benefits under the veterans charter in the same manner as though Newfoundland had been a part of Canada at the time of demobilization. I think that is a fair statement. To refer to vocational training and university training, I may say that in all parts of Canada at the present time the main body of veterans have had their training. As to university training, Newfoundland had a plan of their own. They also had a plan for vocational training. It was somewhat different from ours, but it was a good plan. Some of these veterans were in receipt of training when union took place. My department took them over and carried them on under our rights until they finished their particular training, whether it was vocational or university training.


Mr. Applewhaite:: Before this item is passed, I think utterance should be given to a word of commendation of a certain type of public servant. We are free, and properly so, to criticize where criticism is due; and I think we should give praise where praise is due. I refer to the type commonly known in the small towns as the D.V.A. representative. I believe that later on he was attached to the Department of Labour but he originally came to towns the size of mine as a D.V.A. representative. I should like to say to the minister that in those places with which I am familiar these men have done a job which it is impossible to extol too highly. The veterans of all services-even veterans who politically have no use for this government, and many who have not much use for the economic system under which we live-are all loud in their praise of the D.V.A. local representative who had assisted in matters such as employment, the Veterans Land Act, loans and so on. I think that some of us-and I am glad to do so -should publicly express our appreciation of the work these men have done on behalf of all veterans.


Milton Fowler Gregg: It gives me great pleasure to direct those welcome remarks to my colleague the Minister of Labour, inasmuch as this official who has just been spoken of is in reality an employee of the offices of the national employment service across Canada. It is true that some of them did happen to serve previously in the Department of Veterans Affairs. To what has been said I should like to add that, in every centre of Canada where there is an office of the Department of Veterans Affairs and also an office of the

national employment service, I believe the closest liaison and co-operation have been carried out in order to obtain employment for our veterans.


Victor Quelch: Can the minister give the number of persons on the staff and the number of patients at the health and occupational centre at Billings Bridge?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That was the subject of an order for return, Mr. Chairman. Was the hon. member's question with reference to all of them or just with reference to the one?


Victor Quelch: Just the one.


Milton Fowler Gregg: In the Rideau health and occupational centre there are 118 patients at the present time.


Victor Quelch: What is the number of persons on the staff?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: That information was tabled in an order for return the other day. I will try to find it.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I will get that information for the hon. member in a few minutes.


Howard Charles Green: The minister stated that further consideration will be given to a change in the provision under which a merchant seaman gets vocational training. Can he explain to the committee just how the authority is divided on that question between the Department of Transport and the Department of Veterans Affairs? I have just recently had the case of a merchant seaman brought to my attention. Of course he is unable to get university training. Nevertheless, he has gone to university and requires only one more year to get the degree of bachelor of commerce. In the meantime he has applied for vocational training in the way of articling to a chartered accountant. After graduating from university he proposes to take up chartered accountancy. He could get that vocational training from the Department of Transport, but they say that if he is to get it he must start in right away with his articles. Obviously it is foolish for him not to finish his course at the university. The Department of Transport refuses to give him a year's extension on the vocational training. I do not think that is right. The Department of Veterans Affairs is obviously quite willing to let him have that extension. The minister's own department obviously believes that this lad should be allowed to finish his course at university and then get the vocational training but the Department of Transport officials are making an arbitrary ruling that they will not give him that vocational training unless he leaves university to commence his articles. There is a division of authority which is unfortunate. I suggest that the Department

of Veterans Affairs be given full authority to deal with these applications. I can see that the establishing of his service in the merchant navy would be done through the Department of Transport but once he had established that service, why not let the Department of Veterans Affairs take over from then on? The way it is now these lads are not getting a fair deal.
Further, does the minister not think that the merchant navy men should now be allowed to get educational training as well as vocational training? In the meantime many of them have paid their own way through perhaps two or three years but they are still in university. It is a shame that they have not had that educational help.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I will answer the last question first by saying that a parliamentary committee composed of many minds did not recommend the university training and it has not been put into effect. To answer the other question, in their service with the merchant marine these men were under the Department of Transport. If the occasion should arise and the merchant navy were ever increased again, I presume the same situation would exist. It is also true that the Department of Transport have all the records available regarding these men; we have not.


Howard Charles Green: Regarding their service?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Regarding their service in the merchant navy. Consequently it seemed sound, and I think it is, to have their applications made to the Department of Transport. If by chance they came to my department or to the district offices they were routed through the Department of Transport to decide upon their eligibility under the terms that had been laid down. After that had been decided upon and they were accepted for training they were sent on to the Department of Veterans Affairs to carry on their vocational training in the regular vocational training courses throughout the districts. As to responsibility during that stage, we have looked upon it as a joint one. If my hon. friend feels that injustices have been done in individual cases I know that my colleague, the Minister of Transport, would be glad to discuss it with him, as I would be.


Howard Charles Green: I would rather discuss it with you.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: May I answer the question asked a moment ago with respect to the Rideau hospital? The staff is 103; the potential patient capacity is 175. At the time the return was made a week ago there were 118 patients in the hospital.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
529.	Treatment services, $34,478,808.
Mr. Harkness:: I should like to ask the
minister two or three questions in connection with the scale of fees charged to veterans who are not eligible for free hospitalization in the departmental hospitals. Hon. members will recall that a considerable amount of discussion took place on this last spring or the year before, and a number of cases were brought up that have frequently been charged up to $9 a day for care in one of the departmental hospitals. What is the average of fees now being charged? Has there been any change during the last year? If not, is any change contemplated? As the minister knows, so far as hospital accommodation is concerned, in many places it is very difficult. If those fees were charged at any time with the idea in mind of not competing with private hospitals, it certainly does not apply to many places at the present time. Frequently the only hospital that a veteran is able to get into is a veterans hospital. No beds are vacant in the ordinary hospitals in the places in which the veterans happen to live. Whatever charge is made, if it is necessary to make a charge to the veteran who can afford it I quite agree with it; but the veteran who is not able to afford it is in a different position. In any event, if he has to be charged, the charge ought to be made as low as possible to cover whatever extra cost is necessary to hospitalize that veteran in a bed which perhaps otherwise would not be occupied.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Fees are sometimes referred to as merely the matter of bed and board within the hospital. Then there is the larger service of the bed and board within the hospital, medical service, X-rays and so forth which come under an all-inclusive rate, including everything within the hospital. That averages $9.75.


George Randolph Pearkes: Does that all-inclusive rate include surgical operations?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes, everything.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Has there been any change in the rate in the last year? Is that the same rate that has been in effect more or less since the beginning?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The average has increased by 75 cents. It has increased from $9 to $9.75 in the last year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Can the minister tell us what the basis of that is? Why is it necessary to charge $9.75, which I think he will realize is beyond the means of a large number of veterans? Their incomes just do not warrant a cost of $9.75 a day for hospitalization.

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Milton Fowler Gregg: I assure the hon. member that a profit is not being made. It is considered to be not greater than the cost, and I am informed that a number of civilian hospitals charge more than that rate.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I can quite believe that a number of civilian hospitals may charge more. The point I am getting at is this. The hospital is there in operation, and if this bed were not being occupied by the veteran who is not entitled to free hospital treatment, in practically all cases it would not be occupied at all, because these people get in only if the veterans who are entitled to hospitalization have not filled the hospital. The rate, I take it, is based on the total cost of running the hospital. Whether it includes depreciation on the capital invested I do not know, but 1 would take it that that is so. If that is so, I would suggest that it is not necessary; that the hospitalization of these veterans, particularly those of limited means, could be done on a very much smaller fee than would be charged in the ordinary hospital.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I can assure the hon. member that there is no amount tucked in that $9.75 to cover capital investment. The other point which I probably should make clear is that we are not able to have a non-veteran who is not eligible for treatment come in as a patient. Those who are charged that amount are veterans sent to our hospitals by such organizations as provincial or municipal governments, or organizations such as the Canadian paraplegic association, and others who pay the amount on behalf of the veteran patient.


Douglas Scott Harkness: How much revenue has the department secured from that source during the past year?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I have not the information here, but I shall get it.


Mr. Fraser:: It does not seem fair that the Department of Veterans Affairs should charge that amount for a veteran going into hospital, in view of the fact that the Indian affairs branch pays only $3 or $3.50 a day for an Indian in hospital. There is something wrong somewhere, definitely. I know of veterans who have had to go to hospital and who, instead of going to veterans hospitals and paying $9 a day, have found it cheaper to go to local hospitals.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Does the hon. member know of an instance where a veteran has, out of his own money, paid $9.75 per day?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes; I have had cases where they have gone to local hospitals instead of paying that amount.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: But does the hon. member know of any case where a veteran has paid out that amount?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The parliamentary assistant told us that they paid it.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: No, we did not. We said that there is a charge there, but that in almost every instance where $9.75 has been collected it has been collected on behalf of a veteran who was there as a charge against a third party. These are veterans who are hospitalized at the request of municipalities or other organizations, or perhaps as a result of an accident where the claim lies against a third party.
I believe that upon examination the hon. member would find that there are exceedingly few cases where the veteran himself has ever paid that charge. I would be interested to know of any cases where a veteran has actually been there over a period of time, and paid that much.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: From what came out during the last session, and the preceding one, and from the fact that the minister said they were charging $9 or $9.50 a day, I know that is so.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: There is a liability of that; I believe that would be a better way to express it.


Mr, Fraser:: Yes, but every veteran feels that is what he would have to pay if he went into hospital. He does everything possible to avoid the hospital on account of that charge.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Believe me, he does everything possible to get in.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No, to keep away from it. While I am on my feet I would ask whether the department has tried out, for blind veterans, the electric eye which has been used by the service departments in the United States. These weigh about four pounds and project a beam of light in front of the veteran. When the light beam is broken by an object in the user's path a warning is given by the vibration it produces. I understand this has worked out very well, and I was wondering if this department had done anything about it?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I understand the department has been in touch with the situation through Colonel Baker of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, and that the matter is being studied.


George Randolph Pearkes: I believe I could supply the parliamentary assistant with the names of individuals who have been in the veterans hospital at Victoria. I cannot say for certain, but I believe they paid the money themselves. Certainly they were billed for it. Then,

before they were cured, they moved from the veterans hospital to the Royal Jubilee hospital at Victoria.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: The stated liability is there. But there is a latitude with respect to collection which has not, in my experience, worked any real hardship on anyone who could not pay it. I asked the question, not with the suggestion that there is no liability; there is. I have indicated however that the administration is such that it does not, in my opinion, work any hardship.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to comment on what was said a short time ago by the parliamentary assistant. I brought it out because I had three complaints within the last two months from individuals who thought they were being charged more than they should have been in the veterans hospital-certainly far more than they had anticipated having to pay.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: It could happen that either the hon. member who has just spoken or myself, both veterans, might as a result of an emergency be admitted. I believe he would agree, as would other hon. members in the committee, that under the circumstances either of us would be able to pay for that accommodation. Under those conditions it would probably be collected in full. But my point is that there is no insistence against a veteran who needs treatment and is ill-equipped to pay it, just because the liability does exist.


Mr. Goode:: The statement has been made that veterans would prefer to go to hospitals other than veterans hospitals. That is not the fact. Along with many other hon. members of the house, I am a member of the Canadian Legion. We believe the department is doing its best to provide for the veterans. I do not believe in my experience with the Legion in the Vancouver area that there has ever been a case where a veteran has definitely decided to go to some hospital other than Shaughnessy. I do know of some boys in Shaughnessy who have not been able to pay for their hospital accommodation for some time. One of the boys I visited the day before I came east is dying of tuberculosis. His hospital rate is $9.75 a day, but he will never be expected to pay it. And the hon. member who asks that question very well knows it.
No one is fairer to the veterans than is this department, whether it be in hospitalization or in any other particular. I resent the implication that the department would ask the veteran in hospital to pay the $9.75, if he were unable to pay it.
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Donald MacInnis: While we are discussing item 528-


The Deputy Chairman:: We are discussing item 529.


Donald MacInnis: I was about to ask a question with respect to item 528. I understood the minister to say that it was the intention to extend the time for applications for vocational training under P.C. 5983, and also to extend the age limit.


Milton Fowler Gregg: That was in connection with merchant seamen. I said I would be glad to discuss the matter of age limit with my colleague the Minister of Transport.


Frank Exton Lennard: Could the minister shed some light on the subject of ambulance service which I brought up this afternoon? I mentioned that matter so that the minister and his deputies might have an hour or so to dig up the information.


Milton Fowler Gregg: When the hon. member was speaking this afternoon I was tempted to interrupt him to tell him that the matter to which he directed his remarks was immediately under the consideration of the deputy minister and his officials.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any possibility of men of the merchant navy getting hospitalization? At the present time they are not entitled to any hospitalization whatsoever unless they happen to be pensioners, and there are very few pensioners among them because the pension provisions are too strict. It is not possible to give these men hospitalization? Surely they can at least get that. It does not come under the Department of Transport. This question can be settled by the Department of Veterans Affairs. I urge the minister to make some provision to allow these men to get hospitalization. It is very unfair that they cannot get into the veterans hospitals.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Of course, under existing legislation the answer to that is no. It is in reality a part of a larger question. As the hon. member knows, there was not only this group of non-veterans, technically speaking, but also a number of others who were considered by the parliamentary committee, and the principle has not been acknowledged that they are entitled to the benefits, including hospitalization, that were provided under the veterans charter for those who served in the armed forces.


Howard Charles Green: Is it not a fact that no amendment of any legislation would be required to give them hospitalization? Hospitalization is provided by order in council. No amendment to any statute is required.
632	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Milton Fowler Gregg: If nothing more, it would mean an amendment by way of definition of the word "veteran".


Howard Charles Green: There is a similar situation with regard to the widows of men who were drawing the war veterans allowance. They come under the War Veterans Allowance Act and yet they are not entitled to hospitalization. I believe they are the only group coming under the War Veterans Allowance Act who cannot get hospitalization. In my opinion that is also an injustice. The hospitals are equipped to take care of the young women who served in the three forces during the second world war. Surely some arrangement could be made so that the widows of the front line troops of the first war could be given treatment. Is the minister not going to make a statement?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I doubt whether I could make any useful statement. I think the widows to whom the hon. member referred are widows of former recipients of war veterans allowance.


Howard Charles Green: That is right.


Milton Fowler Gregg: If that were done, an equally important and much larger group would be pensioners' widows who perhaps may not have inherited the pension upon the death of their husbands.


Howard Charles Green: They are probably entitled to war veterans allowance under the present act.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Not unless they had service themselves.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I do not feel that at the present time our hospitals would be able to undertake that task without extensive enlargement.


Mr. Cardiff:: Does a veteran drawing a disability pension continue to draw that pension while hospitalized?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister was going to get me the figure of the amount of revenue that had been taken in by the department through the fees I referred to. Has he got that now?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I will attempt to get that exactly. All I could give tonight would be an estimate which would include the recover-ables such as the Department of National Defence, the R.C.M.P., and so on, but if the hon. member will permit me to do so I shall get that figure and bring it in at the first opportunity.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
533. War veterans allowance board-administration, $237,204.
Howard Charles Green: The minister did not make any reply to the suggestions which were made this afternoon concerning war veterans allowance. Will he make a reply now?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I think the main discussion this afternoon was about the adequacy of the war veterans allowance as it exists at the present time following the increase which was made last year. The other point which was discussed was the question whether ex-members of the forces who served with the United Kingdom, with the British commonwealth of nations, or our allies, and who have lived in Canada for a period of time, should be eligible under the act. Dealing with the first point, as hon. members know, only a year ago the amount of the allowance was increased from $30 to $40 per month for single men and from $60 to $70 per month for married men. That was put into effect last spring but was retroactive to the first of October of the year before. I should like to mention, in case it is overlooked, that when we come to the amount under war veterans allowance and pensions it will be necessary for hon. members to note that in last year's estimates it covers the whole of last year plus the preceding six months, which makes it a little larger than it otherwise would be. During the summer it appeared to us that there were veterans, particularly in the cities and towns, who were undergoing hardship because they had no other means of support and were not employable. Welfare workers within our department made a test for our own information in a number of centres across Canada to find out just what the situation was. We were very happy to see that conditions were not as bad as we sometimes feared they might be, but on the other hand we did find that hardship was being experienced particularly in the cities. That was the reason why I put forward a request last spring that there be inserted in the estimates an item for half a million dollars in order that we could continue and complete the survey quietly and steadily, and while so doing do something to overcome the hardship which our survey showed did exist.
We did find that some of the old veterans, who had become eligible for war veterans allowance and were getting a cheque every month, did not read the newspapers very much, or the periodicals of the veterans associations. As a result we found that when something happened to their teeth and they had to get them out they went to the dentist and paid him for pulling them; or if they had to go to a doctor for some medicine, they took their few dollars from the war veterans allowance and paid for it. In other words

they did not know they were entitled to medical assistance under the War Veterans Allowance Act.
That situation, of course, was easily corrected. There are many other ways in which by advice and consultation conditions may be improved without too much difficulty. Later on I shall be able to give the exact figures; but in setting up this fund we desired that it should have a degree of flexibility which would enable our welfare people in the district to work in direct co-operation with the welfare people of the community in order to meet without too much delay any cases of hardship which might arise. On the whole in spite of some of the criticism we heard this afternoon I think that this is being done. We have kept in close touch with the situation here in Ottawa. A committee headed by my deputy minister has managed that fund from Ottawa, but a great deal of discretion has been left to those in the field to deal with local situations without delay when the need has been established. It was also necessary to have a good deal of flexibility geographically, because all veterans across the country are not making application for assistance from this fund in the same degree. In my own end of the country the applications are comparatively few. In British Columbia the number of applications and approvals is very high. That is due to the fact that many of our old veterans have gone west because of the climate, and have settled down in that well known paradise of Vancouver island. There they are, and there they foregather.
I do take exception to the suggestion advanced this afternoon that a severe additional means test is being applied in connection with the war veterans allowance. I have spoken to a good many of these men, and in my experience they have no objection whatever to going to the official in our district office, who knows all about them anyway because he has all the information in the files, and saying to that official, "Here are some additional circumstances that have got us into trouble. Can we get some additional help?" It is just as simple as that. It is not a means test piled upon another means test. D.V.A. people who conducted this voluntary survey, taking a few here and a few there, did not go out as inspectors or as a gestapo to find out whether these people were hiding something under the mattress. They went out to sit down with the recipients of this allowance, to discuss their problems and find out what could be done to help. That is the spirit in which this additional amount called the war veterans allowance assistance fund has been and is being administered. By the end of the fiscal year I am
Supply-Veterans Affairs sure we will be able to tell whether this amount will be sufficient or whether further steps should be taken. I would like to carry on until the end of the year in order to ascertain these facts.


Mr. Fair:: Very recently another matter was brought to my attention to which I think the minister might give a little attention. I understand that a person receiving the war veterans allowance is held down to an income of $1,100 a year, including that allowance. If he is in receipt of casual earnings, however, I do not believe that figure applies. If a man has a steady job, though it may not be worth very much, he has a ceiling placed upon his earnings. I have particular reference to the case of a man who is seventy-two years old this month. The druggist in his town needed some help for about four hours a day, and this man undertook to fill the position, for which he is paid $7.50 per week or approximately $30 a month. Apparently he was earning that money for some little time before the war veterans allowance board found out about it, and now they have reduced his allowance until a certain amount has been repaid.
I believe something should be done about a case like that, where a man of this age had enough ambition to go out and make a few extra dollars. He told me that he and his wife could not live in comfort on the allowance he was receiving, so he was trying to get a little extra money. I do not think it should make any difference whether it is a steady job or casual earnings. Perhaps in this case that $7.50 a week might be classed as casual earnings.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I should like a chance to study the case mentioned by my hon. friend, but from what he has said I take it that this man is permanently employed, with so much money coming in regularly every week. Consequently that would be looked upon by the board as a salary or wage. I think hon. members know that we have interpreted the expression "casual earnings" in very broad fashion, but I do not think we could interpret it broadly enough to include the case mentioned by my hon. friend, if I understood him correctly.


Robert Fair: Then I wonder if it would not be better for that man to give up his steady job and work every other week, or something like that. Would that make a difference?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I can hardly answer that question. The amount earned is above that permitted by the act, and whether or not it would pay him to make a change would be, of course, up to him. I imagine he is rather proud of the fact that he is able to earn that

Supply-Veterans Affairs much money under his own power. I shall be glad to look into the case fully with my hon. friend.


Robert Fair: Then I wonder if the minister would suggest that he apply for the amount which was made available last year, of up to $15 a month, provided he stops work. Many other people throughout the country have done that. He would then get away from this steady salary, and make application for that extra amount provided last year.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I shall be glad to discuss the case with my hon. friend.


Howard Charles Green: Do I understand from the minister's statement that in every case this additional allowance is in the nature of a grant of one kind or another rather than a definite increase in the amount of the war veterans allowance received each month?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It is an amount utilized in an attempt to overcome special hardship which may be immediate or of some duration. It may be a spot amount of $50. It may be an amount to be advanced over a period of two months or six months or twelve months. It is flexible enough to enable those administering it to use discretion, and I feel that it is in the nature of an auxiliary to the regular war veterans allowance, and is accomplishing quite a good deal in proportion to the amount of money expended.


Howard Charles Green: Then would the veteran have to apply each year?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The veteran would be in close touch with those administering it. In some cases it might not be necessary to do so, but I would imagine in most cases it would be necessary for our administrator in the district to know about the case from time to time.


Howard Charles Green: That brings up the objectionable feature, Mr. Chairman, that this is only a temporary measure. In most cases, it is not even for a year. Next year if a veteran is to get the same benefit he will have to re-apply. I believe some more permanent arrangement will have to be made. If the minister is only trying this out for the remainder of the present fiscal year, there is not much objection to it. However, if this is the manner in which assistance is to be given year in and year out, then certainly some better means of doing it will have to be found. If a veteran receiving assistance only gets it temporarily, and has to apply each year, he may receive one amount this year and a different amount next year.


Alan Carl Stewart: He might not need it next year.


Howard Charles Green: If that is a permanent policy, I do not think it is sound. Something better than that will have to be worked out, and I feel sure the minister will agree with me in that contention.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am sure I did not indicate that that was anything approaching a permanent policy. The regular recipient of war veterans allowance under the act is not, by any means, necessarily permanent in the same way a pensioner might be permanent. Under our present act, the case must be reviewed from time to time and changes made based upon the conditions under which the veteran is living. This year I believe we are really more closely in touch with those in receipt of aid than we are with the regular recipients. As I pointed out before, I think it is revealing a number of things, and by the end of the first fiscal year we shall have acquired more information on that subject than we have had heretofore.


Howard Charles Green: The situation with regard to old age pensions is not being met at all by this temporary provision. In British Columbia the old age pensioner is receiving $50 per month, and that increase is not temporary. The burnt-out pension is supposed to be the equivalent of the old age pension, as the minister stated in his speech I quoted this afternoon. In British Columbia and some of the other provinces the situation will develop where the old age pensioner will receive more than a war veterans allowance recipient. I do suggest to the minister that the war veterans allowance will have to be made equal to the old age pension. The idea of having a temporary increase is not going to meet the situation at all, particularly in view of the fact that the old age pensioner now receives more than the war veterans allowance recipient.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I still come back to the point that the old age pensioner and his wife have to be seventy years of age before they can receive a pension.


Howard Charles Green: It is a rather weak excuse.


Donald MacInnis: I should like to make a few remarks on the question discussed by the member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). In talking to recipients of war veterans allowance, I find they have mainly three grievances. The first, of course, is that the allowance is too small. Second, before special assistance is given an investigation is made, and that is deeply resented. This is the matter referred to by the member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) and by other members on a number of occasions, namely, the means test.

I would suggest to the minister, and through him to the government, that if the means test is to be continued we should pay the allowance until the income reached the amount exempted under the Income Tax Act, $1,000 for single persons and $2,000 for married persons. The recipients of the allowance would be permitted to earn as much as they could, and if they exceeded these exemptions they could be taxed in the ordinary way, including the amount received from the war veterans allowance. I believe it would be the least costly way of handling it. There must be an enormous expenditure of time and money in making these investigations. Investigations are irritating, there is no doubt about it. I am informed by individuals in receipt of the war veterans allowance that these investigations are conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Some means will have to be found of getting rid of these petty annoyances.
In British Columbia we are faced with the fact that the old age pension proper plus the supplementary amount paid by the government now totals approximately $50 per month. When both recipients are over the age of seventy, it is considerably more than married persons receive under the War Veterans Allowance Act. I do not think the fact that an applicant is seventy years of age should make any difference. It takes as much money to keep a couple who are sixty as it does to keep a couple who are seventy.


Frank Exton Lennard: They would eat more.


Donald MacInnis: I would imagine they would because the younger couple would be more active and expect more of life than those who had reached a more advanced age. I would suggest to the minister that he take these matters under consideration and see if there is some way we can eliminate these petty annoyances to people who are in a difficult position in many cases, through no fault of their own.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Could the minister tell me in what circumstances a veteran who is drawing a disability pension must find himself before he would be entitled to receive assistance from the army benevolent fund?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The terms of reference for the army benevolent fund were worked out by a parliamentary committee. As a result of that, an independent board was created which worked out its own regulations and technique. It is responsible to parliament in a general way through the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I would not be able to answer a hypothetical question with regard to a pensioner, but I am quite sure he could receive funds from the army benevolent fund if the situation warranted it.
Supply-Veterans Affairs


John Horne Blackmore: Will the minister, after giving the matter some thought, give the house a justification for the present means test against the veterans who are drawing the war veterans allowance? I should like to know by what process of reasoning that sum of money was arrived at by the men who originally fixed it at the present amount.
I have never been able to see any sense in it at all. What can be the object of the Department of Veterans Affairs in wanting to keep the veterans on a subsistence level, in constant and appalling need? I fail to see any sensible objective. I can understand why the Department of Veterans Affairs would want to keep the veterans allowance down as low as possible in order to avoid expense, and that seems to be their primary objective. But why they should object to people who receive the war veterans allowance going out and making more where they can do so, I never could see, especially when the sum is as meagre as that which now constitutes the means test for veterans receiving the war veterans allowance in Canada. After the minister has had time to think this matter over, I should like to have him justify before the committee and before the country the amount of the means test at the present time.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Even though it may not be what the hon. member for Lethbridge wants, I suppose the correct answer is that we are administering an act, and in that act appears this item called the means test. We try to administer it fairly and in accordance with what we think is the will of the people who passed the act; and they were the members of this house representing the people of Canada. I do not intend to go behind that and try to enter into the minds of those who inserted the means test into the act when it was placed upon the statute books.


John Horne Blackmore: I can understand that, Mr. Chairman. But I should like to know whether this means test was forced on the Department of Veterans Affairs; and if so, I should like to know who it was that forced it on them. The means test is said to have been passed by this house, but it was introduced by a government and passed by this house because it was introduced by a government. I am positive that no members of this house ever told the government that they wanted to have that means test so meagre as it is at the present time. If there is any way of finding out who it was that first conceived setting that means test down at as low a level as it now is, I should like to find out who it was and why he did it.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The means test was not forced upon the Department of Veterans Affairs

Supply-Veterans Affairs any more than it was forced upon the Department of National Health and Welfare with regard to the old age pension. It is part of the legislation which was considered and passed by parliament. That was one of the sections within that legislation, just as it is one of the sections within the old age pension legislation. I do not think there is anything more that I can say on that subject tonight.


John Horne Blackmore: As I see it, the point is this. It was considered by parliament because somebody designed the thing and brought it down to parliament. What I should like to know is who that fellow was who designed it, and why he designed it in the way he did. That is the thing.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I do not want to continue this discussion, but the first designing was done away back in 1929 and 1930. In the spring of 1930 the first bill covering war veterans allowances was brought in. This item was in that original act. The act has been amended a number of times since then, but this item remains in it. I know that it has been discussed, but it remains in it because apparently the majority of the members of this parliament felt that it should be in it.


John Horne Blackmore: Would it not be more accurate to say that that is the way the majority of the members of the treasury board felt? I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the time is long overdue when a complete revision is brought about in this parliament. I suggest that the minister take this matter up in the cabinet and tell them that that is what the people all over this country think.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not want to detract from this all-out attack on the means test as a whole. But since the minister is to look out and see if he can find this fellow who first invented it, may I ask a susidiary question. The minister will recall that this afternoon I was discussing the way in which the war veterans allowance means test with respect to liquid assets is meaner in its application than is the case with the old age pension people. I should like to know whether the provision which says that a veteran must reduce his liquid assets to a certain amount before he can qualify for burnt-out pension is in the act or is in the regulations under the act.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The point brought up by my hon. friend is not a part of the act. It is a ruling by the board administering or interpreting the act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now we have something about which something could be done. When the minister can say that the point we are

kicking about, such as the whole means test, is in the act he can say that, as long as the majority think as the majority does in this parliament, nothing can be done. But here is something that is done not by virtue of the act itself but by virtue of an administrative ruling or regulation made under the act. I am sure that the majority of members of this house, if they had a chance to express themselves, would say that the way of administering the means test in connection with the burnt-out pension should be no more strict in any respect than it is with regard to the old age pension. I am not going to ask the minister to make any promise or commitment here and now, but I hope he will look into the matter. I am sure I made clear this afternoon the difference between the old age pension means test and the burnt-out pension means test with regard to liquid assets. As to the old age pension, a partial pension is granted bringing the recipient up to the ceiling that is allowed by the pension means test. But as to the burnt-out pension, the veteran with liquid assets- and he does not need to have much-is told he cannot qualify until he reduces those assets to a stated amount. In other words, the veteran is asked to spend it or dissipate it or he is asked to live a little bit beyond what he feels he should because of his assets, in the hope that he will get the allowance later on.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the item carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute. I notice that the minister nods his head. I want to get on the record the fact that the minister nodded his head.


Frank Exton Lennard: Which way?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Up and down.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I shall be glad to look into the matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I remind the minister that there have been visiting in Ottawa this week women representing the non-pensioned veterans' widows association. I have no doubt they have seen him if they found it possible to get an audience. He knows some of the requests they have been making from time to time. One is that they should be granted treatment provisions, hospitalization and so on. He also knows about their particular plea that England be treated as a theatre of war with respect to world war I. Have they been able to make any dent upon him during the course of this week in connection with those matters?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I have had the pleasure on two occasions this week of meeting with the ladies referred to. I should like to state

also that these ladies told me that they had seen rumours in the press that the government had taken steps, or was about to take steps, on this much discussed matter affecting veterans who had served in the United Kingdom forces or in British commonwealth forces, which of course would in turn affect the widows of those veterans. I regret very much if such rumours went out because the facts of the matter are these, as has been pointed out. I did indicate to veterans organizations that I would study the matter. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra referred to that. I can assure him that that promise has been kept. There are matters relating to it which I discussed with the ladies and which the hon. member for York-ton referred to in passing this afternoon. The greater number of those from the commonwealth who served in a theatre of war, and who have been in the country for twenty years, came from Scotland, England, Ireland, north and south-and there, if you say in your definition "from the commonwealth", what are you going to do about the south of Ireland? That is only a minor problem. It is not an insuperable one. I have a record of some who have served in battle in the forces of Australia and New Zealand, but they are not anything like-


Howard Charles Green: How many?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I do not know how many, but I know there are a few. Then, if we are to study the problem of these people as we have been doing, shall we make a clean job of it and include all those who served on our side between 1914 and 1918? When you go on from there you have the United States, France, Belgium, Japan, Italy, Russia and quite a number of other countries. I have the list upstairs, which indicates that at least I have been giving it some study. The figures that have been estimated so far indicate that there might be in the vicinity of 2,000 British commonwealth people in the country who might be eligible in this connection. That is only a very rough guess.


Howard Charles Green: Two thousand?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes, from the British commonwealth, who might be eligible; not those who are in the country. There is a larger number than that in the country. Other steps are under way to try at least to find out some similar estimate as to those of allied and associated countries who may be in this country. All that I will say tonight in response to the question is that the matter is being studied by my department and by the government.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any chance of legislation being brought down this session?
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Milton Fowler Gregg: I do not expect that it will be completed in time to bring in any legislation at this session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it that the question of the widows of Canadian veterans who saw service only in England in world war I is included in this whole study.


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, it is not, because I do not think anybody has ever made more clear the principle underlying the war veterans allowance than did the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra this afternoon. The whole principle of this bill today, as it was in 1930, is that it is designed for those who had service in battle and because of that service in battle may have become pre-aged, burnt out, and consequently were entitled to a ten-year differential as compared with an old age civilian Canadian who had served his country not in uniform. If that principle were done away with, I think it would be almost as reasonable to say that Canada was a theatre of war in both world war I and world war II as to say that England was a theatre of war in world war I.


George Randolph Pearkes: In view of the minister's
promise to look into the question of liquid assets I bring one aspect of it to his attention. A certain amount of liquid assets is allowed and at the same time a man is permitted to own a property or a house up to the value of $4,000.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Assessed value?


George Randolph Pearkes: From time to time cases have been brought to my attention where the wife of a man dies and he is left a house which is perhaps larger than he is able to look after because he is a widower. In any event, he has to readjust his custom of life. He sells the house. That increases his assets by approximately $4,000. He may be waiting until he can find a smaller house, until he gets married again, or until he can make certain adjustments, but he loses his war veterans allowance. I do not suppose he loses it immediately but very shortly afterwards, until such time as the money which has accrued from the sale of his property has been reduced to the amount of liquid assets which he is permitted to hold. Therefore he has no chance of ever again having a house of his own. In the years to come, should he get married again, he has no opportunity of buying a house. If the minister intends to look into the question of the amount of liquid assets, might that point be taken into consideration? A widower has been left with increased assets owing to the sale of his house. He should be able to retain these-I am not going to say indefinitely-for a reasonable length of time until

Supply-Veterans Affairs he can get his living arrangements adjusted, buy a new property or get established in some other way.


Milton Fowler Gregg: We shall be glad to look into that.


Victor Quelch: There is no doubt that veterans across Canada do resent, and I think quite bitterly, the fact that civilians can get a higher rate of pension under the Old Age Pensions Act than the veteran can under the War Veterans Allowance Act. The minister has pointed out to us that the veterans can get the war veterans allowance at 60, a lower age than would qualify a civilian for old age pension; but he himself has reminded us of the fact that that was done in the first instance because the veteran was pre-aged by ten years. That being the case, it is not fair to refer to the fact that veterans can get war veterans allowance at a lower age.
Following along the line of the minister's discussion, would he suggest that when a war veteran and his wife receiving the benefit of the War Veterans Allowance Act reach the age of 70 he would be better off to drop the war veterans allowance and seek a pension under the Old Age Pensions Act? I am sure the minister himself would admit that it would not be a happy situation were our veterans recommended to drop their help under soldier legislation and seek it under civilian legislation merely because they can get a higher pension. Yet that is the situation that exists today, and many veterans have come to me and pointed out that they could get a higher rate of pension under civilian legislation than they could under soldier legislation. They have asked me whether I thought they should drop the war veterans allowance and seek assistance under the Old Age Pensions Act. I have urged them not to do so. I told them that I was satisfied that this matter would be rectified. In the name of common justice it has to be rectified. Surely we are not going to place veterans in the position of getting a lower pension than a civilian pension. Can the minister tell us the number of applications for assistance under this fund and the number who were given assistance?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I have not before me the number of applications for assistance. But in response to the other comment, I believe I did say that, by and large, an attempt was being made to have some relationship between the war veterans allowance and the old age pension in conjunction with the provinces. Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba-we will leave out Saskatchewan, because I am not sure-there is
[Mr. Pearkes.l
not a veteran in any of these provinces who, when he reaches the age of seventy, will want to switch over to old age pension. I think that is a fair average. If the other two or three provinces have a slight edge after the age of seventy, then it must be kept in mind that the others have not.


Howard Charles Green: This is the item having to do with the war veterans allowance board. The minister has not given an answer to the question asked this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver East respecting the husband and wife, where the wife had been working during some of the war years. The hon. member said that the war veterans allowance had been cut right off, and that the department was trying to collect even the man's small pension.
If that is so, then surely something should be done about it. There was probably no intention of misrepresentation at all in that instance. I do not believe it is fair to cut war veterans allowance off completely. I can quite understand why there would be some collection, or why something should be taken from the war veterans allowance. But these people have to live. They certainly cannot get city relief, and they cannot work.
I am surprised that the war veterans allowance board would take away the complete allowance. In cases I have had, where there have been overpayments, they have deducted $5 or $10 a month, or some such figure, leaving something on which the people could live. But in the case mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member the whole allowance was taken away.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I thought it would be impossible in committee to assess all the factors affecting an individual case, without having the record before us. I told the hon. member for Vancouver East that I would be glad to discuss the matter fully with him, and look into it.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the practice of the board in such cases to cut off war veterans allowance completely?


Milton Fowler Gregg: There has not come to my attention any case similar to the one mentioned this afternoon.


Donald MacInnis: I am quite satisfied that that is what has been done in this instance. I am sure there is not the slightest doubt about it at all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
534.	Veterans' insurance, $80,705.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Would the minister tell us how successful the veterans insurance scheme has been? I notice there is a decrease of

$17,624 from last year. Has the amount of insurance in force dropped? In other words, are there a number of people who have entered the scheme and ceased to pay premiums, so that the amount in force is smaller than it was before? I notice on looking at the details at page 308 that there are only two permanent employees in the department with total salaries of $4,470, whereas the salaries of temporary employees come to $66,015. What is the reason for that? Are there only two permanent employees because it is anticipated that the veterans insurance scheme will peter out? What is the story behind it?


Milton Fowler Gregg: As to the decrease of $17,624 from last year, this item covers administration and, as the hon. member will realize, in the first few years after demobilization there was a rush for applications. That rush is now tapering off, and consequently some saving has been made. It does not indicate at all, however, that the scheme is unsuccessful.
Something similar could be said with respect to permanent and temporary employees. I regret exceedingly to report what appears in the main estimates, namely the small proportion of permanent employees in my department. The deputy minister assures me there are some we have had before us that are going through now.
This department of course, in the long range of history, is considered a temporary department. If we have no more wars, then some day it will be merged with something else. Even so, however, the number of permanent employees is no reflection upon the permanency of the project. If the hon. member is interested, I could give him some figures. There are 23,025 policies in force under the plan, representing a capital of $65,851,985 insurance.


Percy Ellis Wright: There is a very restricted list of people who may be named as beneficiaries under soldiers' insurance. Would the minister give the committee that list?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The list of beneficiaries includes the wife, or mother, or father, or children, or blood relations. That seems to be fairly wide.


Percy Ellis Wright: A number of cases have been brought to my attention where soldiers have wished to leave the residue of their insurance to people other than those in the restricted list, and for very good reasons. In some cases the relatives were quite able to take care of themselves, and were not in this country. There might be some who are not direct blood relations to whom a person might wish to leave his estate or his insurance.
The information given me by the department is that under the law at the present
Supply-Veterans Affairs time a soldier cannot leave insurance to his estate; he must leave it to some direct relative, if such a relative is living. The only way that can be overcome is through an order in council passed by the cabinet. It seems to me there should be some easier way of doing it than by having to pass a special order in council concerning each individual case. Are those beneficiaries named in the act, or is it a regulation? If it is a regulation, it can be changed. If they are actually named under the act, then perhaps the act should be amended, because in some cases it is causing a lot of trouble.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The beneficiaries are named under the act. I think there is a certain amount of reason for the limitation, because the taxpayers pay the administration costs for this insurance. It was never intended that veterans insurance should compete with private insurance in any way. It was intended for men and women who might not, because of their service, be able to pass the medical examinations necessary to obtain ordinary insurance. It was in order to assist them to get insurance to take care of their dependents after they died. There was no intention whatever of having other Canadians pay the administration cost and provide the means whereby these veterans could build up an estate to be put to some impersonal use after their death.


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister says that this insurance is costing the taxpayers money. Can he give us figures to prove that veterans insurance is being paid for out of taxpayers' money? Have the premiums that have been paid up to date not been pretty well sufficient to meet the cost of the insurance plan? Has he any figures that will indicate to the committee what it is costing the taxpayers?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I cannot tell you what it has cost since the beginning, but it is costing this year a total of $98,329, and we estimate that it will be $80,000 next year. It has been much more than that in past years. It has been worked out actuarially so that, with the administration costs being taken care of by the taxpayers, the capital amount of the insurance will take care of payments to beneficiaries in cases of death; but it is completely non-profit as far as that is concerned.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister said there were 23,025 policies in effect at the present time. What was the number a year ago? What I am trying to get at is whether the number of policies has increased during the past year or whether quite a number of men took out these policies and then forfeited them.

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Milton Fowler Gregg: The figure I gave was for August this year. The number in force as of August last year was 20,522 policies, and the total value was $58,627,691.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The experience is that the number of policies and the amount are going up.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes, steadily going up.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is satisfactory.


Milton Fowler Gregg: While I am on my feet, perhaps I can answer a question that was asked about the assistance fund of the War Veterans Allowance Act. The total amount expended to date is $44,773.14, and the amount committed is $140,000.


Howard Charles Green: In addition?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, including.


Robert Fair: Have any of these veterans' policies lapsed up to the present time? If so, how many?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Up to August 31, 1949, 616 policies had lapsed, of a total value of $2,199,000.


Robert Fair: Is that because the veterans were not able to continue paying the premiums or did they lose interest in the insurance?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It is very difficult to say.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Payments to or for veterans and dependents-
535.	Pensions for disability and death, including pensions granted under the authority of the civilian government employees (war) compensation order P.C. 45/8848 of 22nd November, 1944, which shall be subject to the Pension Act, $100,664,000.
Mr. Thomas:: In respect to disability pensions I should like to ask the minister how many veterans have had their pensions reduced since January 1, 1949, and how many have been reduced by 25 per cent or more.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I have not those figures. I will ask the chairman of the pension commission to get them for me for next week. In the case of world war I, as the hon. member knows, those in force for three years or more are not reduced.


Howard Charles Green: When the special committee on veterans affairs sat in 1946 the chairman of the pension commission tabled a statement showing among other things the number of disability decisions which had been rendered by the Canadian pension commission in respect to the second world war. According to that statement, unfavourable decisions- in other words, entitlement was not granted -amounted to 7,810 in the case of men who had served overseas; entitlement was refused

on the ground that the condition was of preenlistment origin and not aggravated on service. The figure for those who served only in Canada was 54,207. In other words, at that time there was a total of over 61,000 applications that had been refused although the men were disabled. Those applications were refused on the ground that they were suffering from pre-enlistment conditions, not aggravated on service.
Subsequently I obtained the figures for the period up to the 30th of June, 1947. At that time the figure was 13,321 for men who had actually gone overseas and, mind you, they had been discharged as disabled but were ruled out on application for pension on the ground that they had pre-enlistment conditions. The figure for men who served in Canada only was 72,340 as of June 30, 1947. Can the minister give us the figures for the period from the 30th of June, 1947, to the 30th of June, 1949? If he has any difficulty in tracing this matter he will find the discussion in 1947 Hansard at page 5777.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The chairman of the pension commission tells me he will be glad to furnish that information for next week.


Ray Thomas: When a pensioner has been re-boarded is there any court of appeal or tribunal to which he can appeal if he feels he has been aggrieved by the finding of the board?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Briefly, the answer is yes; he can ask for an appeal.


Victor Quelch: That is subject to new evidence being produced.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Subject to any new evidence being brought in.


Victor Quelch: I am not sure whether the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra asked this question, because I could not quite hear him. Can the minister say how many cases were reviewed as a result of the amendment that was made striking out the words "wilfully concealed", and how many pensions were increased as a result of that review?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Every case has been reviewed or is under review; and we shall be glad to provide the figures requested.


Ray Thomas: With respect to the matter I mentioned in my last question, I should like to ask the minister whether that appeal is handled by the same board that considered the case in the first place.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Since this matter has been brought up in other cases, rather than just give a snap reply to that question I should like to give a more complete statement, after consultation with the chairman of the board,

on the procedure followed in reviewing cases. I shall do that before the estimates are finished.


Mr. Knight:: I have often wondered to what extent the report of the doctor who examines a young man at the time of enlistment is taken into account when it later becomes a question of determining whether or not that man is entitled to a pension. I am thinking of case after case which have come to my notice in which a man, upon applying for a pension due to disability, has been told that he is suffering from a pre-enlistment complaint. But this pre-enlistment complaint, if that is the correct term, is only discovered after the man has put in his service and applies for a pension. Apparently the report of the examining doctor which certified the man to be in A-l condition does not count for much. For instance, the doctor reports that the man is capable of taking his place in air crew, which I take it means that he is in A-l condition. After service of perhaps six months or a year, either in Canada or abroad, he is stricken with a heart condition, and it is suddenly discovered that he had a pre-enlistment condition, rheumatic fever or something of the kind, which produced that heart weakness.
It must be awkward for the department to discover that the army doctor passed as fit a man who, within a year or two, turned out to be not fit. The fact is, however, that he was certified as fit, was taken into the army or air force and put through those severe ^physical tests which young men have to undergo nowadays in their training. There are so many of these cases in which, after a year or two, men are found to be suffering from pre-enlistment ailments. That must be an awkward situation to handle. Apparently the report of the doctor who made the first examination is not given a great deal of weight, while on the other hand the report of the doctor who discovered the pre-enlistment disability seems to carry great weight with the department.
Perhaps the minister would comment on that situation. I hope I have not been bitter about it; I do not mean to be, but these boys can be pretty bitter. I have in mind the case of a young man who enlisted in the air force and was pronounced A-l. He joined the air crew, and a little later the very thing I have been mentioning happened to him; a year or so later he was found to have a heart condition. He was granted one-fifth total disability pension. If I were a lawyer I would argue that the mere fact that D.V.A. granted him anything at all was proof that the department thought he was entitled to something, and that his application was 45781-41
Supply-Veterans Affairs sound in that his ailment had been at least aggravated by his service. This boy is absolutely unable to do anything. When he shakes your hand his hand is soft and warm, and he has difficulty in walking for even a few steps. He appealed to the pension board and was granted another one-fifth, which again would indicate that the department recognized that he had some claim. He now receives a two-fifths disability pension, but the lad is absolutely unable to work. The doctors say they discovered that he had an attack of rheumatic fever early in life, and no doubt his heart condition resulted from that. I do not dispute that; I am not a doctor. However, this is one of those unfortunate cases where the department may be right, but what are you going to do with this boy? That is the point. You cannot blame these fellows for getting bitter. They joined up in all good faith. They were rated A-l, and went to work.
I should like the minister to comment on that situation, because there must be hundreds of similar cases. To repeat my main point, here is a doctor who certifies a man as A-l, or whatever the term may be, and he is sent to fight. Then some time later the department comes along and says the first doctor was wrong, that the man had a preenlistment ailment. They say doctors differ and patients die. In this case the boy is not dead yet, but I should like to know which doctor was right.


Milton Fowler Gregg: My hon. friend has opened up a topic which has run through the discussion of veterans affairs for many years. My first thought was that the best I could do would be to send him extracts from the proceedings of the last parliamentary committee, where the matter was discussed at great length, to show that one more attempt was made to do something about this matter. I know the pension board is attempting to interpret this legislation to the very best of its judgment. As my hon. friend said, the board has a tremendously difficult problem, but it is trying to administer the act fairly. When there is a pre-enlistment condition which in the opinion of the board has worsened owing to war service, pension is awarded to the extent of the service aggravation. I do not want to go into the question of what the doctors were doing when they examined the men on enlistment. As my hon. friend knows very well, many men went into the service who the doctors and everyone else knew were not one hundred per cent perfect specimens, whatever the documents may have shown.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was rather struck by this item because it shows an estimated reduction for this year of $8,810,000, and I did not

Supply-Veterans Affairs expect to see a reduction of that amount, particularly in this item. Turning to the details on page 308 we find a reduction of over 25 per cent in the pensions paid to veterans of the northwest rebellion of 1885. This is to be expected, because these are all old men and naturally they are dying off rapidly. Then there is a reduction of some $4 million in connection with world war I, which is also to be expected. But when we come to world war II we also find a reduction of over $4 million. When we were considering the matter of pensions in the veterans affairs committee many very interesting figures were given to us purporting to show that the cost of veterans services, particularly pensions, as far as world war II veterans were concerned, would increase for some years to come. As I remember it, a constant increase was expected in the number of pensioners for world war II. Apparently for this particular year a considerable reduction is estimated. Would the minister comment on that and explain why that reduction is taking place? Has the department now come to the conclusion that the other proposition was wrong and the cost of pensions for world war II will not be increasing, as I believe actually happened in so far as world war I was concerned?


Milton Fowler Gregg: 
Douglas Scott Harkness: If I understood the minister correctly, the increase in pension which was retroactive is responsible for more than $4 million of this $58 million shown in 1948-49.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Oh, yes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is the situation then.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes, one could work it out, although I have not the figure here. I believe between seven and eight million dollars would be chargeable to the year before; but since it was voted last year, it is shown in these estimates in that column.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then, I take it this information we received in the veterans affairs committee, that the cost of pensions for world war II would continue to increase for several

years, is correct. I should like to ask the minister what the general rate of that increase is expected to be percentagewise?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Perhaps if I gave the hon. member the number of pensions in force for the last five years, it would give a better indication than an estimate as to what might happen in the future. Going back to 1944-45, the number of pensions in force for world war II was 26,924; 1945-46, 53,293; 1946-47, 88,233; 1947-48, 103,963; 1948-49, 108,531.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would be inclined to think that only the last year or two would give any indication of the rate of increase, since the earlier years given were those immediately following the war when there would not be a large number of people making application for pensions. May I ask how long it is estimated the amounts required for pensions for world war I will continue to increase?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, the amount for world war I is decreasing slightly now and will continue to decrease at a slightly increasing rate from year to year, one would expect, owing to mortality.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What about world war II?


Milton Fowler Gregg: World war II pensions will continue to increase for the next few years at any rate.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is there any estimate as to how long that will continue?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Nothing but a guess.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, on the pension item I have a case which I think should be investigated by the department. It concerns the widow of an air force man who was sent by the air force to fly with one of those private companies-in this case Dominion Skyways. He was sent over to do a job with this company which was carrying on training. In the course of that work he was killed. Apparently the pilots who were doing this particular work were covered by an insurance policy which would return the same amount to the widow as she would have received if her husband had been killed in the air force.
When the husband lost his life, the widow was asked to make an application in accordance with the rules and regulations under which the ordinary veteran's widow would get a pension. This woman received the Cross of Sacrifice and her case was treated in exactly the same way as if the husband had been shot down overseas. Everything was all right until the pension increase was granted a year or two ago. This widow now finds that she does not get any increase whereas the widow of an airman who was killed overseas does receive that increase.

I do not suppose there would be more than a handful of these cases, but I do suggest some provision should be made to give those widows the increase. It might have to be done by order in council in each case. I do not know how that situation could be met, but certainly there is an unfairness which should be rectified.


Milton Fowler Gregg: In addition to the one case mentioned, Mr. Chairman, there are several others. Discussions are now under way between my department and the Department of National Defence with a view to seeing what can be done.


Howard Charles Green: One other question. In my remarks this afternoon I referred to the case of the merchant navy lad who is suffering from tuberculosis. The disease was incurred during his service and it might have been cured had the manning pool doctor not sent him back to work instead of following the recommendation of the doctor who took the X-ray to give him six months' rest. Is there not some way in which a case of that type could be covered by our legislation? If not, the legislation is certainly defective.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I cannot answer that offhand, but I shall look into it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Payments to or for veterans and dependents-
536.	War veterans allowances, $19,825,000.
Ray Thomas: On item 536, I should like to ask the minister whether or not a person without any additional income, and who falls within the requirements of the act, could make application for assistance from this special fund in a case of hardship arising from unusual circumstances? For example, if a man's home burned down, could he make application for assistance?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It was hoped the fund would be useful to cover situations such as that.


Victor Quelch: Was the minister going to give us the number of applications for assistance under this item and the number of applications granted?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, I gave the total amount a short time ago. I have not the figures here tonight for the number of applications, but I shall get them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Payments to or for veterans and dependents-
538. Unemployment assistance, $75,000.
Howard Charles Green: Is that the old provision under which relief was given to small pensioners?
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: In other words, this is really much the same thing as the previous item which is made up of $500,000 for war veterans allowance recipients.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Pensioners of world war I. This item has a much longer history than has the other item.


Howard Charles Green: Is the amount in item 538 not applicable to veterans of world war II?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Payments to or for veterans and dependents-
539. Hospital and other allowances, $4,310,000.
Mr. Shaw:: It is quite conceivable that the matter to which I should like to refer does not come under this item; but it is also quite conceivable that it might not come under any particular item. If I am out of order, possibly I could be told where I could more properly deal with the matter I have in mind. While on a western tour last spring the Prime Minister, according to press reports, visited the ex-servicemen who were in Colonel Belcher hospital. In the course of his visit among the men he met one from my constituency, a veteran of world war I who has been hospitalized now for a period of from two to three years. This veteran spends his spare time making articles such as purses out of leather. He asked the Prime Minister if he thought it fair that he should have to pay the sales tax on these commodities, most of which are given away. According to the press report, the Prime Minister said that certainly his request for relief from the payment of that tax seemed reasonable, and that he would make representations to the Minister of Finance. There must be a great many cases of that character in the various military hospitals across Canada. The fact that these men are able to do that type of work naturally assists them materially. I would say that it assisted them mentally in as great a way as any. It is quite possible that the minister cannot say whether or not the Prime Minister made the representations to the Minister of Finance; but may I ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs if he will make such representations, because then I shall be in a much better position to ask the Minister of Finance when we are dealing with matters relating to the Department of Finance.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Without having any knowledge of the incident referred to, I can say that the matter mentioned by the hon. member for Red Deer has come to our attention in other connections. I can assure him that, as in the past, every effort will be made to do this if

Supply-Veterans Affairs it is possible. It is not perhaps as great a hardship as appears on the surface, because a great deal of assistance is given to the patients in hospitals in this work which is done partly for the improvement of their disability and in some cases for their amusement and entertainment, in conjunction with the work of the Red Cross; and I think a patient is rarely charged an amount that he cannot easily bear. But I can assure my hon. friend that we will continue to look into the matter.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I would quite agree that probably there is not much money involved, but there is a principle involved. I think it would be a fine gesture on the part of the government if they could make this slight concession to these men. It is not so much a matter of the number of dollars involved as it is a matter of a vital principle.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before we left the first item, the minister said that he preferred to deal with a number of the points that had been raised in the discussion on the first item, in relation to the specific items. One set of matters that was raised by hon. members over here had to do with the firefighters, the Red Cross nursing sisters and the auxiliary services generally. I have been looking down the list in order to try to see on what item we might ask the minister to deal with these people. The trouble is that they are not in under any item. Is this item not as good a one as any for the minister to comment on the appeals that have been made on behalf of members of the auxiliary services?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The items referred to would of course require legislation. In conformity with other departments, my department is not initiating legislation this session, except for purely administrative amendments to the Veterans Land Act to enable the experience gained in administering that act to bring about improvements in its flexibility and value to the veteran. But I do not propose to bring in at this session legislation covering the points referred to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask whether that answer refers to one particular group, not excluding the importance of the others. Does that answer cover the case of the firefighters in all respects? One of the reasons I mention that group in particular is that, in the recommendations made by the veterans affairs committee at the end of their sittings in 1948, there were certain clear-cut recommendations with respect to the firefighters. I remember distinctly that one of the former members of the house, Mr. Eric McKay, the then member for Weyburn, gave notice of a motion to ask the house to approve that report. Word
IMr. Gregg.]
got around that such a motion might stand in the way of what its mover wanted, that there were some things in the report that the government could not accept, and that if that motion were pressed the government would be obliged to ask that it be voted down, and then we would lose everything in it. In the same way word got around to the effect that, if that motion were not pressed, maybe some things like the recommendation with respect to the firefighters would be implemented. I am not asking the minister to comment too much on what happened back in 1948, but I should like to know whether there is any further implementation of the committee's recommendation with respect to the firefighters and perchance other groups that could be carried out without this legislation that the minister says he is not going to introduce.


Milton Fowler Gregg: No. In my opinion, it could be carried out without legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous payments-
542.	Last Post fund, $125,000.
Mr. Hansell:: I should like to ask several questions on this item. I can ask them all at once or one at a time, whichever the minister prefers.


Milton Fowler Gregg: One at a time.


Ernest George Hansell: My first question is this. How much is allowed per funeral? Is there a set price allowed or does it fluctuate according to the circumstances of the individual?


Milton Fowler Gregg: For the funeral $75 is allowed, plus the actual cost of the grave and the marker.


Ernest George Hansell: That is irrespective of the distance that might have to be travelled?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes. That is the maximum allowed.


Ernest George Hansell: A smaller amount might be allowed, though; is that not so?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes, if the maximum were not needed.


Ernest George Hansell: In other words, there is a sort of means test. I do not like to use the term "means test" now, although I think we should use it until it becomes so nauseating that i1 will be taken out of that legislation. But for want of a better term, is there some sort ol examination made of the circumstances and the amount given accordingly?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am sorry; I did not get the Iasi question.


Ernest George Hansell: For instance, is it paid oui only to indigents or in cases of need?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes.


Ernest George Hansell: Is this a yearly appropriation which, if there is any balance left over, is carried over to another year? 1 notice the terminology used is, "Last Post fund". Is there a fund, and does it build up or fluctuate so that at the end of a year, if moneys are not spent, they revert to the treasury? If they do not revert to the treasury how much is in the fund now?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The unexpended portion reverts to the treasury each year so that the moneys for each year are revoted.
In a word, I should like to refer the committee to the excellent work done by private citizens across Canada who function without pay, without even their expenses being paid, as committees on behalf of the Last Post fund. I cannot speak too highly of them. There is a great deal more in looking after this matter in various sections of our country than appears on the surface. The committee which has functioned and is continuing to function under Mr. Norman Holland, which is national in scope with provincial and district subcommittees, is doing an excellent job. While this amount may appear small for each individual funeral, nevertheless there are activities and services given to the deceased veteran which do not appear in the dollar signs in these estimates.


Ernest George Hansell: I would join with the minister in these remarks and I would not criticize at all. In fact, I want to compliment the department on the work they are doing because occasionally, you know, I do have to bury people-and I should like to bury a lot more than I do, that is, politically.
I have found that there is a considerable appreciation among many people of the work done under this fund. I should like to ask one other question. It does not come under this item but I cannot help that, Mr. Chairman, because it does not come under any other item. In that I am like my friend the hon. member for Red Deer. There is a movement on foot, and I think all hon. members have received letters requesting that something should be done to assist the next of kin to visit the graves of their loved ones in war-stricken areas. I asked a question the other day in that respect, and I have forgotten who the appropriate minister was who answered it. The answer was that the government was not doing anything. I can quite understand that they cannot do anything at the moment. The answer also said that the Canadian Legion were thinking of some pilgrimage over to Europe for that purpose. Of course that does not fulfil the desires of many mothers, shall we say, who would like the
Supply-Veterans Affairs opportunity of visiting the graves of their sons, because mostly they just cannot afford to go there. I understand that this movement is gaining some momentum in the United States. I do not want any definite answer from the minister because I know that nothing is being done. We shall leave the question over. I suggest that the minister take that angle into consideration if it is at all possible. Perhaps there will be some development as time goes on.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Approximately twenty-five
years after the first great war there was a strong desire to revisit battlefields and the graves in Europe. Prior to 1936 the Canadian Legion, in co-operation with all the other veterans organizations, organized what became known as the Vimy pilgrimage. It was conducted entirely by the veterans organizations, and those who went on the pilgrimage themselves, by advanced planning, by working out the scheme with the so-called pilgrims, could pay their fees in advance into a central fund. Some six thousand went across the Atlantic in five ships and unveiled the Vimy memorial and visited the graves in France. That was a great undertaking. It was an undertaking that gave the greatest satisfaction to those who organized it and to those who took part in it. As I say, it was conducted entirely as an undertaking of the veterans organizations themselves and those who took part in it. Recently there have been indications of something of a similar interest. I have had a good many letters, as all hon. members have. The last world war was different. Instead of our casualties being concentrated in one general area they are all over the world. There are many of course without any known graves. I do not feel, at this particular time at any rate, that it is the role of my department to initiate any activities in that regard, particularly since the matter has again been discussed by the veterans organizations, and the president of one of them not so long ago made an announcement that they were attempting a study, as I answered the hon. member the other day, of piecemeal pilgrimages here and there, not on a wholesale scale as before, but in smaller bodies. I am quite sure that inquiries referred to the Legion would receive their attention, and in due course they might be able to do something about it.
As far as the United States is concerned, it has not yet passed any legislation on the matter. As a matter of fact the greater number of their dead have been or are to be moved, as I understand it, back for reburial in the United States.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
I should like to refer to a matter which the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra brought up this afternoon and which quite properly comes under this item. We shall make some arrangements so that in the event of the funeral of a veteran under the Last Post fund, if he dies in hospital, the information will be made available. If it can be done in other deaths we shall attempt to let his old associates or his friends know about it.


Howard Charles Green: Thank you very much.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
543.	Grant to Canadian legion, $9,000.
Mr. Beyerstein:: Can the minister tell me how this grant is given out? Is it a single grant to the federal command, or is it distributed to the smaller branches?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Back about 1930 the department of that day, working in close co-operation on matters of service with the Canadian Legion, recognized that the service bureaux of that organization-the bureau here at dominion headquarters, and other service bureaux with paid secretariat throughout the provinces- were in reality, in the opinion of the department, doing useful work in connection with assembling information and evidence on pensions, and accepting a number of difficult tasks. It was arranged therefore at that time that the department would pay for assistance in maintaining such bureaux an amount of $10,000 in the beginning-and during the depression it went down to $9,000, with the understanding that the Canadian Legion would spend an equal amount for the service bureaux' work. Following it through in recent years they have spent more than three times as much as this amount each year in that work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
544.	Special grant to the Canadian legion toward the cost of the annual convention of the British Empire Service League to be held in Canada in September, 1949, $10,000.
Milton Fowler Gregg: Even though this item may pass automatically, I should like to say a word about it. Last spring it was indicated to the Prime Minister and myself that this year there was to be held in Ottawa the biennial conference of the British Empire Service League. It had been held only once before in Canada, and in the intervening years, up to the last war, had been held in London, Australia, and so on. As it was held at other capitals within the British commonwealth it had become the custom of governments of those countries to act to some degree as host to the delegates coming from all parts of the empire and commonwealth.

This year, coming to Ottawa, most of them from soft-currency countries, it was considered that this amount should be placed in the estimates to assist in travelling expenses within Canada, and in entertainment here. I am sure those hon. members who saw them lined up in the balcony, representing some twenty-three different countries of the commonwealth, must have felt that it was a rather important occasion, and perhaps worthy of this expenditure.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
545.	Soldier Settlement and Veterans Land Act- to provide for the cost of administration of Veterans Land Act; soldier settlement and British family settlement, $4,447,443.
George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, I think we have done rather well today. There are many answers which I am sure the minister is anxious to give with respect to the Veterans Land Act. I wonder if we might call it eleven o'clock.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Howard Charles Green: What will be the business for Tuesday?


Milton Fowler Gregg: On Tuesday, which is a government day, we will consider the following bills: Bill No. 2, in committee of the whole, to amend the Supreme Court Act; Bill No. 8, in committee of the whole, to amend the Exchequer Court Act; second reading of Bill No. 9, to amend the Department of Justice Act. At some stage we will move to go into committee of supply, and call three new departments. If the three bills are disposed of we will take up the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


Howard Charles Green: Is this for all next week?


Milton Fowler Gregg: For Tuesday. It is understood that from eight to nine o'clock the house will consider public and private bills.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order, until Tuesday, October 11.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
526.	Departmental administration, $2,157,024.
527.	District administration, $2,945,528.
528.	Veterans' welfare services (formerly rehabilitation services), $3,686,711.
529.	Treatment services, $34,478,808.
530.	Prosthetic services, $932,850.

Canadian pension commission-
531.	Administration expenses. $2,162,225.
532.	Veterans bureau, $392,139.
533.	War veterans' allowance board-administration, $237,204.
534.	Veterans' insurance, $80,705.
Payments to or for veterans and dependents-
535.	Pensions for disability and death, including pensions granted under the authority of the civilian government employees (war) compensation order P.C. 45/8848 of 22nd November, 1944, which shall be subject to the Pension Act, $100,664,000.
536.	War veterans' allowances, $19,825,000.
537.	To authorize under regulations to be approved by the governor general in council the establishment of an assistance fund (war veterans allowance)
Supply-Veterans Affairs
from which shall be paid supplementary assistance in cases of acute financial distress as may be found to exist from time to time among recipients of benefits under the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946,
[Stage Direction]
538.	Unemployment assistance, $75,000.
539.	Hospital and other allowances, $4,310,000.
540.	Gallantry awards-world war II, $18,000.
Miscellaneous payments-
541.	Employers liability compensation, $125,000.
542.	Last Post fund, $125,000.
543.	Grant to Canadian Legion, $9,000.
544.	Special grant to the Canadian Legion towards the cost of the annual convention of the British Empire Service League to be held in Canada in September, 1949, $10,000.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, October 11, 1949